[zmohie]

full size APS/C or full frame!!

[Raffwal]

To play devil's advocate with myself, if I were starting from scratch today, I might be very tempted at the Olympus OMD EM-5 four-thirds system. The smaller sensor allows for a more compact system, including lens size.

You know, I own three Pentax DSLRs and constantly lust for a FF camera of some brand. Yet, if I was starting from scratch today, I too would probably get an OM-D. I feel that µ4/3 tech is the optimal compromise between gear size/portability and IQ for me.

[Fontan]

You know, I own three Pentax DSLRs and constantly lust for a FF camera of some brand. Yet, if I was starting from scratch today, I too would probably get an OM-D. I feel that µ4/3 tech is the optimal compromise between gear size/portability and IQ for me.

I ask myself this all the time, but if I am starting over, I am not sure what I would do. There are just too many choices . . . . But, having said that, I am currently in the simplification mode, and I am really wanting to get Sony RX-1 and see if I can feel content with a single focal length.

[Uluru]

Pentax knows. And they keep telling us they would rather not make another mount.
Your plan, summarized:
- screw the current customers, who for a long time are waiting for advancements in the K-mount arena.

I did not say that. I'm not sure why you think that I think K-mount should be abandoned?
I think the opposite: K-mount should continue and be healthy. DSLR products are important. In many areas DSLR mirror camera with a bright optical viewfinder is absolutely indispensable.

But for a mirror-less large sensor mount, I see no point for Pentax-Ricoh in making a new APS-C mount like Sony, Fuji, Canon and Samsung did. Pentax came in late to this game, and perhaps that's not a bad thing after all. They have also gathered a lot of experience in making a mirror-less system with Q mount.

What encourages me to think positively about their new mirror-less FF is that if they have succeeded to make such a fabulous photographer's tool with a Q camera — which is has superb handling — I can only imagine how exquisite an FF can be. Therefore I don't even consider touching offers like Canon's M or Fuji's X, because in comparison, they are less than pale. They are immature, half-baked products in fact.

- somehow you're expecting the FF sensors to be much cheaper than now (care to explain why?)

It's the economy of scale. FF sensor technology and yield has become almost affordable to many, and will deliver excellent cost vs performance ratio very soon. Falconeye has already analysed this in great detail. Thus in conclusion, not to invest in design of a FF mirror-less camera system would be a foolish delay for Pentax-Ricoh.

- somehow you're expecting the FF cameras to be much cheaper, even including full R&D costs (unless you'd like them to sell it at a loss). Under $1500, which is what people talking about the then-rumor D600 hoped for (and guess what...) Do you honestly believe it's a good, realistic plan?

I think that a mirror-less body can be produced for around $1500 with no problems, especially if more than one camera model shares the same variant of the sensor. Say, if an FF sensor Sony makes costs $700 a piece, producing just one camera model with it would make it very expensive even for scale ordering. That is the problem Leica faces, therefore they need a different (indie) sensor supplier. But if the sensor is to be used in 7 different cameras all available at the same time and coming from the same team, then production becomes something quite different. Even if the cost for a sensor is same, the overall economy changes. For example, lets say the new Sony's 24MP sensor is in

- two cameras of the new Pentax FF mirror-less system,
- one or two models of the FF-DSLRs for current K-mount,
- a camera or two in Ricoh's own range (FF versions of the film GR cameras).
- Ricoh's camera for M-mount digital solution (currently supporting APS-C sensors only)
- etc.

that share same R&D money and time, same people, same production plants, same components, processors, etc. That's how real savings are made. As you can see, Pentax-Ricoh together can make quite a lot of interesting products using same resources and lower the overall production cost.

JPT, there was no such hint, of Pentax working on a MILC mount; on the contrary. Kitazawa-san talked about what it would mean to launch a MILC mount, he didn't rejected the idea (of course, Pentax will adapt if the market conditions changed) but: it wouldn't be easy, it would hurt the K-mount, they would rather keep going with the K-mount.

I agree that official talk was nothing more than occasional chat about "what's all possible". So it holds no real-world value but to confirm they are "busy thinking and working on stuff". And I suspect nothing else from them until products are actually introduced.

---

Last edited by Uluru; 12-22-2012 at 06:36 PM.

[[| o ]]

Hi all,

I just came here from the "other" Pentax forum, and joined.

I had to find out what the missing page of the article said, so I purchased the magazine and translated the Pentax interview page for the other forum. Figured I'd share it with as many people since I spent the time to translate.

No nit picking on translation please - I don't do this for a living I'll be more than happy to clarify if something doesn't make sense though - I admit I didn't proof read.

