[Winder]

Afaik Canon and Nikon are making money. In the same time, MILCs are limited in what they can offer, and cannot replace a nice DSLR; so... who cares about MILCs?

If Pentax was in the same position as Canon and Nikon we would not be having the conversation. Comparing what Canon and Nikon can do to what Pentax can do is pretty pointless.

MILCs can't replace a DSLR for all types of photography, but form many segments of photography they can. You're not going to see MILCs covering professional sports in the near future, but you're not seeing Pentax DSLRs in that market either. MILC will obviously improve and evolve and the AF accuracy of CDAF bring a lot of advantages to the table. Eventually CDAF motion tracking will be improved to the point where it is better than PDAF. We are already seeing robotic cameras that are controlled from a booth covering some aspects of professional sports. We will see more and more of that as the technology evolves and 4K HD video cameras are able to produce high quality stills.

We are talking about where Pentax needs to be in the future. There will always be a market for DSLRs with OVF and if you are Canon and Nikon then you will be fine. I'm not going to trade in my DSLR for a MILC, but I will buy a MILC that is not a compromise.

[Laurentiu Cristofor]

Please be more specific. Exactly which feature is missing from the K-mount and can't be added to it?

You can always add features to anything. But there is a difference between adding features and building them in. The K mount was introduced both too late and too early. Too late, because Asahi should have introduced a bayonet mount much earlier but they couldn't decide to drop M42. Too early, because it was introduced before AF, so it was a purely mechanical mount to which they added electronic contacts all over the place over the next decades. Canon, Olympus, Minolta, all introduced new electronic mounts in the AF era.

You can just look at the mounts to see which were designed with electronics in mind and which were not. The K mount now has contacts both on the actual mount piece and inside. The electronic mounts don't have any contacts exposed like this - they're always inside the mount. How often do you hear about Canon users wiping their mount contacts off to get their lenses to work? At least Nikon was smart to add their contacts inside the mount and their aperture flange is shorter than the Pentax one too.

But the most important advantage of having a fully electronic mount is the ability to move from long registration distance to shorter one while having a compatibility story because it's easy to make an adapter that doesn't need to do any mechanical conversion. This was accomplished, in order, by Olympus (FT to MFT), Sony (alpha to E), and Canon (EF to EF-M) so far. Nikon and Pentax won't be able to pull it off as nicely.

By the way, Nikon are doing just fine

They are doing much better than Pentax, but they'll get in trouble because they don't have a good story for the MILC market - same as Ricoh/Pentax.

[Winder]

Depends on which market, maybe. In some, MILCs prevail, in others, DSLRs still take the cake. I've yet to see an updated 2012 survey to know if MILCs have eaten most of DSLR market share.

I don't think they have eaten "most" of the market share. I think Japan was showing MILCs now have 30% which is huge for such a new segment. Today MILC is still a very young market segment and the technology is still being refined. The question is where will it be the technology be 5+ years?

I can remember when professionals said "AF is a novelty for people who don't know how to focus a camera."
I can remember when every "serious" photographer used a hand held light meter because in camera meters where for amateurs.

You would think that photographers would be cutting edge people, but they tend to be behind the curve when it comes cameras. I wonder how many Pentax users still hold on to their 8-track players?

[Kunzite]

@Winder, I only wanted to show you that one can make money on DSLRs. By the way, how's Olympus doing?
I strongly believe there is a place also for Pentax, on the DSLR market; of course, I'm not saying they should ignore MILCs completely but their highest priority right now MUST be the K-mount.
It's quite obvious, really: the K-mount means a nice revenue stream and a loyal (?) user base; they should develop on this, increasing both (which is very much possible). However, a new mount means high risk, high expenses, starting with zero market share. If not executed properly, it could not only generate huge loses (even after years), but it could also hurt the K-mount.
And by the way, snide remarks which regards us as some sort of Luddites won't help your cause. People should adapt something because it works, not because it's called "cutting edge" by some marketing experts.

