[Aristophanes]

That's why there's Fuji and Sony, who came running to help support owners of these M-mount lenses. With Pentax spread so think on what it has already, which is essentially a bit of a skeleton line with some schizophrenia thrown in, an M-mount would just be too ridiculous. Ricoh, on the other hand, has tackled this already in a defunct camera, so it would be entirely possible they will have the niche item, if at all.

For like 0.23% of the camera market.

Why make a k-mount mirrrorless to shave maybe 10mm of the depth?

MIght as well just make a K-02 FFand save trying to wrestle a 10mm adapter in somewhere.

[Uluru]

Basicly I wasn't solving a problem, just addressing a market that is there to concur. And Ricoh does see something in the M-mount, so a real FF offering could be a good way to enter that market seriously.
Offering the Limited lenses also in M-mount, so Leica users can purchase them aswell.

:
Although they may try to do that, and although M Mount is open for exploits of anyone's fancy, after some consideration I believe that if Ricoh comes out with an FF mirrorless sporting M mount, that would be below waist blow on a small camera company from Germany. One, which — let me remind you — just grazes on its own turf, and goes no where else.

If Ricoh is a gentleman player, they would stay away from the M mount, and do something else. New.

They can resurrect memories of a small Contax G2 system, (picture below) in digital 135 format and in Ricoh's way: a fantastic small body, and 3-4 small lenses, say, 28mm, 35mm, 50mm, 70mm. Or maybe with one or two small zooms too. So, 6-7 lenses. And nothing else; if one wants telephoto lenses, then Pentax DSLR is there, and any Pentax DSLR body will do telephoto work much better anyway. No boring backwards compatibility, but just everything new.

I think the point is to run along the Pentax DSLR line, and keep the size of the mirrorless FF down — as much as possible. That could be a premium FF mirrorless system, that competes with Leica M or Sony RX1 concept, but on its own turf.

[monochrome]

Starting from scratch on a new mount with all the advantages of mirrorless allows for integration of optics and body in a way that the older bayonet and screw mount systems cannot do.Backwards compatibility adds size, power consumption, design and QC issues, and cost. Lots of cost. think of the testing matrix. Ouch!

Fe Fi Fo Fum.

I smell the smell of a

RICOH cam.

[Boris_Akunin]

A FF-MILC with M-mount is just about the best way for Pentax/Ricoh to reuse parts of future FF-dslrs.

- Building a MILC only makes sense if it's built with a shorter flange distance.
- Given Pentax/Ricohs market share and retail presence, establishing their own MILC-mount with a full set of lenses (at least on par with Fujis offerings) would require too many ressources that would have to be diverted from K-mount development.
- The M-mount is currently the most established MILC-mount that supports FF-sensors and it can be used without any licences.
- Right now, there is no cheaper FF alternative to the Leicas so Pentax could easily undercut Leicas prices while maintaining a comfortable profit margin.

- Pentax/Ricoh is fairly well equipped to compete with Zeiss, Voigtländer & Leica. Small primes is what they do best, after all.
- The difference between the flange distances of the M- and K-mount is more than enough to fit a fully functional adapter in between (AF motor, electronics, mechanics incl. an actuator for the aperture leaver,...), so Pentax/Ricoh could maintain full compatibility with K-mount lenses.
- Ideally, Pentax/Ricoh could establish an AF-version of the M-mount and get 3rd-party manufacturers to adopt it. If they could pull that off, they could firmly establish themselves in the highend MILC market.
- This could attract the free-spending Leica crowd to the K-mount.

Like the K-30 & K-01, they could reuse many parts of a future FF-DSLR (Sensor, Processor, PDAF,...) but they would have to develop a rangefinder that satisfies the Leica crowd, ideally a Hybrid rangefinder like Fuji.

They could start selling a body+adpater kit and a few small M-mount AF-lenses, there would be no need to offer larger lenses in M-mount because of the adapter. Making the whole package weather resistant would be a nice touch, too.


I'd love to see Pentax/Ricoh take on Fuji with a lineup something like this:
Ricoh GR-M1
- M-mount with fully functional K-mount adapter (included)
- same FF-sensor as the FF-DSLR(s)
- Well built Rangefinder body with retro(ish) styling like the Fuji X-Pro1 (WR if possible)
- Hybrid Rangefinder
- Starting price: ? (~$2000-2500?)