I'll keep my comments to myself for now so I don't spoil anything

Happy holidays!

---

Has the development of a full-frame camera started?

The development of a full-frame camera has been going on, however whether it becomes a product is up to marketing. The important thing is what Pentax can do in the full-frame market. Pentax has to clearly be able to differentiate from what Nikon, Canon and Sony are doing. We also have to take into consideration what the consumers are expecting, and see how that manifests itself into a product. Development takes time. Development is moving including interchangeable lenses.



In our previous interview, you implied perhaps that for a full-frame camera, mirror-less is better to avoid mirror-shock. What are you thinking about this topic now?

Currently Pentax has both SLR and mirror-less type APS-C cameras. Comparing those two and the opinions of our customers, mirror-less cameras are used more as "light-weight" cameras. SLRs on the other hand, are more often used by hobby photographers - the people who want to create imagery. I think perhaps our current customers fall into these two categories. We can create cameras with cutting-edge design with mirror-less cameras, and of course smaller with the omission of a mirror. We can also produce them cheaper. Up until last year, there was a possibility to create a mirror-less full-frame camera. Looking at all the tradeoffs now, I personally think "with mirror" is the priority we are thinking of for full-frame cameras. It is important to create products with new value propositions, however it perhaps won't be accepted in the market if that doesn't meet usability and needs of the customer. I think mirror-less is more appropriate for medium format cameras than full-frame from a mirror-shock reduction standpoint.



Both SLR and mirror-less have pros and cons. One of those things is the variety and usability of the lenses. SLRs have the benefit of using existing lenses and is easier to use with long-range lenses.

That is true. If we do a mirror-less, we have to debate whether to go with a new mount or use the current K-mount. If we go mirror-less, we mind as well use a new mount and make the flange back shorter as well as make the mount a little larger for brighter lenses. Otherwise there is no reason to go mirror-less.



Aside from the debate between SLR or mirror-less, even for example for an SLR, it is still a difficult decision whether to go with a new mount or continue with the K-mount.

That is the big debate. Pentax is known for its "mad" legacy compatibility since we haven't changed mounts in a long time. This has been one of the reasons Pentax customers trust and choose us. It would require quite the determination to cut the tie and go with a new mount.



But to go with a new mount will also allow new possibilities - things that weren't possible before.

If we were to go with a new mount, we have to think not only few years ahead, but 10, 15 years ahead and decide what we want to do with a new mount. It will be difficult to drop the K-mount but we will have that discussion and make the decision carefully.



There are very strong competitors already in the full-frame market. You would have to do something significant to jump into the competition. As for built in sensor-shift stabilization, is it achievable with full-frame sensors?

There is very good potential.



You removed the low-pass filter from the K-5lls. Do you think future cameras will have no low-pass filters?

That maybe difficult. Even with the K-5lls, it is a specific model without the low-pass filter. We have to be able to explain to the consumers to use it with the understanding the filter is not there.



Removing the low-pass filter creates potential issue with moiré. It should be possible to resolve this in the future with in-camera post processing filtering.

That is true. Resolution is definitely higher without the low-pass filter. We currently have no way to solve the moiré issue, but we are researching in-camera post processing.



In general, what do you think is attractive about mirror-less cameras?

We have 2 mirror-less cameras in the market - K-01 and Q10. I think the obvious benefits are the flexibility in design and lower cost. I think the best part of it is the ability to casually photograph compared to a SLR. I think it's great for lightweight everyday snapshots.



But if that's the case, do you need the ability to change lenses? Can't you just use a compact camera?

Both mirror-less and compacts are great for an everyday snippet, but the ability to change lenses allows for a wider range of shots and as a better tool to create everyday snippets.



So you are saying one of the things that is attractive about mirror-less cameras is the ability to change lenses?

By changing lenses, you can use a prime lens to get exceptional image quality or you can use a zoom lens for all around flexibility. It allows for a wider range use.



Then what do you think is attractive about SLRs?

I'm one of the people who personally don't like EVFs. I think the biggest benefit of an SLR is the fact that you can see exactly what is in front of you in a 100% viewfinder and focus on how you want to capture the scene. The user can focus on the excitement of deciding the best lens to use, shutter speed, f-stop, and exposure compensation to get the exact image the user has in mind to capture.



So you prefer a more orthodox SLR with an optical viewfinder over a new kind of SLR with a translucent mirror or EVF?

