[Schraubstock]

aim towards the state of lower entropy...

I can't help thinking you have fallen in love with the word "entropy".

[derekkite]

On the other hand there is a danger of the current market for their products disappearing. We have the example of film, compact cameras, where a huge and profitable market ceases to exist. A technological change comes and the whole raison d'etre for your product line no longer is there.

Full frame does give some advantages that appeal to certain market segments. They are a solution to a problem.

Everything that I have in my hand in the K-3 and the lens collection on my desk are solutions to a specific challenge that I and others have had for years to capture an image in a specific set of circumstances. The technologies are changing, new ways are becoming available that may solve those problems in a way that is cheaper and more reliable. If Pentax isn't there, they will lose badly.

The problem is the Pentax, or Ricoh for that matter, cannot predict what will work, what will not work. It really is a matter of throwing things at the wall to see what sticks.

On the other hand, Sony came out with a full frame mirrorless at a rather attractive price point. The complex mirror/shutter assembly in a dslr is a manufacturing and support nightmare, but Sony has to fix a bunch of sloppy light leaks in their easy to manufacture and support marvel. The weather proof bodies and lenses have the added advantage of not leaking light.

[Uluru]

I can't help thinking you have fallen in love with the word "entropy".

It is a nice word that quickly describes the state of a complex system and we can draw analogies from many other examples.
Plus, it is worthwhile to uplift this FF problem solving into a higher level of understanding, not leave it in the mud of rant based on wishful thinking

---------- Post added 03-17-2014 at 05:19 PM ----------

On the other hand there is a danger of the current market for their products disappearing. We have the example of film, compact cameras, where a huge and profitable market ceases to exist. A technological change comes and the whole raison d'etre for your product line no longer is there.

Full frame does give some advantages that appeal to certain market segments. They are a solution to a problem.

FF is the solution to a problem only where there is enough suitable and capable FF lenses and accessories that may take advantage of an FF investment.
In all other cases it is not a solution at all — it will only create a plethora of new problems.
As said before, the FF may be a solution for Nikon or Canon or Leica, as they continuously issue and invest in new FF lenses, but not for anyone else.

All the same, if we think certain markets will disappear, and then presume those must be Crop sensor markets (because we are fed with misinformation), why wouldn't FF disappear one day too, leaving the only grounds to the MF systems as an alternative to super-smart smartphones? Because the FF is just a crop of the MF, and currently, MF is no crop of anything above it.

Then we go in circles, because any "logic" used to superimpose the FF as a universal solution to camera industry problems is a fallacy of reason. The root causes of the problem have not been assessed properly, but rather crowd immediately jumped into conclusions. Acting without any analysis rooted in common sense, but jumping into shallow conclusions, many blogs and so called online camera pundits only cause further contraction of the market by feeding the disinformation about "the only one viable solution".

It is almost like "the great deluge scenario", in which only a supersized Noah's ark guided by one crew and divine will is *the solution* for preservation of life on Earth, and not, perhaps, building of a fleet of smaller ships with smart captains and their crew and some duplicates of flora and fauna across different ships?

On the other hand, Sony came out with a full frame mirrorless at a rather attractive price point. The complex mirror/shutter assembly in a dslr is a manufacturing and support nightmare, but Sony has to fix a bunch of sloppy light leaks in their easy to manufacture and support marvel. The weather proof bodies and lenses have the added advantage of not leaking light.

Again, what was Sony's problem in the first place that you see A7 as the solution?
As Norah Jones would sing, "Here we go again".

[RobA_Oz]

Sony has been the one throwing everything against the wall to see what sticks. I really doubt that Ricoh is about to change course and do that.

As for a lack of lenses to suit a 35FF body being a problem, it's only a problem in the conceptual phase of a new system development. Once it passes that phase (assuming, of course, that it does) it ceases to be a problem, and becomes part of the development strategy. Sony's issue with the A7s is that it has thrown yet another product at the wall, which appears to be only partially developed. Zeiss must be wondering how they're supposed to keep up, if they've been asked to at all, straight after they've introduced a brand new product line for MFT.

[DSims]

|


When Nikon and Canon aim towards the lower entropy to help themselves, please explain how the higher entropy will help Pentax? I cannot explain, but can you?

