[reh321]

....
. K-70 foretells their next cameras may freak out many folks.

Since the day the K-70 was announced, I've been convinced that the future of "sports" cameras {which in my mind, is everything not a landscape camera} is in high ISO.

[Winder]

If you look at MF, the announcement is impressive, but the advantage over full frame is minimal and price multiplier is maximal. For example, if you use a Pentax K1 with a fast lens, I am not so sure about the tiny increase of IQ you get out of a MF sensor (that is actually a crop sensor... not a real MF size), for more than 3 x the price. In additional, due to the fact that most imaging terminal render no more than 8bits color coding per channel, any SNR higher than 48dB is just going down the drain. If you are a pro and can depreciate an MF camera equipment, fine. But for the mass of enthusiasts, there is no point to be wowed by something you can't afford and that would not provide much difference in your photographic activities, especially when you read that X1D max shutter speed is 1/2000 at 2.3fps and Fuji GFX is 1/4000 at 3fps, not even as good as what the Pentax K1 costing 4x less money.

FF is also a crop. Kodak made 70mm film and people started splitting that in to 2 strips of 35mm. What we refer to as full frame today is actually half-frame. That doesn't really matter anymore than the size of the new MF sensors. If you are only going to take pictures for display on the web, then you are mostly correct. If you don't see the difference in MF (crop) over "FF" then you need to go look at a gallery of printed work. There is a reason that photographers spend big money on medium format gear. Fuji introduced the GFX because people were asking for it. This camera will sell very well and will put Fuji back in the studio of a lot professional photographers.

[reh321]

But the compact market is all but disappeared; cell phones are taking over. No use have an increased share in a non-existent market. I'm pretty sure Nikons volume is going down in compact.

The "compact" camera business today is basically "bridge" cameras, and the Nikon P-900 seems to have succeeded, where the Canon SX-60 has not {despite Canon's head-start with the SX-50, which showed the way}. I had thought Pentax could sneak into that market with added lenses for the "Q" family, but they don't seem to want to commit resources to that ... which is their decision to make. Nikon also made a splash under the Photokina banner with their new action series.

[mee]

That is both an advantage and a disadvantage. The problem is that Nikon have factories and employees geared for making millions of cameras a year. That makes then vulnerable.
Pentax is in a much better position. Having filled manufacturing capacity in a shrinking market.

Agreed. Pentax (Ricoh) is indeed in a better position. But that is only because they don't have the investment that Nikon does into the camera market. Yet, as you say, it is also an advantage too. Being as what I already said.. They are a big name in the market, regardless if it is shrinking or not (oh and it is). If they play their cards right, they theoretically could still be around for a long time.

---------- Post added 09-24-16 at 03:36 PM ----------

For telephoto lenses there's no difference in weight and hardly in cost whether the lens is made for FF or APS. You do get size advantage on APS as you can use a 50% shorter focal lenght for the same angle of view.

Yet how many telephoto lenses does Pentax offer? Most of their value has been in small primes and zooms. It is silly, imo, to expect us to use bulky FF lenses on our APS-C bodies just because they don't want to introduce new lenses on both.

Besides, the price difference is easily a 30% increase from APS-C to FF (if not much more).

I can understand it though from the PoV of Ricoh -- they want to get the most return for their effort. Both in the lenses they release and also in keeping the production/support resources as small as possible (a current Nikon problem).

I expect DA* to get updated.. but just no where near soon.

[eurostar]

No. Some things simply don't add up. I started my suspicions when the K-1 was announced, then postponed. And when the K-1 came out, the specs of the machine (which were worse in many regards than K-3), rebranding of Tamrons, endless cheapo plastic and kit lenses released, made me think. I think Ricoh avoids any serious commitment within the existing ecosystem. They issue things with minimal effort possible. Preserving most of their energy for something else?

Now I am almost convinced that we are served side-dishes while they cook the main course. K-70 foretells their next cameras may freak out many folks.

Well, the sub-par traditional phase detection AF seems to confirm this. Why to invest in a dying technology?

[Mistral75]

(...) I know for a fact that Sony are circling around Nikons camera division like a shark in the water smelling blood.

This is a very bold statement!

[kenspo]

This is a very bold statement!

Its not a statement, its info from the "inside". But how serious it is for Sony, i can't tell. Just know that they have been looking at this possibility. Haven't updated me for a while either

[mee]

This is what Dr Andreas Kaufmann, Leica chairman, said in an interview with Focus Numérique during Photokina:

Photokina 2016 ? Entretien avec Andreas Kaufmann, président de Leica

<snip>

... If you really want to make money, the film industry seems much more appropriate to me and I'm thrilled that Sigma think the same as we do.

