[JPT]

Have you stopped to calculate how much revenue a few thousand 645z cameras and a few thousand more lenses would amount to? I've noticed that the "overpriced" DA 25 mm 645 lens is sold out in some shops in Japan, which leads me to believe it isn't overpriced at all. I think the 645z will be a pretty successful camera for Ricoh, even if it doesn't come close to the unit sales volume of consumer cameras. It will also have an impact on the company's professional image.

I don't think it is fair to discuss the 645z as an elitist camera. There are plenty of people prepared to spend 15,000 dollars more than they need to to buy a luxury car. They do it because they have a passion for cars or driving. The 645z is going to be a big investment for anyone, but it not a crazy amount of money.

[DSims]

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.

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.

Fuji only gives you quality options. You may choose between very good and excellent. That's the right way to do it - they can only bring out so many new lenses each year, so they make each one of them good.

Apples to Apples Fuji isn't more expensive, but in some cases now Pentax is.


- Forget Canon - virtually all low to mid-priced lenses are comparatively inferior in IQ to the competition.

- With Nikon you have to choose very carefully, but you can find the value there if you restrict your needs to only the better lenses they offer in the mid-priced (generally f/1.8 primes) collections. This is probably where Nikon got its reputation as "having better lenses than Canon." At the high end I don't think there's much difference.

- With Pentax you don't have to look so hard to find the better values - that is, most lenses perform well, so you don't have to be so careful to avoid certain lenses as you do with Nikon.

- Fuji doesn't give you the option to make a huge mistake. If you can afford the lens it will pretty much deliver what it should for the price.

---------- Post added 05-20-14 at 09:08 PM ----------

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!!"

A year from now, if they don't have one or two 35mm-format FF cameras with a few new lenses for them, then we can rightly say they've been sitting on their hands doing nothing, and they have major internal problems. But this is such a major project that we should expect them to put most of their resources into it, which would justify how little we've seen from them lately.

[Zygonyx]

Absolutely, and i would even shorten this Ricoh's "last chance" period to the forthcomming 6 months

[Aristophanes]

Fuji only gives you quality options. You may choose between very good and excellent. That's the right way to do it - they can only bring out so many new lenses each year, so they make each one of them good.

Apples to Apples Fuji isn't more expensive, but in some cases now Pentax is.

And Fuji is bleeding money from their Imaging Division according to their latest stats.

One of their talking points was that their P&S offerings (second only to Canon in gross unit sales) has withered and not as many high end sales have materialized.

It is extremely difficult to create a mount that is sustainable without budget offerings. Fuji's glass is not only expensive relative in the whole cost of system ownership, it is large and heavy in many cases, especially compared to Pentax primes. This wipes out some of the body volume size advantages.

For example:

Pentax K-x = 581g
Fuji XT-1 = 440g
Canon SL1 = 407g

Pentax has IBIS. Many would argue the Fuji requires the added grip.

Fuji 56/1.2 = 405g
Pentax DA*55/1.4 = 375g

Fuji 18-55 OIS = 330g
Pentax DA 20-40 WR = 283g

Pentax has a line of slightly slower primes and zooms, some with WR, and all very well-built and lightweight. Pentax has a more portable lens array than any APS-C manufacturer.

A small body DSLR like the K-x is very close to the mass of a the XT-1...and is 50% cheaper. The volume difference is not so large.

Lets' say Pentax decided to EVF the K-mount as is. They could knock even more weight off so all that is left in volume difference is the flange distance, which is about 170mm. A longer flange has some attributes in that it strengthens the body for longer, heavier glass, giving a cradle to the bottom of the camera body.

Moving to an on-sensor PDAF system will also save weight/volume whether it is OVF or EVF. At this point the DSLR weight disadvantage is the prism and mirror assembly.

And did I mention that K-mount is native FF? The Fuji X-mount is not.

The Sony A7 is about the same size as the Fuji XT-1:

Compare camera dimensions side by side

Don't get me wrong. I like Fuji and their effort. It's very well done (except their lousy, awful video).

But their approach demonstrates the perils of all high-end (lots of excitement but scary pricing and less paying customers than buzz) and the pursuit of fast glass makes for very heavy and largish lenses, obviating some of the mirrorless advanatges outright. The Sony A7 is only $100 body-only right now more expensive.

When I see all this play out the DA 20-40 and the revamped DA Ltds makes sense.

[mecrox]

...

Lets' say Pentax decided to EVF the K-mount as is. They could knock even more weight off so all that is left in volume difference is the flange distance, which is about 170mm. A longer flange has some attributes in that it strengthens the body for longer, heavier glass, giving a cradle to the bottom of the camera body.
...

When I see all this play out the DA 20-40 and the revamped DA Ltds makes sense.

