Ricoh want's to go mirrorless? With X-mount/Fujifilm? at least 2 years away.

D1N0 · 03-13-2016, 12:05 PM

Who says it will be marketed as Pentax? They might just as well call it Ricoh. Who gives a hoot? More choice and competition is always better. It drives innovation.

surfar · 03-13-2016, 12:08 PM

Neither M4/3 nor ICLmirrorless @ the moment....but Panasonic can offer both

andymuns · 03-13-2016, 12:10 PM

Ricoh made a statement that all interchangeable lens cameras will have the pentax brand...

eurostar · 03-13-2016, 12:42 PM

Originally posted by Clinton

I'm really trying to see why anyone would give a hoot? This is already a solved problem.

If I want mirrorless, and I don't want the super tiny Q; what can Pentax give me above the existing offerings? If I want mirrorless, I'll buy a Sony. If I want m4/3 I'll buy an Olympus. What is the Pentax brand going to offer me?

Maybe the same differences that a Pentax reflex can offer compared to Nikon and Canon.

**Mikesul** · 03-13-2016, 02:25 PM

Originally posted by Clinton

I'm really trying to see why anyone would give a hoot? This is already a solved problem.

If I want mirrorless, and I don't want the super tiny Q; what can Pentax give me above the existing offerings? If I want mirrorless, I'll buy a Sony. If I want m4/3 I'll buy an Olympus. What is the Pentax brand going to offer me?

The lenses. Many of us might have switched long ago except for our cherished K-mount lenses.

Na Horuk · 03-13-2016, 02:37 PM

Ricoh (or rather, Pentax) already has plenty of camera mounts. Q, K (APSC and FF), 645 (crop and full), and even some legacy mounts like 110 and 67. I don't think it would be wise to make yet another mount. And it would be even worse to "sell out" and join another company's mount. Maybe if Ricoh buys that company, first, but even then it would be a mess differentiating between Ricoh, Pentax and Third Brand camera systems.

**clackers** · 03-13-2016, 02:40 PM

Originally posted by mecrox

. CDAF is also fast, in my experience.

It's slow, Mecrox.

That's why mirrorless manufacturers are having to bcke in PDAF points to their sensors.

mecrox · 03-13-2016, 02:52 PM

Originally posted by clackers

It's slow, Mecrox.

That's why mirrorless manufacturers are having to bcke in PDAF points to their sensors.

Not for single shots, not at all, at least on my camera. I think PDAF is for tracking, which is fair enough.

**clackers** · 03-13-2016, 03:26 PM

Originally posted by mecrox

Not for single shots, not at all, at least on my camera. I think PDAF is for tracking, which is fair enough.

Your mirrorless camera may have a poor PDAF implementation.

Go to a modern DSLR, take pictures (especially in low contrast situations like low light), and see the difference between speeds to focus in Live View and not.

mecrox · 03-13-2016, 04:06 PM

Originally posted by clackers

Your mirrorless camera may have a poor PDAF implementation.

Go to a modern DSLR, take pictures (especially in low contrast situations like low light), and see the difference between speeds to focus in Live View and not.

My mirrorless camera has very fast CDAF and that's enough for me

I didn't buy it because of its PDAF implementation. If I needed fast, top-notch tracking focus, I would likely use a DSLR for its PDAF. As it is, I hardly ever need this so CDAF is fine for my purposes. There's really no better or worse here in some absolute sense. It's horses for courses, tools for the job, etc. And each to their own.

**monochrome** · 03-13-2016, 04:16 PM

Originally posted by Na Horuk

Maybe if Ricoh buys that company, first, but even then it would be a mess differentiating between Ricoh, Pentax and Third Brand camera systems.

That strategy represented a significant part of Ricoh's growth in office machines over the last thirty years. Often they ran the acquired brand in parallel and gradually consolidated certain administrative functions. They improved manufacturing operations either at the acquired company or at their own with acquired processes, skill and real estate.

johnmflores · 03-13-2016, 04:19 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by clackers

Your mirrorless camera may have a poor PDAF implementation.

Go to a modern DSLR, take pictures (especially in low contrast situations like low light), and see the difference between speeds to focus in Live View and not.

