[StepOne]

Very good interview, that's what i got out of it:
Yeah Ricoh got deep pockets, probably they will put some money into Pentax.
Q will continue.
He gets phone calls from Pentax owners (does not say though if they curse or congratulate him).
We have to take his word for K-r being profitable and selling well.
They will have a mirrorless out this year.
You must have 4 cameras to be competitive, like Nikon: D3100, D5100, D90, D7000, D300s, D700, D3s, D3x, D4.
Or like Canon, 1100D, 550D, 600D, 60D, 7D, 5d mark II, 1D x.
All the details about future Pentax DSLR's is that Canikon has 4, and they can't compete without 4.

[gazonk]

I know people on this forum are set on the K-mount because of their existing collection of legacy glass, but a new EVIL will be a new lens mount. Look at what Fuji is doing. They will attract a lot of new users with the new X-mount. I don't know if Fuji is capable of manufacturing enough XP1's to move the needle on market share, but they will sell every one they make for a nice margin which is all you can ask for. Growth is going to come from a new mount. There are a lot of advantages that come with a new mount and new designs.

But there are also disadvantages - wide angles may be tiny pancakes, but suffer from vignetting and soft corners...

[Brangdon]

But i obviously doubt the K-r replacement will be mirrorless, because K-mount based mirror-less would lose a lot of it's compactness.

However, it would presumably be a bit lighter for not having the mirror and the penta-mirror (or penta-prism). Arguably weight matters more than size, since its not going to be pocketable. Indeed, many users like a physically large body with large buttons (and plenty of them); we don't all have girlish tiny nimble fingers. Note they already have small, in the Q, so they have that covered and they need to differentiate their product lines.

In addition, mirrorless would eliminate mirror slap. It would give all the benefits of an EVF, such as being able to zoom in for manual focussing, preview exposure, depth of field, show histograms, blink over- and under-exposed pixels, and show other information, all without taking your eye from the viewfinder. Presumably, with fewer moving parts, it would be more reliable and cheaper to make. (It'd also have disadvantages, such as consuming battery power constantly, and there are some unknowns, such as whether it would be fast or laggy, and whether the resolution would be high enough. Hints from the Kitazawa interview make me wonder if they would aim for very high resolution.)

It seems to me that one of the few things Pentax have been clear about is their commitment to the K-mount. It's my belief that means more than an optional adaptor, at least in the short term. Recall also that one of the few things John Carlson said is that he didn't think Pentax had the resources to do a new range of lenses; I would agree. Jonathan Martin reaffirmed Pentax commitment to the Q-mount, which currently has very few serious lenses, so they will surely be quite busy working on more of those. To do two new mounts would be over-stretching it. John Carlson also made it clear Pentax see the second-hand lens market as an asset that helps them sell more bodies, rather than a liability that prevents them selling new lenses. (He was talking about the 645, but the same logic applies to the K-mount.) He also acknowledged there was demand for longer Pentax lenses - "We have a hole I hope we explore". One of two new K-mount lenses would help fill out the range. There would by synergy in that; and it would reassure old and new customers alike.

So I believe that if Pentax do a APS-C mirrorless this year, it will be K-mount. And I think it could be jolly nice.

(I've argued elsewhere that the time to do a new mount is in few more years time, when it can exploit solid-state shutters and apertures. Now would be premature. The K-mount has lasted for over 30 years and any new mount ought to aim to last as long, so it is not something to rush into.)

[philbaum]

I'll repeat a hunch. My hunch is based on Ricoh's release of an M mountor, with register of 27.8mm. My hunch is that the mirrorless Pentax will likewise have that mount, maybe with an AF drive screw. This hunch is completely unsupported by inside information. It just seems logical. The APS-C PenMILC (maybe called the MA1) body and native lenses would be around m4/3 size. An existing corps of MF lenses could be used WITHOUT ADAPTERS whilst PenCoh / RiTax populate the AF lens lineup... with shorter lenses. Longer AF glass can go on adapters. Start buying-up those M lenses now, kids!

That seems very logical - probably a lot of saved time because of the effort Ricoh has already spent in developing their M mountor. What's different here is that for the AF effort, Pentax needs to either put a focus motor in the camera body or put the focus motor in the lens. I think Pentax will go with the focus motor in the lens so that they have a quiet compact camera like everyone else.

Shake Reduction - In the gxr its in the mountor by moving the sensor. Have no idea what the best decision might be for the mirrorless camera.

This idea just sounds right.

[Winder]

But there are also disadvantages - wide angles may be tiny pancakes, but suffer from vignetting and soft corners...

Not everything has to be a tiny pancake. Vignetting and soft corners are a function of lens design, so new designs can address this. The new Fuji X-mount has the wide angle lenses recessed into the body with larger rear elements. The lens looks like a pancake, but it sits down in the body so it is longer than it looks went mounted. Only 11mm from the rear element to the sensor.

FUJIFILM X-Pro1 | features - FUJINON Interchangeable “XF LENS” and Original “X Mount” | Fujifilm Global

[Zygonyx]

That seems very logical - probably a lot of saved time because of the effort Ricoh has already spent in developing their M mountor. What's different here is that for the AF effort, Pentax needs to either put a focus motor in the camera body or put the focus motor in the lens. I think Pentax will go with the focus motor in the lens so that they have a quiet compact camera like everyone else.

Shake Reduction - In the gxr its in the mountor by moving the sensor. Have no idea what the best decision might be for the mirrorless camera.

This idea just sounds right.