To EVF the K-mount as is - that's quite an interesting option. It means that an FF-sized EVF with focus-peaking et al could be offered on a crop camera (and/or an FF camera too, of course). While there might be cries of consternation from the OVF crowd, it's an interesting idea, perhaps for a K-02 which, if cleverly positioned, would be very competitive on price for the whole system (inc. the good lenses) compared to both Fuji and the m43 crowd. And the same for margins: Ricoh would have much lower R&D costs to pay off too because the only really new things would be the EVF, its software/electronics and the body shell.

[monochrome]

To EVF the K-mount as is - that's quite an interesting option. It means that an FF-sized EVF with focus-peaking et al could be offered on a crop camera (and/or an FF camera too, of course). While there might be cries of consternation from the OVF crowd, it's an interesting idea,

The key, of course, is to continue offering high quality, mirrored cameras for the passive VF crowd.

[ChristianRock]

With the exception of the 18-55 kit lens (which I would still call "good") and probably the 50-200 which would also fall under "good", the other offerings in the Pentax lens line could be called "very good" to "excellent" - including the budget 35, 50, 18-135 and 55-300 lenses. Ok, 18-135 might be just "good" or even less according to some MTF tests, but lots of people here would rate it "very good" in real world usage.

I don't see any dogs in the Pentax lens lineup. I'd agree Fuji's lineup is generally faster, but is it generally better?

[Zygonyx]

Why wouldn't we see hybrid E/OVF in the next generation K-mounted bodies ?

[MMVIII]

The key, of course, is to continue offering high quality, mirrored cameras for the passive VF crowd.

Exactly, this would be a welcome addition!

[monochrome]

Why wouldn't we see hybrid E/OVF in the next generation K-mounted bodies ?

Oh, but that's for the 'L' bodies.

[Aristophanes]

Why wouldn't we see hybrid E/OVF in the next generation K-mounted bodies ?

How can you keep the light path to the OVF if the sensor is blocked by the mirror?

Only known way is translucent mirror like Sony.

The biggest advantage of an EVF is it can be much, much larger than any OVF. The Fuji EVF is larger than an old film medium format camera.

[Cynog Ap Brychan]

The Fuji EVF is larger than an old film medium format camera.

That may well be, though it didn't look as big as my old Bronica viewfinder when I tried out the XT-1. The Fuji is a lovely camera, but it really doesn't give me anything that my K-3 can't, and is not as versatile in some respects. And, I hated the electronic viewfinder: it was like trying to take photographs looking at a TV screen (but that's just me). I like Fuji, but they have nothing yet that would make me want to swap systems.

[Aristophanes]

That may well be, though it didn't look as big as my old Bronica viewfinder when I tried out the XT-1. The Fuji is a lovely camera, but it really doesn't give me anything that my K-3 can't, and is not as versatile in some respects. And, I hated the electronic viewfinder: it was like trying to take photographs looking at a TV screen (but that's just me). I like Fuji, but they have nothing yet that would make me want to swap systems.

I agree.

1. EVF is not quite there, though some great innovations and very large. It is smeary at speed and static in low light. Next gen should get it right I suspect. Uses lots of power.

2. X-trans sensor can leave something to be desired. I've seen some distinctly wonky RAW output on that sensor.

3. Video on the Fujis utterly sucks. For a mirrorless system video should be a no-brainer, souped-up feature. It is not. (Same goes for the Ricoh GR, I might add). Maybe the Fuji sensor is the problem.

I think what we see with the Fuji XT-1 is that the design parameters between mirrorless and DSLR are not as different as once thought. Certainly the lenses on the Fuji are largish. Their upcoming f/2.8 zooms are expected to be very heavy, offering little advantage over a DSLR. There are obviously limits to ergonomics, optics, power, and structural support when you see the Fuji XT-1, Sony A7 and a Pentax K-50 all together (especially when you note the Pentax has a flash).

[northcoastgreg]

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!!"

Well as a matter of fact, it's not a game at all, and the 645z, particularly the FA 645 lenses, will lead to delays with the production of new lenses. If you go over to B & H, only around half of the FA 645 lenses recently introduced into the American market are in stock. The rest are listed as "New Item, Available for Pre-Order." This indicates that in order to introduce the FA 645 lenses into the U.S. market, new batches of each lens had to be run off. That means the assembly line had to be retooled for each lens, which takes time. When they're done with the FA 645 lenses, maybe they can get around to running off a batch of their new telephoto zoom lens.

Some of the other lenses on the roadmap look to be replacement lenses for existing stock. The rumored 18-70/2.8-4 looks to be a replacement for the SDM cursed17-70; and the new wide angle zoom is almost certainly a replacement for the DA 12-24. There's less of a need to get these replacement lenses out right away, since they won't add anything substantially new.

[Zygonyx]

How can you keep the light path to the OVF if the sensor is blocked by the mirror?

Only known way is translucent mirror like Sony.

The biggest advantage of an EVF is it can be much, much larger than any OVF. The Fuji EVF is larger than an old film medium format camera.

It would work only in live-view mode, for example in low-light conditions if you need better contrast, or when trying to adjust thin depth of field in sunny conditions with picking.