Ricoh GR-M10
- M-mount with fully functional K-mount adapter (as an option)
- same APS-C-sensor as the K-5II's successor
- Well built Rangefinder body with retro(ish) styling like the Fuji X-Pro1 (WR if possible)
- Hybrid rangefinder or electronic viewfinder
- Starting price: ? (~$1000-1500?)

Ricoh GR-M100
- M-mount with fully functional K-mount adapter (as an option)
- Cheaper (or last generations) APS-C-sensor (like the K-50 & K-500)
- Compact body with simpler styling and without WR
- Electronic viewfinder or display only
- Starting price: ? (~$500-750?)

Lenses
- M-mount versions of the FA Limiteds, AF (WR if possible)
- One or two new FF-lenses in M-mount (~14mm & ~20mm?)
- Existing and new K-mount lenses (+ adapter) for everything else


Pentax/Ricoh could always reuse parts of their Pentax-DSLRs in the Ricoh-MILCs so they could extend their M-mount lineup the same way that Pentax has done with the K-50 and K-500:

Pentax:
K(s) (KII(s), KIII(s), ...)
K-5III(s) (K-5IV(s), K-5V(s), ...)
K-50 (K-51, K-52, ...)
K-500 (K-510, K-520, ...)

Ricoh:
GR-M1 (M2, M3, ...)
GR-M10 (M20, M30, ...)
GR-M100 (M200, M300, ...)


I know, I'm dreaming up a fantasy here...

Where is Ricoh leading the Pentax brand? Is this a big company who try to get a competitor out of the way, or do they see Pentax as a brand who deserve to live further?
The good thing with a big company in the back, is that the have the resources to get new quality products out in the marked and put in more in marketing.
The bad thing is that they could just get Pentax buried.....
I hope that they see us Pentax users as passionate and faithful. It`s a reason why we choose Pentax and i hope they understand it......
I would like to know what the Pentaxforums users and the crew behind it think about this? Will it be Ricohforums or Ricoh/Pentaxforums in the future.....
I wonder.........

There is no such thing as brand loyalty in my world. I sometimes toy with the idea of adding a non-Pentax camera to my line-up merely in order to make the point that I am no Pentax fanboy. The fact that I switched from Nikon to Pentax was not an act of love, but rather a conversion based on pure self-interest. I couldn't care less if the logo on my camera says Ricoh or Pentax.

I do not think Ricoh are out to slash Pentax. Ricoh's GXR and Pentax's Q demonstrate that we are dealing with two avantgarde schools of thought. Both Ricoh and Pentax have the ability to think outside the box; therefore this should be the ideal partnership. The way I see it, Pentax is Ricoh's Trojan Horse, with which they intend to take on Canon and Nikon.

[Aristophanes]

Just keep in mind that Pentax has never made a rangefinder, so any optical assembly for a hybrid VF is a start from scratch R&D money effort.

M-mount has such a small market share in part because it is not AF. Manual focus is such a tiny part of the market really only Leica is left.

M-mount is, if anything, the least modern mount one could design a MILC around.

Fuji really has no challengers since Epson went away. What Fuji is doing is interesting, but they have such small market share it is not certain their market is growing. Their non-hybrid VF cameras are just the same as any mirrorless like Olympus, NEX, Canon, or Panasonic.

[monochrome]

Just keep in mind that Pentax has never made a rangefinder, so any optical assembly for a hybrid VF is a start from scratch R&D money effort.

[Boris_Akunin]

Just keep in mind that Pentax has never made a rangefinder, so any optical assembly for a hybrid VF is a start from scratch R&D money effort.

IF Pentax/Ricoh (or anyone else besides Leica) were to develop an FF-MILC, it would have to compete with existing highend MILCs (X-Pro1, OM-D, GH3, Leica M, ...). Without a sophisticated viewfinder (optical, electronic or hybrid), that seems pretty hopeless to me.

M-mount has such a small market share in part because it is not AF. Manual focus is such a tiny part of the market really only Leica is left.
M-mount is, if anything, the least modern mount one could design a MILC around.