Yes indeed. And the market does seem to be trending that direction.

For a company largely based in designing and selling 3rd party lenses to steer a respectful amount of their attention towards video/film, is telling to me.

But interesting for a stills-oriented brand (Pentax) to say they are sticking with OVF and stills-only products for the future.

[ffking]

But interesting for a stills-oriented brand (Pentax) to say they are sticking with OVF and stills-only products for the future.

when you take your brand name from the pentaprism it kinda pushes you that way a bit - as for video - It's interesting that Nikon and Canon aren't rushing to install 4k in everything either.

[Mistral75]

when you take your brand name from the pentaprism it kinda pushes you that way a bit - as for video - It's interesting that Nikon and Canon aren't rushing to install 4k in everything either.

Canon and Sony have to protect their professional video cameras. Nikon (and Pentax) do with the possibilities of whatever sensors Sony are prepared to sell to them.

[mee]

when you take your brand name from the pentaprism it kinda pushes you that way a bit - as for video - It's interesting that Nikon and Canon aren't rushing to install 4k in everything either.

Yes that's true.

But we have a very loud minority here clamoring for video, video, and only video from Pentax. I'm glad Pentax rep really shut the door this time with a direct answer. They can decide which direction to take now that they have officially responded.

[OoKU]

This is wrong. Keep your facts correct if you gonna complain. Its assembled by Tamron in in Tamron tubes. Coating and glass is Pentax made. That doesn't make it a rebrand. It had to be done this way due to minimal production lines at Pentax.



This is also wrong. Ricoh are in for the long perspective. That they do thing more slowly and not in the way you want, doesn't make this true. I think you need to learn more about economy and business.


I suggest you bugger off and buy a Nikon, although Nikon is bankrupt in few years if they can't turn things around soon (This is one situation Ricoh wants to avoid). Have fun

Is it true the newest 24-70/2.8 has made in Vietnam？

[Mistral75]

(...) I'm glad Pentax rep really shut the door this time with a direct answer. They can decide which direction to take now that they have officially responded.

This is typically Japanese: transform a weakness into a strength and a necessity into a choice.

You (Ricoh Imaging but also Nikon for instance) do not design your own sensors nor you digital image processors and have to buy them from people who want to protect their own video cameras? Just state you are only interested in premium features and pretend 4K video is un-premium. The day you have eventually access to the appropriate components, just state that 4K video has become a premium feature you are happy to include in your newest camera.

---------- Post added 09-24-2016 at 05:24 PM ----------

Is it true the newest 24-70/2.8 has made in Vietnam？

It's made in Japan (it's written on it) by Tamron.

[Class A]

What we refer to as full frame today is actually half-frame.

No, please, that's just not true.

Whether a sensor is a crop sensor or not is with respect to the format the mount was designed for.

The K-mount was never designed to work with 70mm film. It's native image format is 36mm x 24mm and any sensor not utilising that image size is a crop sensor.

In a similar vein, while some people claim that "MF" refers to a number of format sizes and that it is therefore not justified to refer to the 645D/645Z as cameras with crop sensors, it is clearly the case that the original film 645 used a larger image format and that the 645D/645Z mount is designed for an image format that is larger than that these cameras currently support.

"Full-frame" does not have any absolute meaning across camera systems, but it surely is not a term with an arbitrary meaning.

FWIW, I applaud Ricoh for their recent decisions and in particular for the K-1. Ricoh is not serving "side-dishes" at all. The K-1 is not everything to everyone but no camera is. It would have been nice to get an even better AF system (mainly to shut up the reviewers, AFAIC) but the K-1 is a fantastic camera as it is.

Regarding the Tamron rebadging: I think one would be very hard pressed to find any differences between Tamron glass and "Pentax glass" (do they still use Hoya glass?). In particular, I don't think that coatings make a lens. The optical design and mechanical constructions are the same for the Tamron and Pentax versions and I feel those are what makes or breaks a lens. Yes, modern Pentax coatings are great but the Tamron coatings aren't terrible, are they?

I understand and support Ricoh's decision with the Tamron collaboration but claiming that this is significantly different from rebadging is going too far, AFAIC. It is nice that we have access to all the Tamron developed lenses but I'd prefer Pentax to do their own designs and let users buy the original Tamron lenses in K-mount. Again, I'm 100% OK with the current strategy as an FF lens development plan but for the future I think it would be great to see only genuine Pentax designs from Pentax and get independent third-party designs from Tamron and Sigma on top of those.

[kenspo]

Is it true the newest 24-70/2.8 has made in Vietnam？

No, Japan. K-1 is assembled in Vietnam.