Originally posted by Kunzite Barry, please explain why would they target a market 4-5 times smaller, instead of their traditional SLR market?
I don't believe the market for a MILC is
inherently that much smaller than the market for a dSLR. In other words, I don't believe that if one manufacturer launched a dSLR and another
equivalent manufacturer launched a MILC that was functionally equivalent, the dSLR would
automatically sell 4 to 5 times as many. I believe much of the difference is that the manufacturers are
not equivalent. The comparison is not comparing like with like. The world is not cleanly divided into SLR-buyers and MILC buyers. It is probably more cleanly divided into "Canon+Nikon" buyers and "other" buyers.
I don't believe that if Pentax had two proposals for an FF camera, with
primarily one main difference, the use of an optical viewfinder or an electronic viewfinder, but otherwise functional equivalence, their decision about which to go with would make a factor 4 difference in sales. At least, not a factor 4 difference in favour of the optical viewfinder!
Originally posted by Kunzite Do not forget that, with all your effort, there are significant other disadvantages for which you have no answer (so you're ignoring them). Not being able to sell the lenses to APS-C users, for example.
The camera I summarised would handle all normal-K-mount lenses, so any new lenses that could be designed satisfactorily with the existing K-mount
would be supplied like that. Lenses would
only be designed for a short registration mount where there was a specific advantage (optical quality, cost, weight, size) to do so. So users of existing APS-C Pentaxes would be able to use all the former lenses, but not the latter.
And (as I said) the camera body form I summarised could later be used for a smaller sensor. So it might eventually form the basis of an APS-C MILC with a short registration K-Mount which would accept the adapter. Those cameras would support all lenses, whether short or long registration.
Originally posted by Kunzite You should take a step back and stop avoiding the obvious questions:
- what would sell in higher numbers, a MILC or a DSLR?
See above. I don't believe anyone actually knows, once all the influences are taken into account.
Originally posted by Kunzite - what is easier, to keep your customers or to get new ones?
It is probably 50 times easier to keep a customer than get a new one. (That is an old number - I don't know what latest theory says). But Ricoh/Pentax can't afford to rely on their existing base, nor (probably) can they afford to bring out an FF camera on a "me too" basis. (Just look at the arguments raging in these forums). I think they need something new - perhaps a game-changer.
Originally posted by Kunzite - what problem would they solve by changing the mount?
Companies don't do things just "to solve problems". They also do things to develop new markets, or steal markets from their competitors with something that their competitors didn't see coming or can't react to. An optional short registration (optional because the camera would work both ways) is an opportunity to be exploited.
But there are problems with living with a large registration, especially where an undesirable lens construction results. I suspect that applies more to wide angle lenses, but I am not knowledgeable or ingenious enough to see all other possibilities. (I'll bet there are people in Ricoh/Pentax who could give you a much more comprehensive answer, and it would probably surprise both of us).
I have some screw-mount Pentax film SLRs, some K-mount Pentax film SLRs, some K-mount dSLRs, a Q, and a Micro Four Thirds compact. This enables me to just look inside those cameras and see the causes and effects of their mounts. The main anomalies are the dSLRs. They are using a registration designed for the mirrors of FF cameras, even though their mirrors are significantly smaller. They could have benefited from a smaller registration. But all the SLRs, film or otherwise, have a registration that is distorted by the existence of the mirror. This becomes obvious when you look inside a Micro Four Thirds or a Q. The change in registration is dramatic, and not just because of the sensor size. (The Micro Four Thirds sensor isn't
that much smaller than an APS-C sensor). If the idea of a mirror hadn't been invented, I don't think anyone would seriously consider having such a bigger registration to cater for one if someone proposed a moving-mirror viewfinder.
Originally posted by Kunzite - how do you start a new system, with a niche product or with a higher volume products?
This isn't a new system. It is a variant on an existing system, with all existing lenses still working in it.
And often you start with a niche product, of course! (Pentax digital 645).
Originally posted by Kunzite - why do you spend so much time promoting an idea which won't happen?
I am
discussing the idea with a group of people who are not in control of what will happen. If I wanted to
promote it, I would be elsewhere!
I would like to see your evidence that it won't happen! I suspect it won't, at least in the next year or two. But given the arguments that are raging in these forums about what Ricoh/Pentax should do / might do / can't do, I won't take a bet either way.
I wonder if similar arguments would have been made that Pentax shouldn't / wouldn't develop and release a Q-mount and continue to expand that system? That came from left field, but appears to be vindicated.