If Pentax/Ricoh had the choice between developing an AF-Version of the M-Mount (with electronics based on KAF2) and developing a completely new MILC-mount, what would be the disadvantages of the M-mount based scenario? How is the development from K- to KAF2-mount different from a hypothetical M- to MAF-mount development?

I'm not saying that there is a large enough market to actually support an FF-MILC besides/below the Leicas (I would hope so, though).
Wouldn't M-mount compatibility - with or without an adapter - make such a camera more viable? Off course it could also be done with a new, even shorter mount and an M-mount adapter but I can't really see the downside of using an M-mount with added AF.

[Uluru]

Just keep in mind that Pentax has never made a rangefinder, so any optical assembly for a hybrid VF is a start from scratch R&D money effort.

Everything, at some stage, is start from scratch. Hybrid VF (presumably) in rangefinder style isn't anything Pentax and Ricoh teams cannot sort our efficiently.

[Aristophanes]

If Pentax/Ricoh had the choice between developing an AF-Version of the M-Mount (with electronics based on KAF2) and developing a completely new MILC-mount, what would be the disadvantages of the M-mount based scenario? How is the development from K- to KAF2-mount different from a hypothetical M- to MAF-mount development?

It's kind of hard to justify s much effort put into a modern AF mount when none of the legacy is AF.

Creating new AF glass....sure...great. But is the risk and register distance optimal?

All tha yo are doing is allowing Pentax's new mount to tap into a legacy RF market Pentax never had before. Ricoh had some RF's (I knew that BTW) but none ILC IIRC.

But m-mount is is really a legacy of really old glass that cannot do a modern sensor justice and really new stuff that does the wallet an injustice.

Obviously Ricoh's m-mount GXR module was well accepted for the tiny niche it had. I am not against the concept, I just do;t see a large enough market. The big concern for Pentax is that third party glass eats into their optical revenues. Old glass, new glass, it don't matter. If it isn't Pentax brand and off the ship recently it's not putting $$'s in Pentax's coffers.

[Asahiflex]

Check out the Ricoh 999 which IS an ILC

[Barry Pearson]

Barry, sorry but a new mount, even if heavily based on the K-mount, means a new system.
It's interesting how you're for removal of the mirrors (actually, of the entire reflex viewfinder system - you're skipping the important part), but see no problem in keeping the mechanical aperture lever and the screw drive AF.

Yes, it is interesting! So I'll explain it. They are in different categories:

• Removing the entire reflex viewing system changes the nature of the product, offering different capability to the user and different options to Ricoh/Pentax. There is the potential for this to be a game changer for the better for both, both initially but especially over the long term.

• Keeping the mechanical coupling enables the same set of K-mount lenses to be used in the same way with a simple adapter. This is not something where it is wise to be a game-changer, because the change is likely to be for the worse.

I was an engineer in the computer industry, with two different roles later in my career: sometimes Chief Engineer, sometimes Business Analyst. Issues such as "when do we fully change, or when do we adapt what we have?" and "how do we carry users with us as we make progress?" were always there, needing decisions. There isn't a single answer, partly because we rarely start from scratch and can't be purists. It is quite likely that another engineer working with different marketers or client managers would make different decisions from mine. (Earlier in my career I was more of a purist, partly because we were starting from scratch with a new mainframe operating system which had to evolve for decades, and partly because I hadn't yet fully realised that the world was a such messy place and often demanded compromises!) For interest, this was my boss in those earlier years.

What I have here is a view of what I think Ricoh/Pentax could usefully achieve over many years, and how I think they might get there from here. The long term view is "a range of electronic viewfinder cameras with optimum mount characteristics and the ability to fully support all legacy lenses". And I have been describing how it might be possible to get there.

Of course, someone who doesn't think that even in the long term these cameras should have electronic viewfinders instead of a full reflex viewing system differs from me at step one! That is an argument that may rage for years.

[mecrox]

New camera, new lenses, on the basis of a careful assessment which says long life and solid sales. I don't see any other basis on which an investment should be made for new Ricoh cameras (Pentax stays with the mounts they have). All the other options involve endless complications and in particular much lower revenues, such as new camera (M-mount) based on using someone else's old lenses (Leica, etc.). That's not a great way to build the kind of brand and business Ricoh appear to be after. So, for myself, I would rule out all this stuff. More likely is a new system with all you'll need or a series of fixed-lens cameras which share many common parts and so forth. All revenue, production and patents are 100 per cent Ricoh's.