Panasonic GH4 uses CDAF with DFD and is very very fast. I know someone that switched from Canon full frame to the GH4 for street and events and he says the AF is great.

At the end of the day, what tech is used doesn't matter as long as the camera gets the results in the form factor and price point desired.

IchabodCrane · 03-13-2016, 06:32 PM

Originally posted by clackers

Your mirrorless camera may have a poor PDAF implementation.

Go to a modern DSLR, take pictures (especially in low contrast situations like low light), and see the difference between speeds to focus in Live View and not.

All that demonstrates is CDAF on DSLRs is slow. I played with an Oly E-M1 in a nearby store and it was as fast focusing as any camera I've ever touched (for single shots). Tracking is not as good but it gets much better with each successive generation of camera body (caveat: when there's on-sensor PDAF). Nikon, Canon, and to a lesser extent, Ricoh, still have an advantage but I wonder if that's more due to many years of software development than it is to hardware.

**clackers** · 03-13-2016, 06:48 PM

Originally posted by mecrox

My mirrorless camera has very fast CDAF and that's enough for me

Olympus, right?

I used a friend's EM-10D and found it no better than my NEX 7 or A7, neither of which I'd use for action or sports.

Originally posted by mecrox

It's horses for courses, tools for the job, etc. And each to their own.

Agreed. ☺

Simen1 · 03-14-2016, 03:09 AM

Originally posted by Na Horuk

Ricoh (or rather, Pentax) already has plenty of camera mounts. Q, K (APSC and FF), 645 (crop and full), and even some legacy mounts like 110 and 67. I don't think it would be wise to make yet another mount. And it would be even worse to "sell out" and join another company's mount. Maybe if Ricoh buys that company, first, but even then it would be a mess differentiating between Ricoh, Pentax and Third Brand camera systems.

I think It would be unfair to use legacy mounts as an argument against a new mount. And I think its wise to have a small upgradeability within one mount. Like from APS-C to FF or from 1/2,3" to 1/1,7". I don’t think the current three mounts will remain. K is of course the strongest and will probably last for a long time, but Q are in my opinion a temporarily mount that wont survive the competition from high end compacts the next decade. I wont be surprised if the Q mount is abandoned before 2020. The 645 is another matter. The cameras are good for high end studio shooting but the competition from FF K-mount will be hard. I think it will get an upgrade path to digital FF 645 in the near future to keep its position as a high end camera.

A new mount would probably fill a hole in the current line up and be mirrorless. I have no clue at what sensor format they may choose but I would guess it will offer upgradeability to MF sensor sizes because larger sensors will get cheaper over the next decades and Pentax don’t wont to invest a lot into a short lived mount. It could maybe start with APS-C, FF and 33x44mm but have a large enough mount ring to be upgradable to full frame 645 in the future. Or they may skip APS-C from the beginning. And I believe Pentax will ease our upgrade path by offering mount adapters with electronic coupling and maybe a focus motor.

Originally posted by clackers

Your mirrorless camera may have a poor PDAF implementation. Go to a modern DSLR, take pictures (especially in low contrast situations like low light), and see the difference between speeds to focus in Live View and not.

Modern DSLRs are not optimized for non PDAF focusing. The best mirrorless cameras have superior focusing compared to low end dslrs, but they are not quite up to the dslr competition in their own price range. If high end follow focusing is the absolute top priority there is not much that competes with D500, D5 and 1DX mkII.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
For Sale - Sold: Tokina AT-X 80-200/2.8 SD Ka-mount Lens with Hood and Case	fwcetus	Sold Items	7	09-24-2015 03:54 PM
upgrading from k-x should i go mirrorless?	rabblefrabble	Pentax DSLR Discussion	20	11-29-2014 03:53 PM
Ricoh's marketing email go straight to Spam folder	RonakG	Photographic Industry and Professionals	16	04-19-2014 11:08 AM
No FF for at least two years.	normhead	Pentax DSLR Discussion	22	10-02-2012 08:27 AM
I want to stay with Pentax, but which way to go?	Horst Laumer	Pentax DSLR Discussion	16	10-22-2011 05:41 PM

03-13-2016, 12:05 PM	#91
D1N0 Pentaxian Join Date: May 2012 Location: --- Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,802 Original Poster	Who says it will be marketed as Pentax? They might just as well call it Ricoh. Who gives a hoot? More choice and competition is always better. It drives innovation.