I propose a simple solution: "The FF is future for all" is a myth perpetuated through passive understanding of the market strategy of the biggest camera market players. It is something that sounds like future on the surface, but many do not go deeper than that to understand why it makes sense for big two and not for all others. To insist on its universal applicability is the fallacy of reason.

People seldom reach beyond the second Why? question in any inquiry, and therefore enthusiast users and analysts confuse the two: the realities of different players and how the maximum benefit is achieved. So what is good for big two is not good for everyone else, as all players aim to simplify, but in their own terms.

It is all about economisation of the resources. The level of satisfaction, however, may remain same in all categories if that state is achieved.

Why do you keep referring to entropy when its meaning outside of science is not even clearly agreed upon? It confuses the reader and weakens your argument.



However, a simple answer to most of what you're saying:

In the marketplace, perception often matters more than reality. And this situation's not changing. In most technological societies now, belief in absolute truth is waning. So we're victims to the whims of perception more than ever.



In moving forward with a FF, Ricoh's likely creating a product that's good in both perception and reality. Since they're serious about the market, the only responsible move is to try it. And so far, what they've tried has been well executed.

They're not creating chaos in their production chain, as you seem to be suggesting.



EDIT: I just read your profile - I think that since you have both a K-7 and a 645D (and I presume enough lenses to go with them) you can't relate to those who are stuck in the middle and could afford only a FF camera and a few changes in their lens kit. But Ricoh can.

---------- Post added 03-16-14 at 11:57 PM ----------

It is almost like "the great deluge scenario", in which only a supersized Noah's ark guided by one crew and divine will is *the solution* for preservation of life on Earth, and not, perhaps, building of a fleet of smaller ships with smart captains and their crew and some duplicates of flora and fauna across different ships?

You left out a basic fact. All other potential captains were evil and couldn't be preserved.

You've probably done the same thing in your other arguments - I don't think I need to read them any more.

[kadajawi]

Well, it looks like they plan to improve video as one of the reasons people will have to upgrade to new cameras..
Of course that also means zero motivation to improve current models via firmware upgrades..

Now that explains why the K-3 is worse for video than the K-5!

But really, they aren't Canon. If they keep neglecting video for another 2 years until the K-3 successor is out people will have moved on to other brands, and they won't be coming back. Olympus offers in body stabilization that's even better than what Pentax could offer, Canon (unwillingly) offers raw. Nikon offers superior video quality. Panasonic offers vastly superior video quality. Pentax offers... er... nothing. A me too product that ticks the checkboxes on the packaging, cause they have to, but does not excel at anything. At most it is enough to keep existing Pentaxians with the brand.

In terms of FF I read the interview more as a "there is a FF camera that we're tinkering with, but we're not going to put it into production at the moment cause quite frankly it doesn't make any business sense to release it. But if we get to that point, yes, you'll get FF". I don't think FF will make financial sense for Pentax, and they know it. Can they compete on price? No, cause there's no way they'll sell enough of them to bring down production costs. Can they compete on features, quality? I doubt that too. Can they compete in terms of lens selection? Nah. Making a camera for the few Pentaxians that want FF (a small subset of a small subset of the market) is, well, they could probably hand build it when ordered, just like supercars and hypercars. It makes little sense, especially since that also means a higher price tag, not because it is a superior product, but because they produce so few of them. Which means the number of Pentaxians who will buy it is even smaller, because who would buy a camera that costs significantly more than the camera from another brand, though they are essentially the same or the other brand's camera is even better. Or Pentax makes a camera + system that will make Canon and Nikon shooters switch brands. Yeah right.

Oh and yes, I prefer this interview too. The questions and answers are simply more interesting.

@RonHendriks1966: There is a reason to replace the K-3 sooner. At the time it was launched it was a meeeeeh camera for video that could just keep up with cameras launched years ago. Since photographers have to shoot video too (unless you're only doing it as a hobby) it is just not a good tool. It is usable under certain conditions, but the competitors are already ahead, and will be much further ahead in a year or two. The only reason to use a K-3 is because you already have Pentax lenses, but you can simply use an adapter to use those on better cameras. Now, Pentax COULD fix the K-3 to a certain extend through firmware, but... will they do it?

