Originally posted by cali92rs As is the K-mount...
Comparing a market with one system?
Originally posted by mecrox Lol, it's amazing that "funny strategies" like the Sony NEX series, the Fuji X series, the Sigma DPM series, the Ricoh GR and GXR, the Canon EOS M, the Metabones project et al ever got off the ground. Must be a mirage
Let's say the NEX could be used as an example of a successful MILC system, but Sony did it with a lot of effort, the market is stagnating, and they didn't abandon their SLR mount. By the way, 30% of the MILC market barely equates with 7.5% of the DSLR one.
But your other examples... niche, niche, non-ILC Ricoh products, meh MILC, not a camera. FAIL.
Originally posted by mecrox I wonder if anyone has asked Ricoh outright whether K-mount lenses work on digital FF with IBIS? And if so what the response was. If they're not saying or claim commercial confidence then it's reasonable to conclude the answer is very likely "no" or "even if they did, FF is a goody reserved for Ricoh-branded cameras". If that sounds unfair, customers are unfair. Anticipating the question marks over a brand and dispelling them is part of good marketing, I'd suggest.
You mean your intention is to spread FUD as long as you can get away with it?
Fact: Sony was able to make it work, with its Alpha mount and legacy lenses. So the reasonable conclusion is a very likely "yes".
Fact: Ricoh clearly stated they will continue with the Pentax brand, and support all Pentax systems. There is no reason to assume that "FF is a goody reserved for Ricoh-branded cameras", this is something you made up.
Originally posted by junyo Assert that Pentax can make a compelling camera that moves lenses (considering that there are more m43 and E mount lens in Amazon's top 100 lens sellers than Pentax, and Fuji sells every XF lens they can make, it's not like it's never been done before) and Pentax gets an immediate vote of no confidence from the faithful. Funny, that.
So that means that Q mount is a zero sized market, correct? (I think this might be a fanboy infinite loop as the desire to defend the Q is weighed against the desire to argue the sacrosanctity of K-mount)
No, the assertion was something different: it's so much better to make cameras
in another mount. Those who repeatedly claims so would never bother to bring any proofs (not that they can), that there are advantages which would more than compensate for having to start again from scratch.
Maybe for you it's a religious issue, but not for those who you're calling "fanboys". Do you think the K-mount is some sort of a "pagan" mount which needs to burn in hell for all eternity?
My point, the real one - not the strawmans - was clear: installed user base better than starting from scratch, K-mount most likely suitable even with SR, potential of growth on the larger DSLR market.
And the Q, sorry to disappoint you, but it's not the kind of system to take over from K-mount. It's all nice and "qute", it sells well only in some markets (it's properly marketed in Japan), and it avoids a direct confrontation with the other MILCs by having it's incredibly small size as an USP.
I'll end by quoting monochrome, who summarized the situation well:
Originally posted by monochrome Ahem.
Pentax is committed to the Q, K-mount and 645 mount. Period.
Ricoh is committed to both the Pentax brand and the Ricoh brand. Period.
Both statements were made in the last 90 days by the most senior Pentax executives, one directly to me and other PF members, one directly to the public.
No equivocation, no interpretation, no corporate doublespeak.
Anyone who doesn't hear what is being said either isn't listening or is an agitator.