[Simen1]

Pentax will have their work cut out to make any impression now in the market for mirrorless cameras. The more recent mirrorless cameras are several generations in the field by now and have both incredible technology inside them - see the newly announced Sony a6500, Olympus EM1 Mark II, Fuji X-T2, e.g. - and a very well supported ecosystem in most cases. That's a very tough nut to crack, especially as Sony and Canon are now dusting off the big $$$ guns to see who can dominate the sector. Where is modestly-resourced Pentax going to fit in? They need a niche that isn't too costly and too exposed to onslaught by their competitors.

I totally agree. Pentax should use the large existing ecosystem of the K mount, not try to reinvent an expensive system from scratch. Seamless switching between cameras with EVF and OVF would be an eyeopening feature. Making a K-02 with EVF would be much better risk management.

[reh321]

That's not my logic, but a strawman. Which means you have no argument against my actual ideas.
No, the concept is not brilliant; it's just a "DSLR" with the dedicated AF and the viewfinder system removed. There are AFAIK two cameras/lines of cameras using this concept: the K-01 and Sigma Quattro. 'nuff said.
I see no reason to assume that a "K-01" with an EVF, different design and some updates would be much more successful than the K-01. It's not like putting a fake pentaprism housing on top of the K-01 would make it an instant success.
I already touched the idea of short term savings by reusing the existing K-mount; I won't repeat myself.

Pentax will have their work cut out to make any impression now in the market for mirrorless cameras. The more recent mirrorless cameras are several generations in the field by now and have both incredible technology inside them - see the newly announced Sony a6500, Olympus EM1 Mark II, Fuji X-T2, e.g. - and a very well supported ecosystem in most cases. That's a very tough nut to crack, especially as Sony and Canon are now dusting off the big $$$ guns to see who can dominate the sector. Where is modestly-resourced Pentax going to fit in? They need a niche that isn't too costly and too exposed to onslaught by their competitors.

I believe these two responses encapsulate many of the issues. I am absolute convinced of four things

(1) MILC technology will fit somewhere, and could easily be the only technology in the lower priced tiers.

(2) MILC without EVF will fail (+)

(3) practice is needed to fit into the MILC market

(4) a camera company will have a harder time being competitive / profitable if they don't have products in the lower priced tiers to introduce themselves to new-comers (*)


(+) Unlike Kunzite, I will repeat myself yet again. The major benefit to MILC is what the EVF can contribute to the framing / setting process. We can get some of that benefit using LV, but holding the camera in a modified "zombie" position is awkward, and the LCD is hard to see in many settings.

(*) there will always be a few exceptions to this rule; Pentax might have been an exception forty years ago, but they kid themselves if they think they're another Leica or Hassy today.

[surfar]

(2) MILC without EVF will fail (+)

I don't think that way and neither do the YI technology people, they released their M43 camera aimed at young people stepping up from a smartphone(so this market hasn't used a viewfinder!)


For the people stepping down from a DSLR, a viewfinder is probably desirable.

[reh321]

I don't think that way and neither do the YI technology people, they released their M43 camera aimed at young people stepping up from a smartphone(so this market hasn't used a viewfinder!)

For the people stepping down from a DSLR, a viewfinder is probably desirable.

My comments are an attempt to explain why cameras such as Canon M-series and Pentax K01 got no traction in U.S. and Europe.
Time will tell,

[lytrytyr]

Where is modestly-resourced Pentax going to fit in? They need a niche that isn't too costly and too exposed to onslaught by their competitors.

They figured that out a couple of years ago,
when they settled on the Q as their mirrorless system.

Now they just need to embrace the dual nature of that system,
the play value on the one side,
and on the other, the unique photographic advantages of the system
for the discerning and demanding photographers
who can recognise and use those advantages
(candid photography, depth of field for tele, and action macro where you can't stack,
travel photography where you need wide-to-tele coverage in a small package, and so on).

