[Kunzite]

Between copying a very old camera and spending fortunes in a futile attempt to make a killer product, there is an entire world of possibilities. I would "vote" for a K-3-level FF, and I think many of us (people willing to spend their money on it) would appreciate such a camera.
Being a better and cheaper Canikon just isn't an option.

My hands didn't suddenly shrink, nor grew - the same camera size fits them as in the past. A Pentax DSLR is quite fine; bigger is not better and neither is smaller. Isn't it good to have a camera manufacturer making medium-sized cameras, instead of only having the extremes?

A FF camera is nothing special, and Pentax can build one as easily as an equivalent APS-C. The main issue are the lenses, and to be able to sell in large enough quantities; but since Ricoh said they'll launch it, there must be a solution.
The analogy with a BMW V12 engine doesn't stand, fortunately. A FF is not that niche, they're not Aston Martins; nor does it have to target consumers (high-end APS-Cs don't, either).

[Uluru]

I’m surprised that there were no dedicated questions regarding the advanced compact cameras.

Why is everyone obsessed with FF? I personally think that compacts are *the* area where the team can excel. Reading the review of the Olympus Stylus 1 (28-300mm/2.8 lens), I was left bedazzled as to what a wonderful opportunity Ricoh Imaging is not taking any advantage of.

Compact hi-end zooms is indeed the area of their interest (if we are to believe the words of their marketing chief), but what they offer there? The moderate zoom MX-1 is just been retired and the new WGs are practically identical to the previous WGs. Only real change is Ricoh name on them.

Or they do not do such compacts because they think Q7 plus 02, or 06 lens is sufficient? But the Stylus 1 has a much better and longer zoom (quite stellar 300mm at f/2.8) and also comes with the WiFi and EVF — the essential piece of technology Ricoh Imaging seems to have no aptitude for of any sort. It seems they are avoiding it everywhere and at all costs.

This is what Imaging Resource says about the Stylus 1 (they also liked the K-3): "It's rare when a new class of camera comes our way, but that's just what the Olympus Stylus 1 is. Yes, it's a bridge camera, but in a compact body with a long, constant aperture zoom that still yields high quality images at lower ISOs and at a reasonable price, which does put it in a whole new class."

Olympus has created a whole new class of compact cameras. Fujifilm as well. Quo vadis, Ricoh Imaging?

[JPT]

Actually Ricoh has used EVFs before add add-ones to their compacts. I agree that the Olympus compact cameras are nice, but I was more impressed by the Casio EX-10 and EX-100, which have a much better control system with the same sensor and lens as the XZ-2 and the Stylus 1. Pricy though and Japan only.

[monochrome]

Ricoh believes OLED is the necessary technology for a good EVF.

[Uluru]

But we have OLED EVFs for a while already. So I'm not sure whether their answer is rather an excuse for something else?

[kadajawi]

Between copying a very old camera and spending fortunes in a futile attempt to make a killer product, there is an entire world of possibilities. I would "vote" for a K-3-level FF, and I think many of us (people willing to spend their money on it) would appreciate such a camera.
Being a better and cheaper Canikon just isn't an option.

My hands didn't suddenly shrink, nor grew - the same camera size fits them as in the past. A Pentax DSLR is quite fine; bigger is not better and neither is smaller. Isn't it good to have a camera manufacturer making medium-sized cameras, instead of only having the extremes?

A FF camera is nothing special, and Pentax can build one as easily as an equivalent APS-C. The main issue are the lenses, and to be able to sell in large enough quantities; but since Ricoh said they'll launch it, there must be a solution.
The analogy with a BMW V12 engine doesn't stand, fortunately. A FF is not that niche, they're not Aston Martins; nor does it have to target consumers (high-end APS-Cs don't, either).

Full frame cameras with mirror probably have to be bigger though, due to the bigger sensor and bigger mirror. If a FF Pentax stays the same size as it is now that is fine, but I'm afraid that is not going to happen.

And being an entry level Canikon FF camera with a Pentax badge and lens mount is just not bringing in the sort of sales that they need to make the production, let alone development of it viable. Because it will only be bought by existing Pentaxians, of whom there are only few, and also only by a few of them, because really, not everyone needs FF or is able to afford it.

Ok, what about a big V8 SUV then? Think Escalade etc.

Maybe they'll make the FF Pentax so expensive that no one in their right mind would buy it, so they don't have to bother with actually producing it. Should anyone actually order it they could basically hand build a prototype for the customer, with a metal plate with the signature of the assembler engraved into it, like with AMG engines.