03-13-2016, 12:08 PM	#92
surfar Pentaxian Join Date: Jan 2015 Location: mid nth coast,nsw Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,142	Neither M4/3 nor ICLmirrorless @ the moment....but Panasonic can offer both

03-13-2016, 12:10 PM	#93
andymuns New Member Join Date: Feb 2012 Location: Brisbane Australia Photos: Gallery Posts: 22	Ricoh made a statement that all interchangeable lens cameras will have the pentax brand...

03-13-2016, 12:42 PM	#94
eurostar Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Albareto, Italy Photos: Gallery Posts: 819	Originally posted by Clinton I'm really trying to see why anyone would give a hoot? This is already a solved problem. If I want mirrorless, and I don't want the super tiny Q; what can Pentax give me above the existing offerings? If I want mirrorless, I'll buy a Sony. If I want m4/3 I'll buy an Olympus. What is the Pentax brand going to offer me? Maybe the same differences that a Pentax reflex can offer compared to Nikon and Canon.

03-13-2016, 02:25 PM	#95
Mikesul Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Phoenix, AZ Posts: 7,594	Originally posted by Clinton I'm really trying to see why anyone would give a hoot? This is already a solved problem. If I want mirrorless, and I don't want the super tiny Q; what can Pentax give me above the existing offerings? If I want mirrorless, I'll buy a Sony. If I want m4/3 I'll buy an Olympus. What is the Pentax brand going to offer me? The lenses. Many of us might have switched long ago except for our cherished K-mount lenses.

03-13-2016, 02:37 PM	#96
Na Horuk Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2012 Location: Slovenia, probably Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 11,186	Ricoh (or rather, Pentax) already has plenty of camera mounts. Q, K (APSC and FF), 645 (crop and full), and even some legacy mounts like 110 and 67. I don't think it would be wise to make yet another mount. And it would be even worse to "sell out" and join another company's mount. Maybe if Ricoh buys that company, first, but even then it would be a mess differentiating between Ricoh, Pentax and Third Brand camera systems.

03-13-2016, 02:40 PM	#97
clackers Otis Memorial Pentaxian Join Date: Jul 2013 Location: Melbourne Photos: Albums Posts: 16,397	Originally posted by mecrox . CDAF is also fast, in my experience. It's slow, Mecrox. That's why mirrorless manufacturers are having to bcke in PDAF points to their sensors.

03-13-2016, 02:52 PM	#98
mecrox Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Oxford, UK Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,375	Originally posted by clackers It's slow, Mecrox. That's why mirrorless manufacturers are having to bcke in PDAF points to their sensors. Not for single shots, not at all, at least on my camera. I think PDAF is for tracking, which is fair enough.

03-13-2016, 03:26 PM	#99
clackers Otis Memorial Pentaxian Join Date: Jul 2013 Location: Melbourne Photos: Albums Posts: 16,397	Originally posted by mecrox Not for single shots, not at all, at least on my camera. I think PDAF is for tracking, which is fair enough. Your mirrorless camera may have a poor PDAF implementation. Go to a modern DSLR, take pictures (especially in low contrast situations like low light), and see the difference between speeds to focus in Live View and not.

03-13-2016, 04:06 PM	#100
mecrox Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Oxford, UK Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,375	Originally posted by clackers Your mirrorless camera may have a poor PDAF implementation. Go to a modern DSLR, take pictures (especially in low contrast situations like low light), and see the difference between speeds to focus in Live View and not. My mirrorless camera has very fast CDAF and that's enough for me I didn't buy it because of its PDAF implementation. If I needed fast, top-notch tracking focus, I would likely use a DSLR for its PDAF. As it is, I hardly ever need this so CDAF is fine for my purposes. There's really no better or worse here in some absolute sense. It's horses for courses, tools for the job, etc. And each to their own.