[reh321]

Pentax will have their work cut out to make any impression now in the market for mirrorless cameras. The more recent mirrorless cameras are several generations in the field by now and have both incredible technology inside them - see the newly announced Sony a6500, Olympus EM1 Mark II, Fuji X-T2, e.g. - and a very well supported ecosystem in most cases. That's a very tough nut to crack, especially as Sony and Canon are now dusting off the big $$$ guns to see who can dominate the sector. Where is modestly-resourced Pentax going to fit in? They need a niche that isn't too costly and too exposed to onslaught by their competitors.

And your first few sentences answer the question asked in the last two. This would be a defensive measure, to keep the brand active in the lower tier market, if the lower tier market tips into a mostly MILC mode.

[surfar]

an attempt to explain

Mine was too, i understand the viewfinder point of "view"....but theres a generation or 2, that have never taken a view through one.

---------- Post added 10-07-16 at 03:21 PM --------

---------- Post added 10-07-16 at 03:22 PM ----------

Canon M-series

There probably will be trACTION soon.

[Fogel70]

Clients would have absolutely no reason to choose that Pentax branded gear mirrorless camera instead of one of the many others. The pentax would be the less attractive mirrorless with the worst echosystem while a nice K-mount mirrorless would instantly put Pentax at the mirrorless system with the most solid and interresting mirrorless echosystem.

Me as a K-mount user I would also to see an APSC or FF body release by Pentax that would be K-mount. I would consider seriously that K-mount mirrorless would never come I'll consider very seriously to go to Fuji X or m4/3... That will have better echosystem much more experience on mirrorless body and no sign of wanting to destroy my investment at the first occasion.

I see no reason for choosing a K-mount mirrorless camera, I already have a DSLR for my K-mount lenses.

The reason why I got a mirrorless system was because I replace my P&S with a MILC, so I wanted very different properties than any K-mount camera can give.
I believe many DSLR users that get a MILC want it because it has different advantages than a long register mount can give.

The problem with a K-mount MILC is that it will not really expand Pentax market, as the K-mount MILC will mostly just replace some sales on DSLR.
To really expand into the mirrorless market, they need a new system that is optimized for this market, and the longer they wait the more difficult it will be.
A mirrorless system is not meant to cater for existing users, the priority of it would be to bring new users to Pentax brand. But they could also make it have some advantage for exiting users (over compentition), FI by having full support of existing K-mount lenses with an adapter.

One of Pentax biggest challenges are that they have maybe the oldest user base of any ILC brand. In 10-15 years a large part of the user base will be lost due to old age.
So they need products that bring many new young users to the brand. I believe Q was intended as such product, but it may not have gone as well as they hoped.

Also technically, I don't see much benefit of a shorter registration distance mount, in particular for FF. Making it shorter would only really help a fast 24mm prime design and that's all. It would make all other lenses past 50mm bigger... And that many on an FF.

It does not have yo be like this. It's only that Sony did not do a very good job in designing a mirrorless FF system. They basically need to use DSLR design on the lenses, as they used a way too small mount to be optimized for FF.

If anyone would design a proper mirrorless FF system, they would have a huge advantage over Sony.
They could optimize the lens design for mirrorless which would lead to smaller size, especially on fast lenses.

[Nicolas06]

@Simen1:
That's not my logic, but a strawman. Which means you have no argument against my actual ideas.

No, the concept is not brilliant; it's just a "DSLR" with the dedicated AF and the viewfinder system removed. There are AFAIK two cameras/lines of cameras using this concept: the K-01 and Sigma Quattro. 'nuff said.

I see no reason to assume that a "K-01" with an EVF, different design and some updates would be much more successful than the K-01. It's not like putting a fake pentaprism housing on top of the K-01 would make it an instant success.

I already touched the idea of short term savings by reusing the existing K-mount; I won't repeat myself.

There even less reason to assume that make a "generic" MILC would be a success.

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.

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.

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.

[Nicolas06]

It does not have yo be like this. It's only that Sony did not do a very good job in designing a mirrorless FF system. They basically need to use DSLR design on the lenses, as they used a way too small mount to be optimized for FF.

