[Ivan Glisin]

IMO Pentax needs to look at the Canon SL1 with its very small forma factor and get a body like that out to help sell its small primes, recently re-issued. This would be a body that would complement the 20-40 well. I find the Pentax lens and body design parameters to be out of sync.

Exactly my thoughts!

Pentax K-x was already just a hair bigger than Canon SL-1/100D, K-r almost there as well. Then, they killed that line. I wonder why? Even K-50 is close enough, I am sure its size can be optimized to match SL1, different body shape (a bit "boxier" would look smaller, Fuji X-T1 shape anyone?), less protruding grip, smaller popup flash, no weather sealing (if that would result in even smaller body), and we will have nice compact DSLR. This is what K-500 should have been.

[Aristophanes]

When is the last time you compared the prices of Pentax and Fuji lenses?
I think you will find that neither are particularly cheap and in some cases the Pentax lenses are much more expensive.

The Fuji 56/1.2 is US$999 and the Pentax DA*55/1.4 is US796.

Some of the other primes compare to Pentax's but have no IS. Pentax has the 50/1.8 and 35/2.4 at sub-US$200 for excellent, stabilized IQ.

Zooms on the Fuji series are:

10-24 @ US$999 (Canon's new UWA zomm is 10-18mm F4.5-5.6 @ US$299 and their direct competitor is only US$599, and frequently on sle for less).

18-55 (albeit starts at 2.8 but gets slow fast) is US$695. Pentax has the kit 18-55 WR starting at f/3.5 for US$197. The 18-135 WR is US$497. I will grant that Pentax's DA*16-50 is over-priced at US$1,300. But Pentaxians have the Tamron and Sigma 17-50/2.8 options which are constant 2.8 for US$449.


Oddly, Fuji's small-body X-series has few pancakes whereas Pentax's DSLR line has exceptional pancake lenses (DA 15, 21, 40, 70).

Fuji is pricey. If you have a 2 zoom and 3 prime system, you can pay considerably more for the Fuji set-up and get no better build quality and lose IS on the primes. That $300 Canon UWA zoom is a price shot across the bow of Fuji and mirrorless.

[monochrome]

IMO Pentax needs to look at the Canon SL1 with its very small forma factor and get a body like that out to help sell its small primes, recently re-issued. This would be a body that would complement the 20-40 well. I find the Pentax lens and body design parameters to be out of sync. Until Ricoh re-crafts their GR/GXR system to a mirrorless mount, this is how the traditional OVF DSLR crowd can compete. I would not look to a slew of new lenses from Pentax to drive sales in such a mature, and even declining, market.

Pentax just got the K3 and 645z . I think much has been pushed back for 645z, which is an unprecedented success and strains Pentax. Ricoh's last release was . . . . . Theta. Lots of Ricoh lens patents that seem to fit into an ILC GR style camera.

Perhaps it is time for the Ricoh brand to get some love, then K-mount will have its turn again.

Paraphrasing asahi man, this is a time of renewal for Pentax, and a time of all sizes in the program again. If you canw ait, do. If you can't wait, don't. That's perfectly OK.

[Aristophanes]

Exactly my thoughts!

Pentax K-x was already just a hair bigger than Canon SL-1/100D, K-r almost there as well. Then, they killed that line. I wonder why? Even K-50 is close enough, I am sure its size can be optimized to match SL1, different body shape (a bit "boxier" would look smaller, Fuji X-T1 shape anyone?), less protruding grip, smaller popup flash, no weather sealing (if that would result in even smaller body), and we will have nice compact DSLR. This is what K-500 should have been.

The K-3 and K-50 line should be merged.

The K-x was quite heavy but also took AA's (which I love BTW). Losing the AA's and moving to a smaller LiON could make a smaller Pentax body like the SL1 quite easy, while reducing the weight. Pentax IBIS adds considerable mass. If they kept AA's I'd still be all for it.

I agree this is what the K-500 should have been. I have a *ist film camera and it is very usable. Small DSLRs can take the fight to mirrorless at lower price points.

[wed7]

Pentax as an alternative to canikon is somewhat a joke specially in pricing and optics quality (although there are really good ones). They may had nailed it with K-3 (K-5) but lagged horrendously in the lens dept.

Pentax as a small camera system OTOH, is rivalled by gangs of MILCs

I wonder what would pentax bring next ?

[cali92rs]

The Fuji 56/1.2 is US$999 and the Pentax DA*55/1.4 is US796.

Some of the other primes compare to Pentax's but have no IS. Pentax has the 50/1.8 and 35/2.4 at sub-US$200 for excellent, stabilized IQ.

Zooms on the Fuji series are:

10-24 @ US$999 (Canon's new UWA zomm is 10-18mm F4.5-5.6 @ US$299 and their direct competitor is only US$599, and frequently on sle for less).

18-55 (albeit starts at 2.8 but gets slow fast) is US$695. Pentax has the kit 18-55 WR starting at f/3.5 for US$197. The 18-135 WR is US$497. I will grant that Pentax's DA*16-50 is over-priced at US$1,300. But Pentaxians have the Tamron and Sigma 17-50/2.8 options which are constant 2.8 for US$449.


Oddly, Fuji's small-body X-series has few pancakes whereas Pentax's DSLR line has exceptional pancake lenses (DA 15, 21, 40, 70).

Fuji is pricey. If you have a 2 zoom and 3 prime system, you can pay considerably more for the Fuji set-up and get no better build quality and lose IS on the primes. That $300 Canon UWA zoom is a price shot across the bow of Fuji and mirrorless.

The fuji 18-55 is much closer to the DA20-40 than the kit lens...both are stabilized, the fuji is wider, longer and both have the same speed. The pentax is $1,000. Is the WR worth $300 more?