@Laurentiu Cristofor: so you can't tell us a single reason why they should do it. As I thought.
No, just for the sake of having a full electric mount is not a reason. The K-mount works, that's a fact; why "fix" it?
About adapters, you're forgetting one thing: there wouldn't be any "electric-K" user base to use those adapters; Pentax users would rightfully feel betrayed, jumping ship.
I'm often hearing Canikon users about cleaning contacts and so on, and much less so Pentax users. In fact it seems to be quite a problem with Nikon.

[Laurentiu Cristofor]

@Laurentiu Cristofor: so you can't tell us a single reason why they should do it.

I gave you the reason: an electronic mount offers more flexibility around providing compatibility across different classes of products (MILC/SLT/SLR). If Pentax wants to continue producing SLRs, they should at least build them around a modern mount (perhaps a larger version of the Q mount). That way they could provide down compatibility across all their lines of products. You could autofocus SLR lenses on the Q and any camera between the Q and SLRs. Ideally, you would want to have the same type of electronic mount specification from the Q to the 645D with just the size of the mount being different.

They can slug it on with the K mount, but it will be painful to watch.

You would think that photographers would be cutting edge people, but they tend to be behind the curve when it comes cameras.

Perhaps because they have dreams of art and little understanding of technology.

[junyo]

@Winder, I only wanted to show you that one can make money on DSLRs. By the way, how's Olympus doing?
I strongly believe there is a place also for Pentax, on the DSLR market; of course, I'm not saying they should ignore MILCs completely but their highest priority right now MUST be the K-mount.
It's quite obvious, really: the K-mount means a nice revenue stream and a loyal (?) user base; they should develop on this, increasing both (which is very much possible). However, a new mount means high risk, high expenses, starting with zero market share. If not executed properly, it could not only generate huge loses (even after years), but it could also hurt the K-mount.
And by the way, snide remarks which regards us as some sort of Luddites won't help your cause. People should adapt something because it works, not because it's called "cutting edge" by some marketing experts.

@Laurentiu Cristofor: so you can't tell us a single reason why they should do it. As I thought.
No, just for the sake of having a full electric mount is not a reason. The K-mount works, that's a fact; why "fix" it?
About adapters, you're forgetting one thing: there wouldn't be any "electric-K" user base to use those adapters; Pentax users would rightfully feel betrayed, jumping ship.
I'm often hearing Canikon users about cleaning contacts and so on, and much less so Pentax users. In fact it seems to be quite a problem with Nikon.

Funny, all I hear about those "loyal" K mount users is how readily they'd jump ship if anybody told them that they'd have to buy an adapter to use their old glass. To me, this represents the weakness of K mount. The market is saturated with tons of perfectly lovely used glass; so much so that you could buy a body and never have to buy a lens from Pentax to make it work. Even Pentax cites the X million lenses in circulation, which essentially makes them a bargain brand. Say what you would about younger and more popular mounts, but I guarantee they sell more glass direct than Pentax does - heck the pre=orders of the OM-D put the Oly kit lens in the top 10 best selling lenses on Amazon for a couple of weeks.

Lots of things are possible, but I've yet to see a plan, image, or realistic hope that Pentax on it's current trajectory suddenly starts moving lots more bodies or lenses, or anything that will make that happen outside of a volcano opening under the headquarters of all of their competitors.

[Adam]

One last question which wasn't taped:

Q: "Will you continue releasing firmware updates for the K-5 now that the K-5 II has been announced?"

A: [To fix bugs and improve stability], yes, we would continue releasing K-5 firmware updates if needed.