Anyway, this obsession with FF is stupid IMHO. Should that be all that Canikon do they will lose a lot of customers to Panasonic and Olympus, and perhaps Pentax. Not everyone wants to have health issues because of these stupid massive cameras. And sensors are getting better and better, to a point where there really is no point in FF except for very shallow DoF. Yes, they may still be a bit better, but at some point mFT will be so good that an improvement will not matter anymore. Not everyone wants to carry a heavy, massive camera plus heavy, massive lenses. Look at how much I can get in a mFT system, in a small bag, and how much bigger the equivalent gear would be if it were FF. The K-5 is the absolute limit for me. Any bigger/heavier and it is completely out of the question.

So I agree with Uluru, Pentax should simply say no to FF (there's no way they could add anything meaningful to the FF world, and it would divert their attention from where they can actually make a difference). APS-C and MF is where Pentax should be at. Maybe do Super 35 too, and extend to the rather profitable video market (look at the prices Canon sells their Cinema EOS line at).

@Uluru: The point is that people will not buy a Pentax APS-C camera but a Canikon APS-C camera because they want to be able to move to FF in future, if they want to. Pentax APS-C is a dead end at this point. And while I agree that there are such users, they may also ignore Pentax because it isn't used by working photographers in the field (at least as far as they can tell, usually you see pros using Canikon, except for in high end studios perhaps). I see many working photographers (for example at weddings) using APS-C DSLRs, and they are also shooting video at the same time. Good luck doing that with a K-3.

I think for Pentax a FF camera would be a bit of a halo product, produced at a loss in tiny numbers to show what they can do, a product buyers can aspire to. But they already have the 645D. If I were Pentax, I might release a competitive FF camera, at a competitive price, but only produce/sell 1 per day, because it would have to be sold at a loss, and that is to be kept to a minimum.

[aurele]

may i point the fact that you all seems to consider that the Canikon FF is the only way a décent FF should be. The A7 be the mirrorless one.

I have not interest in FF but i believe that if Pentax can create something different, that suits photographer, with no useless features, it can be a hit even to the mass. Creat something that feel good in hand, that is like familiar, something that is naturally understood (some could say like a SLR), and you'll have a hit.

[Kunzite]

It is a nice word that quickly describes the state of a complex system and we can draw analogies from many other examples.
Plus, it is worthwhile to uplift this FF problem solving into a higher level of understanding, not leave it in the mud of rant based on wishful thinking

But what does it mean, exactly? Without a definition, it's just muddling up things.

FF is the solution to a problem only where there is enough suitable and capable FF lenses and accessories that may take advantage of an FF investment.
In all other cases it is not a solution at all — it will only create a plethora of new problems.
As said before, the FF may be a solution for Nikon or Canon or Leica, as they continuously issue and invest in new FF lenses, but not for anyone else.

That's circular reasoning. "They can't launch FF because they don't already have a large enough FF line". I wonder how anything was started on this planet...
All vague, unsubstantiated. FF is the solution to which problem, that no new entrants are allowed? What "plethora of new problems" are you talking about?

FF is so remarkably similar with APS-C that we shouldn't draw a hard line between them. Whatever works with APS-C will work with FF... except that it will be lower volume, higher price.
Saying Pentax cannot add something meaningful to FF is the same as saying they can't do it with APS-C. The people making such claims, are they really Pentaxians? Why?

[kadajawi]

may i point the fact that you all seems to consider that the Canikon FF is the only way a décent FF should be. The A7 be the mirrorless one.

I have not interest in FF but i believe that if Pentax can create something different, that suits photographer, with no useless features, it can be a hit even to the mass. Creat something that feel good in hand, that is like familiar, something that is naturally understood (some could say like a SLR), and you'll have a hit.

Yes, but that segment is now covered too. And losing the mirror would be losing the one main advantage FF has for me. If I have to use a viewfinder anyway, I might as well go with a smaller sensor, the viewfinder will be the same size. Of course that's just me, it could still make sense for others.

So... lets just assume Pentax does a FF Spotmatic that is without mirror. That would mean an entirely new lens lineup... simply going back to old designs won't do it. If they want to make the camera smaller. If they want to keep the K mount and lens compatibility, they'd have to keep the flange distance as it is... which means there is not much of a size advantage. Also, Pentax has been avoiding EVF so far, and they have done one "proper" mirrorless and a few toy ones so far. Sony however has been doing mirrorless for quite a while, and quite successfully, and they haven't had an optical viewfinder in years on any camera. All EVF. That means that Sony knows how to do mirrorless cameras with an EVF. Pentax has pretty much no experience.

