[Kunzite]

So it's the old story: follow the money, not dodgy Google translations of what a
spokesperson may or may not have said.

Is it better to follow an incomprehensible twitter Google translation?

Shipment of Digital Still Camera January-July in 2013:
+ Single Lens Reflex: 300,221,496,000 Yen
+ Non-Reflex: 51,189,100,000 Yen

[Mistral75]

(...)
By the way, never saw before the second picture !
(...)

From left to right:

• Q
• K-5
• K-1 (similar to MR-52/MZ-D)
• made-up 645D
• 645J (limited edition only distributed in Japan)
• 67

[gaddigad]

So what if Pentax just decided to make APS-C the "King" (K) series and FF the "Ace" (A) series? This way they can start a more logical numbering scheme.

A is surely for Asahi
A bit confusing as there's already A series lenses and an A mount (for Sony)

[Zygonyx]

What kind of divination magic was involved to make any sense of this tweet?

We are still all wondering

[Zygonyx]

Is it better to follow an incomprehensible twitter Google translation?

Shipment of Digital Still Camera January-July in 2013:
+ Single Lens Reflex: 300,221,496,000 Yen
+ Non-Reflex: 51,189,100,000 Yen

Hum... these figures if true, are quite confusing in the interpretation you seem to make of them.

You should take the FF part of the Reflex apart, if any objectivity was sought... but with no figure re. FF mirrorless to put in front !

So my assuptions are as follows :

1- the mirrorless development is only 5 to 6 years old : do you have any idea of your compared marketshares for say the next 5 years ? It definitely should not be to DSLR advantage...

2- lenses (and to a lesser extent accessories) are the profit-making product-lines in a photographyic system, definitely not bodies (and i think Aristophanes will agree with me on that)

3- FF SLR are either targeted towards "professional" market, either towards "enthusiast" market. Hence to date, FF DSLR have never represented more than 5% of the global DSLR market share.

4- As a consequence of preceding points, regarding K mount, if you chose to launch any kind of FF / D or MSLR product, you have to withdraw from your business plan all existing legacy lenses already available on the second-hand market : because those who own them will prefer using them than by your new FF lens line... In this situation for Ricoh, that would mean "replaying" what Hoya did when launching the 645D in a relatively "low competitive" market : restart legacy lenses production, in order to cater a significant part of the lens market. Applied to FF K-mount potential development, that would mean the following alternative :
* relaunch as identical former K FF lenses : unthinkable in a competitive market, moreover with production costs that would not generate any ROI
* re-design former K legacy lenses in order to "modernise" their performance (SDM, WR, ...), and lessen their production costs : this is a credible alternative, but....

5- the market is nowadays really determined by compactness of the photography systems. In such a context, if you decide to launch new FF optics, you may consider that a shorter than 43mm registration distance could represent a truly competitive advantage. Also taking into account the "physical" limitations of KAFII mount (screw-driving or slow SDM AF, relatively inacurate diaphragm control, ...), you might think twice about the opportunity to keep the K-mount for your new FF product line...

And Yes, i have some doubts of previous official RICOH declarations : did they for example warn anybody when changing Pentax Ricoh Imaging Company to Ricoh IC ?
Doing this, they surely will be keen to create some significantly new Ricoh branded products...

I personnally hope this will be done keeping the K-mount for FF, but i frankly doubt it - at least in a first stage (a few years to re-establish the Ricoh reputation in the photo mass market).

[Kunzite]

Those figures are the ones published by CIPA.
To respond to your other points:

1- what we know is that the mirrorless growth relative to DSLRs had plateaued already.
That the mirrorless would surpass DSLRs from the current state in 5 years, it's your unsupported assumption; and you were talking about objectivity...

2-unfortunately, CIPA doesn't split lenses into "SLR" and "Non-Reflex"; the line is drawn between "35mm" and "less than 35mm" formats - the first being 1/3 in volume and over 95% in value of the latter. Yes, Canon and Nikon are selling lots of lenses, many to APS-C users.
But this doesn't help with our discussion.