If anyone would design a proper mirrorless FF system, they would have a huge advantage over Sony.
They could optimize the lens design for mirrorless which would lead to smaller size, especially on fast lenses.

I agree and it happen that the optimal is near the existing DSLR mount in term of registration distance and mount diameter compromize. Narrower diameters make some designs more difficult. Shorter registration distance make teles biggers while it doesn't make the body significantly smaller (compare A7-II with K01).

Starting from that, why not reuse what already exist and provide near the best compromize overall? Shorter registration distance and narrower diameters than current FF DSLR mount make lot of senses for APSC bodies. It doesn't at all for FF bodies. If the future if FF, if you are invested in FF. If you already have a good mount for FF, there no reason to change!

Sure maybe the perfect ideal registration distance isn't in the 18-25mm range for an FF like many mirrorless mount are. Maybe 40-45mm is a bit long. So what? you'd invest in a totaly new mount for choosing 35mm ? That doesn't make sense. It isn't enough different to really give any significant benefit and you'll still loose your echosystem.

[Kunzite]

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 ----------

There even less reason to assume that make a "generic" MILC would be a success.

You are mistaken.

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).

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?

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...

[RonHendriks1966]

It all comes down to the price for such a camera. Placed above K-3ii......it will fail.

[Zygonyx]

Hum.... have you seen last Sony Alpha 6500 launch price ?
USD 1400 / Euro 1700
Future Panasonic GH-5 and Olympus OM-1 Mk II are also rumored to cost around USD 1750 / Euro 2000.

I suppose we will love K-3II for a while....

[Fogel70]

I agree and it happen that the optimal is near the existing DSLR mount in term of registration distance and mount diameter compromize. Narrower diameters make some designs more difficult. Shorter registration distance make teles biggers while it doesn't make the body significantly smaller (compare A7-II with K01).

The optimal register distance for mirrorless is much shorter than for DSLR. But diameter must be large enough so rear lens can cover the whole sensor. FI Fuji X work like this and their lenses up-scaled to FF would not increase that much in size.
Leica also show that FF lenses do not have to be extremely large on mirrorless. Leica 75/2 vs Pentax 77/1.8 vs Sony 85/1.4 Compact Camera Meter

Starting from that, why not reuse what already exist and provide near the best compromize overall? Shorter registration distance and narrower diameters than current FF DSLR mount make lot of senses for APSC bodies. It doesn't at all for FF bodies. If the future if FF, if you are invested in FF. If you already have a good mount for FF, there no reason to change!

A DSLR mount is not the best compromise for mirrorless.

Sure maybe the perfect ideal registration distance isn't in the 18-25mm range for an FF like many mirrorless mount are. Maybe 40-45mm is a bit long. So what? you'd invest in a totaly new mount for choosing 35mm ? That doesn't make sense. It isn't enough different to really give any significant benefit and you'll still loose your echosystem.

If not preparing for the future, you might not attract any new users so you might loose your whole market in a decade or two.
Why would anyone except a existing Pentax user choose a Pentax K mirrorless camera? DSLR and mirrorless are two different markets, and I doubt that Pentax will be very successful if trying to combine both.

There might be some time in the future where mirrorless can truly replace DSLR, but Sony tried that with SLT a few years ago and that does not seems to have been very successful.
The sales of the Sony A99II will not be anywhere near sales on Sony A7 series.

[RonHendriks1966]

Hum.... have you seen last Sony Alpha 6500 launch price ?
USD 1400 / Euro 1700
Future Panasonic GH-5 and Olympus OM-1 Mk II are also rumored to cost around USD 1750 / Euro 2000.

I suppose we will love K-3II for a while....

You might also look at the future set these camera's offer. Currently Pentax is more at the level of Sony Alpha 6000 then the newer models. They have no experience with on sensor pdaf, even K-70 isn't offering that for stills. No 4k. No fast processing or storing to sdxc card.