Originally posted by Simen1 Yes, its a strawman that tells why your logic fails. You judge the whole concept based on one single camera model. Just like the strawman.
No, its not just something less, like in removed. Its something different as in replaced by another set of advantages and disadvantages. Neither the K-01 or Sigma Quattro would be a success if they had a mirror, prism and OVF. They would still be niche products with weird design. Thats the differentiating factor, not the long register distance concept. This concept done with a different design, like the K-02 I described, would be a success.
You forget to see the advantages. Advantages that quite a lot of people prefer. Fake pentaprism are a strawman. Make that an EVF with features like I have mentioned so many times now. Nicolas06 too.
Do you know what a strawman is?
Straw man - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The K-01 with a mirror and optical viewfinder is the K-30.
I'm not using strawmen. I was specifically talking about design, because it's often mentioned - and Marc Newson often blamed for the K-01's (perceived?) failure. Even more specifically, I've seen a K-01 image with a film-era pentaprism photoshopped on top of it - I wonder where
FTR, and EVF housing doesn't have to look like a pentaprism housing. Thus, fake.
By the way, most MILCs sold don't have EVFs, some don't even support optional EVF accessories. You're putting too much faith into slipping an EVF to an already failed camera.
---------- Post added 07-10-16 at 10:57 AM ----------
Originally posted by Nicolas06 There even less reason to assume that make a "generic" MILC would be a success.
You are mistaken.
Originally posted by Nicolas06 Reusing K-mount, all the existing Pentax K-mount user have a reasons to try/buy one:
- Smaller/Lighter body that play very well with smaller lenses (limited serie, plastic wonder, RE lenses) and work perfectly with the other 2.
- Benefit of having an EVF: see actual exposure and dof. Possibility to provide focus peaking and display many advanced information. Crop modes still take 100% of the viewfinder (contry to K1 were APSC crop project a smaller image than on an APSC body).
- Manufacturing cost: EVF and the associated electronics is something whom cost decrease over time. The removal of dedicated AF sensors, mirror and Pentaprims make a real gain and make it far easier to achieve hight bust rate and 100% continuous AF as the mirror never hide the scene from the AF sensors. This cost reduction is brought to the K-mount echosystem that is the key asset of Pentax.
- Progressive evolution: It is almost impossible to make a perfect product from day1. Product like K70 let you try the water and once you feel confident you can make a mirrorless body. But even if that body isn't perfect, there will be a market for it because for many people this will be their "only choice" to leverage their current investment.
Sorry, but claiming that
all the existing Pentax K-mount users have a reason to buy one is
wrong. Only those users interested in having a MILC and use their K-mount lenses without adapters would have reasons to buy one (assuming it otherwise fits their needs).
Originally posted by Nicolas06 Not reusing K-mount:
- The product MUST be better than the competition from day1 or it will not sell. Counting what Fuji, m4/3 and Sony have this is almost impossible.
- The product will have to come with an extensive echosystem. In practice it will be difficult to have more than 5 lenses dedicated to the mount at the begining while there more than at least 40-50 lenses for K-mount and Sony E, 100+ for m4/3 and 15-20 for Fuji X. Nobody would want to invest in a weak echosystem.
- Existing K-mount user will feel betrayed exactly like milnolta mount user when Sony introduced E mount. There will be a kind of exodus of people from K-mount seeing it death approaching and not necessarily the willingness to go for the next Pentax product: reduced trust and why go to a product that the first years has no way to provide the same as the competition.
- It would work if you have truely unique selling argument. But the mirrorless market is different. What are Pentax strengths? Build quality (Fuji and Olympus sure know how to do it). great OVF (useless on MILC), In body SR: all MILC manufacturers have it except Fuji. WR: could be, but it does exist. Small limited lenses: All MILC have an equivalent except Sony. Pixel shift: mirrorless manufacturers have their own version... Honestly astrotracer and AA filter simulation is far from being enough. Pentax would have to find 2-3 unique selling point the other don't have and put all that together. This look like extremely hard to achieve.
Irrelevant arguments.
- the Canon EOS M was not better than the competition from day 1. Some might say it was worse than the K-01, including in AF speed.
- we have good examples of MILC systems which were launched, grew and are selling in reasonable quantities. Pentax/Ricoh could squeeze one more in. The target here might be not to go all-out, but to have a foothold in the MILC market as well as in the DSLRs - being prepared if, in the distant future, a market shift would occur.
- the argument about USP is not specific to MILCs.
- last but not least, what you're forgetting is that such a MILC would be able to use K-mount lenses, through adapters, perhaps even with a high degree of automation.
There's one valid point, and that's about existing K-mount users feeling betrayed. I have no doubts that certain people (not necessarily Pentaxians
) would work hard at spreading FUD.
But, that's not good enough to stop Ricoh Imaging from acting; we're not talking about a "stop the D FA line, it's all MILC from now on" but a more Canon-like approach. Are Canon users desperate about the presence of the EOS M?
Originally posted by Nicolas06 This is the total opposite of a strawman argument. This is the company future, this is speaking of breaking or not the #1 marketing strategy of all camera manufacturer: Make people invest in your own echosystem so once you are invested, it is much easier to stay. Do we want to give reaosns for existing customers to leave? Do we want to make a new product the hard way with no existing echosystem to bring client to it? Is the K-mount the wrong choice and if you do it you may go bankrupt ? Or if choosing a new mount the wrong choice with an exodus of current client that would stop buying the brand?
Theses are very important decision the most important Pentax has to make for the next 10 years. This isn't some trivia, this isn't easy and a wrong move could mean bankrupt.
Guess why I'm supporting the long term-friendly approach...