Advanced compact cameras are quite an issue, I think. They exist, but do they sell? I'm not so sure about that. For that matter, Ricoh/Pentax could make a competitor to the Galaxy S4 Zoom. An Android phone, maybe developed with one of the better Chinese phone makers like Xiaomi, Meizu, Oppo, ... where the camera module is by Ricoh Pentax. Allow it to be a bit bigger, add a zoom lens, a nice sensor size, whatever they can do (there are some very slim Sony cameras with internal zoom lens that never extends).



For example. The TX30. It's just 15mm thick, with a 5x optical zoom. Up until not too long ago that was a perfectly acceptable size for a phone! Heck, the TX30 even has an integrated ring flash - sort of!

This is the T1:

The black part at the side is the camera. That's all. They can't fit THAT into a 5" phone? One side is exclusively used for the camera, the rest can be filled by screen, phone components, big battery.

At least that way they can get brand recognition and sales in the cameraphone segment.

As for EVF... does it make sense on a Q series camera? They are so small... where are you supposed to fit an EVF? If you have to increase the size of the camera, what's the point? Might as well buy a Nikon 1 or better yet a mFT camera. Now if they offer a Google Glass like EVF for the Q, then yes, that'd be interesting. You just wear glasses which let you see through the lens. But otherwise, doesn't really make sense for the Q. For a yet to be conceived APS-C or FF sensored mirrorless that's different. Ricoh could also be holding out because they want the EVF to be really good, and they haven't seen anything that is, at an acceptable price. Given that the product cycle for Ricoh/Pentax is rather long it might make sense to wait for the right component before having to commit to it for the next 2 years.

Actually, give us that thing with an HDMI input, and clean HDMI on existing and upcoming Pentax cameras. For certain situations I can totally see an EVF that's right in front of the eye at all times being better. You can get any angle, you could be with the model or product and direct/move it around, while seeing what the camera on the tripod sees. Adjust light, everything. No need to adjust, walk to the camera, have a look, adjust again, ... If they make use of the LiveView for THIS on the 645D Mk II that could be a big deal. Actual video recording is more a "well, it's there anyway, might as well offer the option" thing.

The thing is... there are plenty of batshit crazy possibilities these days, that might be interesting and differentiate them. But does Ricoh/Pentax have the balls and the money and the creativity/outside box thinking to do it? They strike me as a rather conservative company, so it'll probably be Sony who will do such mad things (like with their stick on lens with sensor for phones and tablets).

[Kunzite]

Yes, a FF "K-3" will have to be somewhat larger - is that really an issue? Don't expect a huge difference, probably the most noticeable will be the prism.

No, we won't buy an entry-level Canon FF with a Pentax badge. If we wanted that we would be in Canon-land already. We don't want an insanely expensive one either.
You're still ignoring anything in between, I see; afraid you might find something that would work?

The smartphone business is highly competitive, and it needs the lowest production costs (thinks factories where "happy" employees are jumping from the roof) and very high volumes to work. I would like Ricoh Imaging to go to the opposite direction, thank you; and to keep making photographic tools instead of going to silly gadgets.
If you want a gadget brand, look elsewhere; Pentax isn't one.

[Clavius]

As for EVF... does it make sense on a Q series camera? They are so small... where are you supposed to fit an EVF? If you have to increase the size of the camera, what's the point? Might as well buy a Nikon 1 or better yet a mFT camera. Now if they offer a Google Glass like EVF for the Q, then yes, that'd be interesting. You just wear glasses which let you see through the lens. But otherwise, doesn't really make sense for the Q.

It makes all sorts of sense, imho. One of the biggest advantages of an EVF is that it is independent from sensor format. Just a crazy example: A Q camera could be fitted with an FF EVF. What's the most heard advantage of going FF? Yes, the big viewfinder. (Although I can think of many more usefull advantages.)

Ricoh could also be holding out because they want the EVF to be really good, and they haven't seen anything that is, at an acceptable price. Given that the product cycle for Ricoh/Pentax is rather long it might make sense to wait for the right component before having to commit to it for the next 2 years.

Holding out for something better to come around is one way to describe it. They're just not innovative anymore. They'll wait untill the EVF can't developed any further before they gathered enough guts to implement it.

[froeschle]

As a comment to

Reflecting on the CP+ Pentax Interview - First-hand commentary from the interviewer

Q8: Many of our Pentax DSLR users have been asking for a camera with a “de-crippled” K-mount that includes the aperture coupler, similar to how you designed the 645D mount with aperture ring support. Is this something you would consider doing?