3-and a FF MILC would be expected to perform better? Those 5% you're talking about corresponds - in units - to 25-30% of the MILC market share.

4- Hold your horses, there's nothing in the preceding points to support such a wild conclusion.
The legacy lenses are definitely not an issue (Canon/Nikon are selling lots of brand new lenses with a much more developed second hand market). On the contrary, backwards compatibility will dramatically increase the sales.

5- That's completely untrue, as shown by the CIPA data I've quoted. People are largely preferring DSLRs to MILCs (outside Japan, that is); we're talking about a 5-6:1 ratio.
Besides, with camera makers grouped in the extremes - making either extra large cameras, or extra small - maybe the best place for Pentax is the middle ground? You know, for normal people, who want to comfortably hold their cameras, with good access to all buttons, but not carry a lot?

I think your conclusion is already made, and you're looking for "facts" to support it. Was Ricoh under any obligation to pre-announce this name change? Should they tell us anything, in advance?
Of course not; and this doesn't invalidate what they're telling us. Kitazawa-san gave us some interesting insights, IIRC it was him who told us about developing LED-based flash months ahead of the official product announcements. I don't see why his talk about the FF being a DSLR and not MILC would be less accurate.

[SpecialK]

Right, and ditching FD doomed Canon.

True enough, but that was not logical either :-)

[Alizarine]

From left to right:
Q
K-5
K-1 (similar to MR-52/MZ-D)
made-up 645D
645J (limited edition only distributed in Japan)
67

is it just me or the prototype K-1 a lot thinner than the K-5 next to it? Could it be a modified film body dressed up and not really the design of the prototype 24x36 digital?

[Mistral75]

is it just me or the prototype K-1 a lot thinner than the K-5 next to it? Could it be a modified film body dressed up and not really the design of the prototype 24x36 digital?

Not that thinner, except for the grip.



A lot of electronic components are in the K-1's "sole":












Just for comparison, the MR-52/MZ-D at PMA 2001 (images © Digital Photography Review)

[Zygonyx]

... I don't see why his talk about the FF being a DSLR and not MILC would be less accurate.

Let's hold our breath and hope this will happen.
I just hope my assumptions will NOT realise.
But i am sure these considerations have brought - and possibly still are bringing - intense discussions within RICOH's top management treams.

@Mistral : incredible, this was not only a mock-up !
The menus though, look like of an overaged ergonomy.

[Mistral75]

(...)
@Mistral : incredible, this was not only a mock-up !
The menus though, look like of an overaged ergonomy.

This was February 2001.

"At this stage they have an early working prototype which will power up and operate, the onboard software is still a bit rough but the body, controls and operation are already pretty much there." (op. cit.)

[Kunzite]

Let's hold our breath and hope this will happen.
I just hope my assumptions will NOT realise.
But i am sure these considerations have brought - and possibly still are bringing - intense discussions within RICOH's top management treams.

They have:
"Even though there was possibility to bring FF into this segment, it was our conclusion that APS-C should be the utmost size for mirrorless segment."

[rawr]

Just for comparison, the MR-52/MZ-D at PMA 2001

Dat large viewfinder, esp visible in the last image. Nice.

[Aristophanes]

That the mirrorless would surpass DSLRs from the current state in 5 years, it's your unsupported assumption; and you were talking about objectivity...

MIrrorless appears to be on track to do just that, but maybe not at the expense of DSLR's necessarily. Those coming from P&S and natural growth in the gross user base (emerging markets, especially Asia) can get mirrorless there if price drop and become more value oriented.

[Zygonyx]

They have:
"Even though there was possibility to bring FF into this segment, it was our conclusion that APS-C should be the utmost size for mirrorless segment."

Thanks to remember me this sentence.


And let's hope the APS-C mirrorless development Ricoh intends to do, keeps the K-mount as well... K-01 was more of a style experience than of the serious camera Ricoh is supposed to produce ...

To illustrate this, look at the compared dimensions of Olympus EM1 and K-01 : the last "prosumer oriented" Olympus is just bigger in any of the 3 dimensions, and weights only 11% less than K-01 :

http://camerasize.com/compare/#482,285