Yes. There is merit to translucent mirrors, for example continuous shooting speed. However, there is a thin film in front of the light that goes to the sensor, and of course it's going to bounce some of the light. There is no way it doesn't affect image quality. So, if I had to choose between continuous shooting speed and image quality, I personally want to choose the image quality.



Before when we were talking about full-frame SLRs, I thought maybe a translucent mirror plus EVF. That won't happen from your perspective?

For an SLR, while I'm around that probably won't happen. We do have that technology from the 6x7 days and even have mock-ups. As I just mentioned translucent mirrors will affect image quality. We can correct the light-loss from the translucent mirror post-process within the camera, but we prefer not to alter the image.



So you are saying, as long as you are at Pentax, that won't happen? (laughter)

No, I'm not making that big of a statement, but I think the possibility is zero.



Changing subjects, how was 2012 for Pentax?

This year we released 2 compact cameras, 4 lens interchangeable cameras, and 5 to 6 lenses. I think we had a very productive year from an SLR type camera standpoint - both from number of products and sales.



As for Ricoh branded cameras, you haven't released a new model since the company merger. Are you also overseeing the development of the Ricoh branded cameras?

Corporate structure-wise they are part of the same development group. The development team for Ricoh branded cameras is located in Shinyokohama. Of course the development of new products are in progress. There are a lot of great engineers in Shinyokohama and they are working with strong motivation to keep the Ricoh brand going. We will release a new camera in 2013. I believe it is a very Ricoh camera that our core Ricoh users will appreciate.



So you are saying the new camera is a different line of products from the existing GR Digital and GXR lineup?

No comment (laughter)



But we can expect the possibility a new camera Ricoh core users will love?

It's not a possibility. It will launch.



So we can have high expectation with that camera?

Yes, we are giving it our all on this one.



There was a little absence from Ricoh branded cameras, but we can expect a come back?

Yes, we will come back strong. For our customers who have been waiting for a Ricoh branded camera, please stay tuned.



--
Flickr: swagbag's Photostream

[Franky2step]

mirror-less brainwashing seems to be very effective......wgas

[lightbulb]

No more aa filter less camera in future.... glad i still have one.

[[| o ]]

No more aa filter less camera in future.... glad i still have one.

>lightbulb
sorry, that should have been *all* cameras. I think they will probably have filter-less cameras, just not across the board.

[lightbulb]

No discussion of wr pancake primes. ... darn....

[audiobomber]

Thank you so mouch [| o ]. I wish I could Like this post more than once. The interview now seems credible and coherent.

I was rather annoyed with the interviewer. He was injecting his own views on where Pentax should go instead of asking more open-ended questions. I love that Pentax remains committed to the K-mount and APS-C.

[Ash]

Well done on sharing this translation with us.
I think Pentax are on the ball with their rationale for MILC and dSLR products.
Market research will determine whether a FF camera comes to fruition. I certainly hope it does.

[Fontan]

I have been waiting for Ricoh monochrome.

[Raffwal]

I had to find out what the missing page of the article said, so I purchased the magazine and translated the Pentax interview page for the other forum. Figured I'd share it with as many people since I spent the time to translate.

Thanks!

So basically what he said was that they have been planning a FF camera but may or may not release it. And as long as he remains the boss, it would mean a conventional DSLR with an OVF. Previous plans of a mirrorless FF camera have been dropped. They're playing with the thought of a different mount, but realize that dropping K would be shooting themself in the leg.

[Winder]

A mirrorless 645D would make sense. That huge mirror slows things down, introduces the potential for blur, and makes the camera much bigger than it needs to be

I'm going to try to get my friend to translate this properly tomorrow if we don't get any Japanese-speakers to chime in.

EVIL 645 with a CMOS Sony sensor and I am sold.... As long as it comes in under $5,000....... and is a true 645 size and not the current 645 crop. I would only need 3 lenses, so it would still be a small kit.

[goldenarrow]

In general, what do you think is attractive about mirror-less cameras?

We have 2 mirror-less cameras in the market - K-01 and Q10. I think the obvious benefits are the flexibility in design and lower cost. I think the best part of it is the ability to casually photograph compared to a SLR. I think it's great for lightweight everyday snapshots.



But if that's the case, do you need the ability to change lenses? Can't you just use a compact camera?

Both mirror-less and compacts are great for an everyday snippet, but the ability to change lenses allows for a wider range of shots and as a better tool to create everyday snippets.

So, does this mean that the K-01 is dead? I am having a ball using such a neat "lightweight" MILC. Image quality is great and it is easy to handle and carry. I think the interview with the USA VP indicated that the mirrorless K-mount cameras are now a dead end. Too bad if true.