Pentax 14mm is $946...thats right 946!! Fuji is 899 and is a much better lens.

Pentax 31mm is $1300. Fuji 35mm is $600.

Yes the Pentax 55mm is cheaper...but it is also a half a stop slower.

The moral of the story, both are not cheap, especially if you want to look to Pentax's high end, which is really more comprable to Fuji's offering than the DAL lenses.

[Aristophanes]

The fuji 18-55 is much closer to the DA20-40 than the kit lens...both are stabilized, the fuji is wider, longer and both have the same speed. The pentax is $1,000. Is the WR worth $300 more?

Pentax 14mm is $946...thats right 946!! Fuji is 899 and is a much better lens.

Pentax 31mm is $1300. Fuji 35mm is $600.

Yes the Pentax 55mm is cheaper...but it is also a half a stop slower.

The moral of the story, both are not cheap, especially if you want to look to Pentax's high end, which is really more comprable to Fuji's offering than the DAL lenses.

You justb proved my point.

Fuji is expensive. they have no budget offerings.

To go from a Nikon, Pentax, or canon DSLR to Fuji requires a substantial increase in costs.

You cannot shoot Fuji without that expenditure. No $200 affordable primes with indistinguishable optical quality and built-in IS. No affordable zooms. Fuji's been driving down the price of its bodies but the lenses are on average well above the competition.

[cali92rs]

.

To go from a Nikon, Pentax, or canon DSLR to Fuji requires a substantial increase in costs.

Only if you start with cheap Nikon, Pentax, or Canon then to Fuji.
If you want to get into DA*, DA and FA limited, then the prices are comparable, especially when you consider performance.

[clackers]

All efforts shifted to 645z in February, 2014 - an unexpected and unprecedented hit for Ricoh / Pentax.

Just out of curiosity, Monochrome, what are the sales figures behind your statement?

[cali92rs]

Just out of curiosity, Monochrome, what are the sales figures behind your statement?

They aren't available yet...so to call it a hit is a bit premature.

Yes, it has caused buzz, but the marketplace is littered with products that have caused buzz but havent resulted in sales.

[clackers]

They aren't available yet...so to call it a hit is a bit premature.

I agree, Cali.

But Monochrome, let's hear it from you!

Maybe you have a source for your conclusion you can refer us to.

[monochrome]

They aren't available yet...so to call it a hit is a bit premature.

Yes, it has caused buzz, but the marketplace is littered with products that have caused buzz but havent resulted in sales.

I agree, Cali.

But Monochrome, let's hear it from you!

Maybe you have a source for your conclusion you can refer us to.

Source for the statement is another poster here, first revealed on the 645z thread. No can do on figures. Internally, I've heard of indications of interest from Dealers and other major non-Dealer buyers is significantly larger than original business plans expected. The implication is production plans for limited production resources have changed. You can call BS and I can't answer that call, but that's what I've heard. Rumor was FF for fall 2014 - perhaps that is now in question.

[Rondec]

Only if you start with cheap Nikon, Pentax, or Canon then to Fuji.
If you want to get into DA*, DA and FA limited, then the prices are comparable, especially when you consider performance.

I do disagree. I feel like even Pentax's cheap lenses offer good performance. Certainly, for instance at the 50mm focal length, you have the 50mm f1.8 (cheap), 50mm f1.4 (medium priced) and DA *55 (quite expensive). In addition, there is the Sigma 50mm, which is moderately priced and quite sharp.

Fuji's line up is as though you took only the DA * lenses and the FA limiteds at current prices and offered them along with nice camera bodies. I would have a hard time selling that line up to most people. The reality is that a large number of people buy low end lenses (50mm f1.8) and only move up if they come in to a bunch of money or are dissatisfied in some way.

[clackers]

Source for the statement is another poster here, first revealed on the 645z thread. No can do on figures. Internally, I've heard of indications of interest from Dealers and other major non-Dealer buyers is significantly larger than original business plans expected.

Thanks for your explanation, M.


I guess if a lack of new K-mount lenses is due in part to implementing the 645z, a sales success offsets that, if not, some in this thread might say it was a damaging distraction to the existing product.


Personally, the MF update seems to be a great prestige boost to the brand, but I can understand people who question its actual worth.

[Uluru]

Thanks for your explanation, M.

I guess if a lack of new K-mount lenses is due in part to implementing the 645z, a sales success offsets that, if not, some in this thread might say it was a damaging distraction to the existing product.

Personally, the MF update seems to be a great prestige boost to the brand, but I can understand people who question its actual worth.

400 cameras a month, maybe, plus the initial preorders which may be around 2,000. How many lenses with them? One? Two? Three? Say three (best case scenario): that is 1200 lenses a month.
Anyway, that is serving some 6,800 end users in the first year, who get tip-top first class attention. A dedicated website too.

As opposed to some 100,000+ or so K-01 cameras made in one+ year.
And perhaps some 60,000-75,000 K3 cameras in one year (perhaps more).

So how do we align those numbers and priorities?

One would wonder whether there are only three people working for Ricoh Imaging: one answers the phone calls, one makes all cameras, one makes all lenses. And they have a strict schedule: now is 645 time, and K time is in September

But our serious explanations are nonsensical , no matter if they may sound really, really 'serious'. We are willing to give them all sorts of impossible excuses for things not rolling out as even the most skeptical have hoped for. And yet we believe they are "planning carefully, educating their Pentax engineers rules of proper behaviour, developing long term strategies we cannot even dream about, combat evil space aliens, saving planet, etc".

What is real, is that we are allowing them game of charades. They do marks and scratches on the roadmap, and we need to guess: if we come close in guessing, they erase it and start anew. "Because they have suddenly received an unprecedented order for 645Z! That is why we have to wait! They have even asked some random people from the streets to help them out! It's all for the greater good!!"