[Clavius]

I would be 100% ok with a FF M-mount, just have a full function K mount adapter for it and we're good to go!
A great system to use all kinds of lenses on and if you do want to use some excellent AF lenses you can use Pentax!

That would be so freaking awesome!

[wkraus]

Originally posted by Tonto
I would be 100% ok with a FF M-mount, just have a full function K mount adapter for it and we're good to go! A great system to use all kinds of lenses on and if you do want to use some excellent AF lenses you can use Pentax!

That would be so freaking awesome!

Actually I invented that camera more than a year ago! Pity that no one would listen (but then again I told no one because I thought they wouldn't care...) I even went a little further: modify the M mount in order to (a) keep it compatible with existing MF lenses and (b) add electronic contacts for a new series of Pentax-PM Limited all metal AF lenses. Plus, as stated by Tonto, a fully functional K mount adapter.

[Zygonyx]

Some "simple" ideas just don't make their way because corporate business is generally "made of / influenced" by blind and short-termists moneymakers.
It happens to be far more important to be in capacity to announce corporate name fioritures, than to actually innovate.

[thibs]

And some forums writers often think they have a brilliant idea because it suits their desires but completely ignore the fact that money has to be made and sustained for the business to be viable.

[Uluru]

And some forums writers often think they have a brilliant idea because it suits their desires but completely ignore the fact that money has to be made and sustained for the business to be viable.

Sometimes those two align perfectly. Pentax Forum is an inexhaustible source of ideas, both good and crazy ideas and everywhere in between, and if I were Ricoh, I'd look here more often than not.

Often great new concepts everyone loves start as crazy ideas first.

[Tonto]

Well an M-mount FF makes sense as they have already gone there and it allows for a huge amount of adapted and M mount lenses due to the short flange distance.
The Adapter for K mount means that the body can be kept small for those that want it aswell as allowing for an income stream from the Pentax lens lineup.
Although realistically one would feel mostly current Pentax users would make use or it in order to get a compact FF body for their lenses.
Using an existing lens mount like the K01 would mean there is already a vast array of lenses ready to go with perhaps an optimised 35/50mm lens to be sold with the camera.

[Aristophanes]

Well an M-mount FF makes sense as they have already gone there and it allows for a huge amount of adapted and M mount lenses due to the short flange distance.
The Adapter for K mount means that the body can be kept small for those that want it aswell as allowing for an income stream from the Pentax lens lineup.
Although realistically one would feel mostly current Pentax users would make use or it in order to get a compact FF body for their lenses.
Using an existing lens mount like the K01 would mean there is already a vast array of lenses ready to go with perhaps an optimised 35/50mm lens to be sold with the camera.

That would be the utter death of Pentax.

Camera bodies make very little money per unit. It's the lenses where the $$$'s are mostly made.

Any camera maker that made bodies for other manufacturer's lenses would be giving all the profit to other players or legacy glass, the later of which would perform poorly on digital sensors. Who is going to pay $2,500 for a new FF sensor body to run a $30 1970 era purple fringing lens on it?

No one.

As a manufacturer, you make camera bodies to use your glass. Continuous, long-term customer reinvestment in YOUR glass is the only way to survive in the system camera biz.

---

Last edited by Aristophanes; 07-26-2013 at 04:51 PM.

[monochrome]

As a manufacturer, you make camera bodies to use your glass. Continuous, long-term customer reinvestment in YOUR glass is the only way to survive in the system camera biz.

Which is why Pentax is so color-happy. It increases the installed base of K-mounts in the hands of the public, onto which they may mount plenty of new Pentax lenses.

They actually don't care about the bodies per se. Who cares what the body looks like or what it does or doesn't do?

What they care about is the K-mount the bodies are wrapped around.

[Tonto]

That would be the utter death of Pentax.

Camera bodies make very little money per unit. It's the lenses where the $$$'s are mostly made.

Any camera maker that made bodies for other manufacturer's lenses would be giving all the profit to other players or legacy glass, the later of which would perform poorly on digital sensors. Who is going to pay $2,500 for a new FF sensor body to run a $30 1970 era purple fringing lens on it?

No one.

As a manufacturer, you make camera bodies to use your glass. Continuous, long-term customer reinvestment in YOUR glass is the only way to survive in the system camera biz.

Fair enough but you do know the GXR is a modular camera, the money is in the modules. Also nothing stoping them making some M-mount lenses (that only work with it). Its not like they are going to sell a truck load anyway, the GXR is a niche device.

[thibs]

Sometimes those two align perfectly.

Of course it does, it has to, sometimes (rarely). Fortunately.
But what I really meant is that we all (me too of course) think an idea is good because it suits us.
Others are rarely included, others not being geek enough to be on a forum are almost never considered and making money long term never is either.

Well, you got the point

[Sumolux]

That would be the utter death of Pentax.

Camera bodies make very little money per unit. It's the lenses where the $$$'s are mostly made.

Any camera maker that made bodies for other manufacturer's lenses would be giving all the profit to other players or legacy glass, the later of which would perform poorly on digital sensors. Who is going to pay $2,500 for a new FF sensor body to run a $30 1970 era purple fringing lens on it?

No one.

As a manufacturer, you make camera bodies to use your glass. Continuous, long-term customer reinvestment in YOUR glass is the only way to survive in the system camera biz.

Are you joking?
Do you know how fantastic some of those old lenses work digitally? People are using lenses even from 1937 with fantastic results on Leica M9, not to mention the' newer stuff' from 20 years ago...
Old glass is cool and does have to have purple fringes

And there are lots of people who would gladly pay good money for a FF digital M alternative to the $ 6-7,000 M body
Cheers,
Sumolux

[JPT]

Today I saw pretty much all the GXR products heavily discounted in the three big chain stores in Tokyo - that is Yodobashi, Bic and Yamada in Shinjuku to be specific. They were cheap before but this was several thousand yen cheaper than only last week. The P10 kit was down to 16,000 yen ($160), the A16 zoom kit was 37,000 yen and Yamada was selling an ex-display A12 50mm with body for 33,000 yen. In fact, Yamada was selling all it's display units off.

It really does look like they are clearing out stock aggressively. I would guess that a successor of some kind is coming very soon.

[JPT]

I also noticed that Ricoh/Pentax has done some clearing up on its Japanese web page, removing links to the GXR, K30, X-5 and maybe the LS465 from the display at the top.

PENTAX RICOH IMAGING

Presumably the branding on this website will change to Ricoh Imaging tomorrow.

[monochrome]

Presumably the branding on this website will change to Ricoh Imaging tomorrow.

As has been stated many time, the branding won't change. Pentax and Ricoh brand cameras will co-exist, as they have until today. The name of the holding company will change, so the label on the bottom of the camera will be different.

That is all.

Pentax Digital Camera. made by Ricoh Imaging Company, Ltd.

[JPT]

Try the same link now. The branding has changed to Ricoh.