Originally posted by RobA_Oz For thirty years or more I've been seeing people decrying so-called "retro" devices, and declaring it to be a fad that will soon pass. Where that's a simple matter of styling, rather than functionality, my observation is that such products do soon pass. The Nikon Df is probably an example, albeit a high-priced one, of how a wave of enthusiasm overtook sensible evaluation for a short while, and then faded. There are counter examples, though, such as the OM-D (and other products in other markets, such as Caterham 7s and a variety of espresso machines) that endure because earlier technologies have been put to use in a functional manner that buyers find ongoing appeal with.
So, what's the point of a "retro" appearing Pentax camera? If it has lasting (ie functional, rather than just visual) appeal, it'll be sold to new users who have discovered that older technologies can make the experience of taking photos just as much a reason for doing it as the end product. I don't buy the argument that says the image is everything: of course it's the ultimate goal in the process, and it's the only lasting outcome, but if you hate the process, you're less likely to do it, or at least be less likely to do it properly.
The real problem with such cameras, it seems to me, is the matter of price. There isn't going to be a Pentax MX-D or K1000D if the buyer has to pay more than for a K-3, or approaching a K-1's price. If anyone could pull off such a feat, though, it's more likely to be a Pentax than another brand.
It's not going to appear at this Photokina, though, it seems.
I agree with some of what you are saying, but the DF was a fad camera. They took the D3 I think it was, and de-tuned it .......basically made it worse so's it might appear to be "retro". People aren't stupid, they realized it was a daft thing, though plenty of fanboi's bought it.
Think of it as Porsche does business: They make a 911 and its a great car but heavy. They take that same 911 and turn it into a GT or club sport by stripping out the electric windows, heated seats and lots of comforts, then they tune the engine, suspension, brakes and exhaust and make it produce a lot more horsepower. Yes its now more uncivilized, but its a track day car and can blitz around the track.
So taking a camera, then stripping it of this that and the other to make it retro .........and it LOSES performance, will be frowned on by reviewers. It will be another laughing stock.
Pentax cannot afford to produce a camera with a design philosophy as the DF. The K-01 was an example where they took the the path with the least resistance to a mirrorless body, and it was a flop. So you can't put a tiny amount of effort into something and expect to earn a fortune. You have to build a product thats kickin it ! Thats innovative, thats high tech, that styled by a proper industrial designer.
Retro for the sake of retro will be a flop, but retro with advancements will probably work ....... but now they're all jumping on the bandwagon and playing it safe as a retro styling cue.
---------- Post added 09-22-16 at 08:45 PM ----------
Originally posted by adjutant I wouldn't called the Nikon Df a good example of "retro styling". The "retro" is so poorly done, so it's failing can't be attributed to "retro" being a dying fad. Tell me you wouldn't buy a simple, ISO-Aperture-Shutter manual control camera the same size and style of a Pentax MX. That's what I would call a retro camera, imagine nice FF limited lenses on that beauty. Not a giant MX that's just a K-1 in a sad excuse of a "retro" shell.
Its not going to work. It would be a laughing stock by every reviewer. They'll be like, "Oh Pentax has sluggish AF performance to start with compared to others, fewer focus points, and poor video, but takes very very nice photos. Now this new Pentax retro camera has even worse performance and has gone backwards to be more retro". Could you imagine the chuckles and comments on threads lambasting Pentax for not improving the things that they all seem to complain about.
No, Pentax needs to be moving into a high technology philosophy for product development and greater customer feedback. Minimalism will fail, just ask Stalin !