03-13-2016, 04:16 PM	#101
monochrome Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Working From Home Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 26,276	Originally posted by Na Horuk Maybe if Ricoh buys that company, first, but even then it would be a mess differentiating between Ricoh, Pentax and Third Brand camera systems. That strategy represented a significant part of Ricoh's growth in office machines over the last thirty years. Often they ran the acquired brand in parallel and gradually consolidated certain administrative functions. They improved manufacturing operations either at the acquired company or at their own with acquired processes, skill and real estate.

03-13-2016, 04:19 PM - 1 Like	#102
johnmflores Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Somerville, NJ Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 5,361	Originally posted by clackers Your mirrorless camera may have a poor PDAF implementation. Go to a modern DSLR, take pictures (especially in low contrast situations like low light), and see the difference between speeds to focus in Live View and not. Panasonic GH4 uses CDAF with DFD and is very very fast. I know someone that switched from Canon full frame to the GH4 for street and events and he says the AF is great. At the end of the day, what tech is used doesn't matter as long as the camera gets the results in the form factor and price point desired.

03-13-2016, 06:32 PM	#103
IchabodCrane Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2012 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,728	Originally posted by clackers Your mirrorless camera may have a poor PDAF implementation. Go to a modern DSLR, take pictures (especially in low contrast situations like low light), and see the difference between speeds to focus in Live View and not. All that demonstrates is CDAF on DSLRs is slow. I played with an Oly E-M1 in a nearby store and it was as fast focusing as any camera I've ever touched (for single shots). Tracking is not as good but it gets much better with each successive generation of camera body (caveat: when there's on-sensor PDAF). Nikon, Canon, and to a lesser extent, Ricoh, still have an advantage but I wonder if that's more due to many years of software development than it is to hardware.

03-13-2016, 06:48 PM	#104
clackers Otis Memorial Pentaxian Join Date: Jul 2013 Location: Melbourne Photos: Albums Posts: 16,397	Originally posted by mecrox My mirrorless camera has very fast CDAF and that's enough for me Olympus, right? I used a friend's EM-10D and found it no better than my NEX 7 or A7, neither of which I'd use for action or sports. Originally posted by mecrox It's horses for courses, tools for the job, etc. And each to their own. Agreed. ☺

03-14-2016, 03:09 AM	#105
Simen1 Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Tromsø, Norway Photos: Albums Posts: 1,031	Originally posted by Na Horuk Ricoh (or rather, Pentax) already has plenty of camera mounts. Q, K (APSC and FF), 645 (crop and full), and even some legacy mounts like 110 and 67. I don't think it would be wise to make yet another mount. And it would be even worse to "sell out" and join another company's mount. Maybe if Ricoh buys that company, first, but even then it would be a mess differentiating between Ricoh, Pentax and Third Brand camera systems. I think It would be unfair to use legacy mounts as an argument against a new mount. And I think its wise to have a small upgradeability within one mount. Like from APS-C to FF or from 1/2,3" to 1/1,7". I don’t think the current three mounts will remain. K is of course the strongest and will probably last for a long time, but Q are in my opinion a temporarily mount that wont survive the competition from high end compacts the next decade. I wont be surprised if the Q mount is abandoned before 2020. The 645 is another matter. The cameras are good for high end studio shooting but the competition from FF K-mount will be hard. I think it will get an upgrade path to digital FF 645 in the near future to keep its position as a high end camera. A new mount would probably fill a hole in the current line up and be mirrorless. I have no clue at what sensor format they may choose but I would guess it will offer upgradeability to MF sensor sizes because larger sensors will get cheaper over the next decades and Pentax don’t wont to invest a lot into a short lived mount. It could maybe start with APS-C, FF and 33x44mm but have a large enough mount ring to be upgradable to full frame 645 in the future. Or they may skip APS-C from the beginning. And I believe Pentax will ease our upgrade path by offering mount adapters with electronic coupling and maybe a focus motor. Originally posted by clackers Your mirrorless camera may have a poor PDAF implementation. Go to a modern DSLR, take pictures (especially in low contrast situations like low light), and see the difference between speeds to focus in Live View and not. Modern DSLRs are not optimized for non PDAF focusing. The best mirrorless cameras have superior focusing compared to low end dslrs, but they are not quite up to the dslr competition in their own price range. If high end follow focusing is the absolute top priority there is not much that competes with D500, D5 and 1DX mkII.