A8: There are fewer and fewer lenses available on the used market as time goes on. Also, it’s a completely analog operation, so the metering is not as accurate as current technology. For those two reasons, we are not prioritizing to reintroduce this function.

Forget about it. As they said, the older lenses are less and less available and don’t meter properly using modern technology. It would be a costly and time-consuming effort to make them work well with a modern system. In my view, there really is no point to making a “de-crippled” K-mount anymore.

"Older" lenses meter properly on any analog film SLR. The current implementation in the crippled DSLRs is not a minor but a severe inconvenience. The latter is not caused by the lenses but by the missing support in the bodies! One of the main reasons to choose Pentax DSLRs is the compatibility and the PK(AF2) mount. The aperture coupler is a simple mechanism, which should neither be very time-consuming nor costly to reimplement. Nikon cared about their enthusiast user base and reintroduced such a feature. Obviously, instead of following this archetype, two lame arguments were presented. There was no sensible point to cripple the K-mount. The restriction of functionality results in drawbacks. This wrong decision could have come from a fear that a full compatibility might hurt the sale of "new" lenses. However, all lenses with an aperture ring would profit from this feature - including those, which still are available new (e.g. FA 31, FA 43, FA 77, DFA 50).

Pentax/Ricoh claimed in an interview at Photokina 2012 that feedback from enthusiast users will not be ignored in the Ricoh system. They also said that a de-crippled K-mount would be realized (i.e. the aperture ring coupler would be restored), if such user feelings would be expressed and the corresponding voices would be increased. AFAIK, the corresponding petition was handed over last time in written and oral form, but got no reply whatsoever. This reaction together with the recent answer to Q8 is ... badly disappointing - to say the least.

Would a Pentax FF without an aperture coupler still be worth buying?

[Kunzite]

"The aperture coupler is a simple mechanism, which should neither be very time-consuming nor costly to reimplement." - that's relative.
Let's see things in context - we're talking about very old lenses, of which some might be good enough for a modern camera. Their numbers are indeed decreasing, and one should indeed ask if it's worth increasing the price of all cameras because of it (while a reasonably working alternative exists).
I would like to have the choice of using aperture rings (with modern lenses!), but I don't expect it to happen.

I don't see how not having full support for K/M lenses would hurt sales of new ones. How it would work, "I can't use open aperture metering with my grandpa's lenses so I'll jump to Nikon, and I won't be able to use them at all. Yep, that's an improvement"?

AFAIK, Nikon's compatibility with very old lenses isn't exactly 100% either. Something about having to register non-CPU lenses and other things even more complex than Pentax' green button trick - and that's on their retro-flagship Df

[jcdoss]

As a comment to

"Older" lenses meter properly on any analog film SLR...

They also meter properly on my fairly modern Sony NEX-6.

[mikemike]

How about a Google Glass App for tethered shooting with the FLU Card.

Ok, Pentax, take a picture.

[froeschle]

We are not necessarily talking about very old lenses here (see FA limiteds, DFAs, etc. - here one would have the choice of using the aperture rings). Regarding K/M primes, most of them should be competitive against "modern" lenses. Maybe some newer lenses are even better . As they were built "like a tank", the numbers should be decreasing very slowly. At least the higher-end DSLRs should allow for compatibility without restrictions. The "green button" is not really working properly as has been shown. Additionally, there are other advantages (see also discussion in the petition thread). Full support would allow K/M lenses to work nearly as their A counterparts. They could hurt sales as these lenses still can deliver decent image quality - at relatively low price. Jumping to Nikon is not an alternative. However, in comparison, Nikon is a shining example here. Especially, as the realization in Nikon mount is more complicated than it would be for Pentax/Ricoh (where the mechanism of the aperture coupler is e.g. fully inside the mount). Nikon nevertheless did it, so why not Pentax?


Front plate of Pentax MX SLR from interior side from wikipedia.

How expensive can such a simple mechanism be?

[macTak]

Frankly, I belive that the decision to leave the mount crippled has more to do with the expense of people buying old, used Pentax lenses than brand-new ones (so they think). In reality, though, all it does is raise the value of the "A" lenses over the "K" and "M" lenses. Also, while of course the number on the used market decreases, the decrease is slight (most people don't really throw these things away or utterly destroy them), and the production runs were very large back then. The reason for any big decrease in used availability is that people like us are buying them to use with their DSLRs (and not always Pentax anymore).

[normhead]

I guess the fact that they leave the mount crippled because most of us don't care, never really comes into play around here?