@Kunzite: Try bringing the SR system to FF. The sensor is bigger, it has a higher mass. Good luck moving it fast enough, precise enough, far enough. Are there any FF cameras with optical stabilization? If Pentax can't offer USABLE SR in camera, they will have to have it in the lenses. Which again means new lenses, investments, ... otherwise why would I go for a camera system that does not offer any form of stabilization? And what else could Pentax bring to the market? I like Pentax for having SR, and for being reasonably small and light yet weather proof, and for having a good UI. How small and light can they make a FF camera? Weather sealing exists on FF cameras. FF cameras are generally reasonably well thought out too, because of their target audience.

Remember, only Canon, Nikon and Sony are in the FF market. The brands that have a lot of experience and have invested tons of money into the development of these cameras. The FF market has the best cameras there are... the best AF systems, the fastest processors, etc. Cameras that demonstrate the very best there is. Competing there is... difficult. Just ask Sony.

[Clavius]

Hang on, if APS-C would disappear, then why hasn't M4/3 disappeared for exactly the same reasons? There are very nice M4/3 cameras being sold that are more expensive then most APS-C mid range camers and even some flagships. Why is that? Because different people prefer different things. I don't think any of the ILC systems is going to disappear at all. It will affect pricing though, but that's not new at all. The only thing that's doomed is our wallets.

The outcome of the interview is nothing new. The "NO" to FF is loud and clear yet again. Now all the Pentaxians will go through a few phases. I see this discussion has reached the nobody-needs-it-anway-stage fairly quickly now.

[Kunzite]

It's not "nobody-needs-it-anyway". It's "too late; they can't do anything about it" i.e. PentaxIsDoomed.

[kadajawi]

It's not "nobody-needs-it-anyway". It's "too late; they can't do anything about it" i.e. PentaxIsDoomed.

Pentax is indeed doomed, but not because of FF, but because of video. The only companies that can allow themselves to not take video serious is Fujifilm and Leica (ok, and Hasselblad and Phase One, I guess). And I think even they will have to provide good video sooner or later.

It's funny how in pretty much every interview with Nikon, Canon, Panasonic or Olympus video plays a big part. Only with Pentax interviews it seems like interviewers have almost given up.

[ogl]

Pentax is indeed doomed, but not because of FF, but because of video. The only companies that can allow themselves to not take video serious is Fujifilm and Leica (ok, and Hasselblad and Phase One, I guess). And I think even they will have to provide good video sooner or later.

It's funny how in pretty much every interview with Nikon, Canon, Panasonic or Olympus video plays a big part. Only with Pentax interviews it seems like interviewers have almost given up.

I don't care about video at all. If you want video, buy video camera. Or Panasonic m4/3.
Panasonic and Canon had a long traditions of making video cameras. Pentax never had such experience.

[kadajawi]

I don't care about video at all. If you want video, buy video camera. Or Panasonic m4/3.
Panasonic and Canon had a long traditions of making video cameras. Pentax never had such experience.

Panasonic and Canon want to sell you $10000 cameras that are technically $2000 cameras with some features unlocked. Pentax doesn't have that sort of limitation. And video cameras simply do not have good image quality, unless you spend really a lot on them. A recent $1500 video camera is, in terms of image quality, dynamic range etc. easily beaten by a $150 point & shoot. Let alone a DSLR. That video camera, which is said to have excellent image quality, can't even get a blue sky right. The colors go all wrong because of clipping of one of the colors. The colors are almost always pretty ugly.

Also, keep in mind that professional photographers already have to or will have to shoot video, unless they have found themselves some niche where it doesn't matter. They may not want to carry 2 different cameras. They'd rather flick a switch.

[Clavius]

I'm a complete video-n00b. But very recently I discovered how nicely the video output of my old trusty K-5 is. It certainly outperformes the video of my Sony video camera. A small external mic fixed the issue I had with the abysmal sound of the onboard mic. The video of my K-3 is (at least) just as good. What is wrong with Pentax video features? I'll repeat that I'm just not that into video. Something to do with my inability to actually sit down and watch movie for more then 5 seconds.