Don't forget new tech either. These companies have to think five years ahead. Things like wifi and mobile connectivity, much better video, much better EVFs and hybrid viewfinders, improved on-sensor AF and so on - any new range needs to be able to accommodate all this stuff when it is ready and affordable to produce for the mass market. There is also the question of new sensor types which we tend to leave out on here. Sony, Panasonic and no doubt plenty of others are known to be looking at ways in which they can move beyond Bayer sensors. The camera-makers will have much more information on this than we do. That too will have an effect on everything, demanding new-generation lenses for example.

Anything which reduces the revenue stream which one might obtain from incorporating this stuff in your products is not a good business decision, I would suggest. Folks who can afford to buy Leica lenses - at anything from around three to ten the cost of present Pentax primes of a similar kind - can easily afford to buy a Leica body on which to mount them and would not settle for anything else, I suspect - because, in their view, only a Leica M series has the perfect form, handling and durability honed over 50+ years to match those precious objects. So trying to move in on that one sounds to be a dead end.

But as we know, Pentax has some curious genes which might have jumped between species - "Hey, great idea for today, let's jump off a cliff and fly like the birds" - so anything is possible.

[Barry Pearson]

New mount, new system. Just like m4/3 and EOS-M.

This - m4/3 - triggered a thought.

I have been considering the difference between a manufacturer (in this case Ricoh/Pentax, of course) staying with a long registration mount suitable for a reflex viewing system, (current K-mount), versus an alternative of moving towards a mirrorless system that offers the opportunity of short registration mount, (short registration K-mount), while still supporting all legacy lenses. What impact might this have on sales and return on investment?

The only comprehensive example of this that springs to mind is "Four Thirds" versus "Micro Four Thirds". There may be some lessons to be drawn about what might happen. I'm relying on Wikipedia, because I have no personal Knowledge of "Four Thirds". (I do own a "Micro Four Thirds" camera).

Four Thirds is a mount & sensor specification with a registration distance that caters for a mirror.

Micro Four Thirds is a mount & sensor specification, evolved from Four Thirds, with a registration distance that takes advantage of not having a mirror.

My reading of subsequent sales and the current market position is that, when comparing specifically just those alternatives, Micro Four Thirds is the winner and Four Thirds is the loser.

[Cynog Ap Brychan]

One of the reasons people buy a new camera body is they have lenses that fit. Beyond that, they then buy lenses because they have a body to fit. That's how I became a Pentaxian: having used Chinon bodies with the K mount, I bought Pentax glass in the knowledge that it was better than what Chinon had to offer. Eventually, I moved up to Pentax bodies. First the P-30, then the P 50. Many Pentax bodies later, I have a K-5 and I am eagerly awaiting their next creation.

The point I am trying to make is that changing the mount is a huge step, and one which few camera makers indulge in. Nikon have had the F mount since 1959, and it doesn't appear to be holding them back. Even Canon has kept the EF mount for nearly a quarter of a century, and I don't see them changing it any time soon. One might postulate that changing from the FD mount was a good thing for Canon at the time but I believe it hurt them for a few years. That said, the EOS 1 was a stupendously good camera at the time, so that must have helped them recover.

I am aware that the registration distances on today's cameras with legacy glass was dictated by the need to accommodate a full frame mirror and I can see a time, perhaps, when EVFs are an acceptable alternative. But I don't think this should be a reason to change the registration distance, per se. I've never held a Sony NEX, so I can't really comment, but they seem a bit unbalanced (and a bit silly) with a large lens mounted. I want my camera bodies to be a reasonable size and depth for the most part: size is not such an issue with a zonking great zoom on the front. When I want small, I use another camera (a Q, in fact).

Putting my cards on the table, I do not wish to see Pentax abandon the K mount, with or without an adaptor. I don't mind if Pentax's next high end camera is APS-C or Full Frame, I will buy it regardless. But, if it doesn't have a K-mount then I'm afraid I will look elsewhere for my future photographic needs.