Hello guys, bearing in mind that the flange distance of the K-mount is no less than 43mm, i get difficulty following you up
But i agree K-mount MILC still is feasible, nevertheless there would not be that of a size reduction with K-x for example, and that was my point.
imho this would make better sense and look "LX like" sized with an FF sensor... though getting close from Leica M9's overall volume, for a much more attractive price.

[AGWoodard]

To be competitive in the Digital SLR market you need a full range of cameras, for example Canon and Nikon have a range of 4 cameras from entry level to professional.

You also need a complete system, which is something Pentax does not have right now. Spin it anyway you want. Hope, dream, or try to conjure up a FF camera from Pentax with all your power, but it just isn't in the future, near or far.

There are just too many holes to be plugged, and because of that, way too small of a market for it to be profitable.

[Coldamus]

Quote: To be competitive in the Digital SLR market you need a full range of cameras, for example Canon and Nikon have a range of 4 cameras from entry level to professional.

That statement alone is a clear indication that Pentax/Ricoh are not considering FF for the immediate future. The count of 4 models obviously does not include the Canikon FF models.

Canon: 1100D, 600D, 60D, 7D

Nikon: D3100, D5100, D7000, D300s (ignoring the D90)

[Fontan]

I am not sure what they mean by "to be competitive in dslr market." It is so stupidly vague. Sure, Canon and Nikon are two competitive brands to each other due to somewhat similar market shares that are large, but to the rest of the market they are dominant forces, not exactly "competitive forces.." Does Pentax think that as long as they are not forced out of the market they are being competitive? I am not sure. What market share is considered competitive? Who knows.

The fact that Canon and Nikon both have four models to me is no accident. They watch each other, and they are going head to head. For each of these brands, to be dominant, they need to beat each other, not the rest of the market, because the rest of the market is already more or less beaten. It is as if the rest of the market does not exist. It is very clear to me that the rest of the market clearly understands this(as they are not stupid). Other brands including Pentax directed their attention, correctly, by creating other formats in the way of different sized sensors or going mirrorless and so on.

This strategy worked. Pentax did well with 645D. Oly and Pan did great with m4/3. Sony did great with mirrorless with larger than m4/3 sensors. Mirrorless in particular has been so wildly successful to the point that it forced Nikon to jump into it half-ass. I bet Canon is probably about to do the same this year.

Now, typically, the purpose of doing business in any segment of the market is to be as profitable as one can be. At this point in the game, with where the technology seems to be heading, for Pentax to want to be "competitive" in DSLR market makes zero sense. Depending on their definition of being competitive, this can well be flat out suicidal. To attempt to have as extensive a line up as Canon and Nikon just sounds idiotic.

I know that Pentax is not that stupid. We know this because of what they did with 645d and Q. I am almost thinking that the smartest and boldest move for Pentax is to get out of DSLR altogether, perhaps excluding DSLR MF.

[stormcloud]

if ricoh wants to go toe to toe with canikon then by all means they should go for it - they have deeper pockets than probably both canon and nikon combined (might be aslight exageration but they certainly are bigger than canon)

as for mirrorless k-mount well - more of a lense issue than the registration distance - the sensor itself isn't that thick and if they used OLED screen (very thin) - then the issue is shake reduction, move it to the lens and you coul have a digital slr not much if any bigger than film era slrs, personally though i think the drive to make dslr's small is flawed, with large sensors your never gonna have smalll lenes so why worry abou shavig off a couple of mm here and there

the q serves those that a want small camera, a mirrorless k mount would be more about entry level camera being able to remove the cost of the mirror/mechanism and prism/mirror

[mecrox]

I've no idea what Ricoh's plans are and I don't suppose anyone on here knows, but I've often thought that if an entrepreneur with some vision (like Steve Jobs) arrived in the camera biz he'd probably soon have it for breakfast. It's 2012 and still we have poor or no wifi and uploading to the cloud built in, ditto interfacing with social networking, umming and ahhing about video, not much and usually no tethering, often really abysmal bundled software, little effort by the major brands (except for Sony) to establish themselves as the camera/optics or software you'll want built into every mobile phone, the sector which is now the first rung of the photography ladder, replacing cheap compacts. And etc, etc. I'm not singling out Pentax or any one company: there's generally an air of "not invented here" syndrome about the camera biz (which unfortunately did come through in one of the recent interviews with a Pentax staffer).

If Ricoh want to become just like Canon or Nikon then there's a fair chance they'll be joining the dinosaurs. My hope is that Ricoh find someone with real drive and enthusiasm to head up their camera division, because the risk is that very small parts of enormous corporations can easily be overlooked, underfunded and generally left to fester.

[Nass]

^^ I couldn't agree more. From marketing to sales to innovation, support and software, the photographic industry is a dinosaur.

[thibs]

I see what you both mean, but, seriously... A direct send in the cloud built into a EOS 1DX or Nikon D4 ?
I can see the use as for journos but that'd gonna cost a bone and eat your battery in no time.
Separate devices seem more adequate to me.

In EOS550D-like cams, well if that sells... (but it won't sell to me, you already got that).

[AGWoodard]

if ricoh wants to go toe to toe with canikon then by all means they should go for it - they have deeper pockets than probably both canon and nikon combined

To go toe to toe with either of them they would need to come out with big glass, a macro in the 150 to 180 range, extension tubes, TC's, Pro Service, and a host of other things.

As was said in another post, They aren't that stupid.

[thibs]

To go toe to toe with either of them they would need to come out with big glass, a macro in the 150 to 180 range, extension tubes, TC's, Pro Service, and a host of other things.

As was said in another post, They aren't that stupid.

And they can't do it right away. This need to grow in consumers mind. Otherwise, nobody will notice and nobody will buy.