Adam
PentaxForums.com Webmaster (Site Usage Guide | Site Help | My Photography)



PentaxForums.com server and development costs are user-supported. You can help cover these costs by donating or purchasing one of our Pentax eBooks. Or, buy your photo gear from our affiliates, Adorama, B&H Photo, KEH, or Topaz Labs, and get FREE Marketplace access - click here to see how! Trusted Pentax retailers:

[timcatn]

My impression is that the K30 is selling like hotcakes. Especially in Asia. I might buy one myself, but I'm waiting for test on the K5-II/IIs. If they are significantly better i will go for one of them. I'm actually glad to know that i don't pay a lot extra for video features on the K5, since I won't use it.

I think Pentax, with Ricoh behind it, will do well. Ricoh is a giant company, that can "easily" get Pentax back in contention, IF they have decided to throw the needed resources at it. It is my belief that they will do so.

-Tim

[froeschle]

Q: When is the Pentax full-frame finally going to be announced?

A: Not specific plans of development ... analyzing possibilities ... cannot give you a complete plan ... it's in the air ... for the moment

I will post this here and nowhere else, so I hope you guys don't miss it. The Pentax reps and I did talk a little after the interview, and I did get the impression that they were working on an FF system. It really does seem inevitable at this point. [...] and when I jokingly asked the reps if I should already book my airplane ticket to CP+, I was told fairly clearly that no, the FF won't be shown at CP+. Then a comment followed saying that 18-24-36 months is the typical camera system development time.

vs.

They also said that the FF will NOT be at CP+, but chances were high that we'll see one in 2013.

So, maybe you were a bit too enthusiastic earlier ?!

[Kunzite]

I gave you the reason: an electronic mount offers more flexibility around providing compatibility across different classes of products (MILC/SLT/SLR). If Pentax wants to continue producing SLRs, they should at least build them around a modern mount (perhaps a larger version of the Q mount). That way they could provide down compatibility across all their lines of products. You could autofocus SLR lenses on the Q and any camera between the Q and SLRs. Ideally, you would want to have the same type of electronic mount specification from the Q to the 645D with just the size of the mount being different.

They can slug it on with the K mount, but it will be painful to watch.

No, that's not a reason; that's a death wish.
It's not like I don't understand your argument, yes, an electronic mount is neat (the K-mount is almost there, only the electronic aperture control is missing); but I'm afraid you don't understand mine: Pentax must keep their user base. Having autofocus on Q, with K-mount lenses can't offset losing many customers.

Junyo, in my case "old glass" means, among others, a DA* 60-250 and 3 DA Limiteds; and guess what, I'm not the only one who bought new K-mount lenses. Should Pentax rather keep me (as I'd still spend some money on their good stuff), or make me jump to Nikon; because I don't want any stinking adapter?

Anyway, this discussion is pointless since Pentax will not change their DSLR mount. Every time it's proven pointless, but after a while someone has to start all over again

[Winder]

@Winder, I only wanted to show you that one can make money on DSLRs. By the way, how's Olympus doing?
I strongly believe there is a place also for Pentax, on the DSLR market; of course, I'm not saying they should ignore MILCs completely but their highest priority right now MUST be the K-mount.
It's quite obvious, really: the K-mount means a nice revenue stream and a loyal (?) user base; they should develop on this, increasing both (which is very much possible). However, a new mount means high risk, high expenses, starting with zero market share. If not executed properly, it could not only generate huge loses (even after years), but it could also hurt the K-mount.
And by the way, snide remarks which regards us as some sort of Luddites won't help your cause. People should adapt something because it works, not because it's called "cutting edge" by some marketing experts.

Olympus would probably be doing a lot better if the previous management was not cooking the books and stealing $1.6 billion over the last 6 years.
The Story Behind the Olympus Scandal - Businessweek

Pentax's highest priority is making a profit. Something they are a not very good at. If they were good at it they would still be an independent brand and would still have a relevant market share. If K-mount had 1/4 of the value people keep saying it has Pentax would be a financial success. Funny how all that value fails to show up in the bottom line. A percentage of the user base are Luddites. Some of them are more lens collectors than they are photographers. They are more concerned with hanging on to the legacy than they are moving forward. Pentax is still a couple of generations behind other manufactures is key technologies and the lens line-up is a collection of legacy glass and low cost plastic crap. A couple of the "high-end" Pentax zooms are basically re-badged low-cost Tokina lenses for Canon or Nikon users.

I think that because Pentax is so tied to a legacy mount we will have a much better chance of seeing a Ricoh FF EVIL with a new mount using a lot of Pentax image processing technology and ergonomics. Pentax will probably even design then lenses. Ricoh is an innovative company with a strong R&D. They can think outside the box as shown with the GXR. After reading the DPR interview I think the K-01 was a one shot deal. Probably a Hoya project that Ricoh has put out of its misery. I would not surprise me if Ricoh was the future brand name for APS-C mirrorless and Pentax is the legacy DSLR brand. However it happens, I don't think Ricoh is going to ignore the market growth of EVIL.

[Zygonyx]

Yes, but if they want to be "marketingly relevant", and "cost-efficient", they have to drop one of their brand's label too.
In this respect, together with streamlining sensed merger, the sole "B to C" and historically well known Pentax brand should stay within their photography business, taking over Ricoh's publicly largely unknown label.

[vonBaloney]

If they planned on dumping the K-mount and just coming up with a new line of cameras with a new mount, why in the world would they have bought Pentax at all? After all, Ricoh makes cameras already. As soon as you dump the mount, the brand is effectively dead. It may be reborn on the next day with the same name, but all ties with the past are broken and you essentially have a zero user base to start again. A Canon can get away with that because they are already in a dominant position and can push whatever they want into a vacuum of their own creation. If Pentax does it, there is just a vacuum -- one that Canon will probably also fill.

Now, I'm not opposed to a new mount in theory -- technology marches on and all that. But they'd have to go through a transitional period of still releasing native K-mount bodies for a while, and making sure that the new mount could be fitted with a K-mount adapter that allowed full operation of K-mount lenses, and that such an adapter would come standard in the kit with the first bodies of such a mount. What I'd really like to see is the ability to use any lens on a body -- Nikon, Canon, Pentax, etc all on the same body, and all electronic mounts would allow that with an adapter (at least a short registration distance mirrorless probably would). Or the GXR idea taken to the next level with upgradable and swappable parts -- think of being able to assemble your own camera like you can a home computer. Didn't Fuji make SLRs with a Nikon mount? Maybe Pentax should make bodies that take Canon glass...

[Winder]

Yes, but if they want to be "marketingly relevant", and "cost-efficient", they have to drop one of their brand's label too.
In this respect, together with streamlining sensed merger, the sole "B to C" and historically well known Pentax brand should stay within their photography business, taking over Ricoh's publicly largely unknown label.

I don't see the GXR being abandoned by Ricoh and I don't see it being moved over to the Pentax brand. I agree that it would be better to have all high-end camera products under Pentax, but that would mean bringing the GXR over to Pentax. It is obvious that if Pentax were to start supporting a new system/mount some Pentax users would need therapy and probably sue for mental duress.

[Kunzite]

The Olympus story seems more complicated than that - apparently they were trying to cover heavy losses from the past. But is that their only problem, without it they would have a glorious MILC time?

When the hostile takeover took place, Pentax was making a profit - so they know how to do it They weren't in danger of going bankrupt; but had to accept Hoya's terms because of shareholder (some investment funds wanting a quick $$$) pressure.

Does it matters who is spending money? Is a collector who wants every Pentax lens and camera so much worse than a photographer who's clinging to his trusty K10D and a FA 50mm f/1.4 bought a decade ago?

Afaik only one lens is a Tokina design, the 12-24; the other Pentax-Tokina lenses are Pentax designs. It seems you don't know much about their lens line, maybe you should get up to date. By the way, I have few lenses which aren't legacy nor plastic.

Ricoh doesn't account for much in the photographic market.