rumored Pentax mirrorless camera - something between K1000 and K-01

**monochrome** · 12-09-2016, 04:50 AM

We were talking about whether the US GDP growth is accelerating / growth would accelerate further over the next 18 months. My point is, independent of Trump, it will, due to internal consumption. For that discussion Germany, EU, Japan, China - external economic activity short of global recession is irrelevant.

Risk is China missteps and enters recession, which wouls transmit a slowdown throughout the entire system.

Zygonyx · 12-09-2016, 04:56 AM

I agree on that one, pushed further (or not) by DT.

But such a discussion is far from photog market tendencies, which we saw in a fast decline since 2012, whilst macroeconomy was more or less fast recovering from the subprime debacle.

mee · 12-09-2016, 06:05 AM

Originally posted by monochrome

It was all technical. I had Bloomberg Live on my phone and cable on TV watching the market and the talking heads melt down together.

I slept for a couple hours, then I called the head of our trading desk at 5:30 the morning after - he said, "EVERY GOOD TILL CANCELED SellStop on the S&P500 futures contract on earth filled overnight. Literally. Every. Contract. Completely cleared the entire world's Hedge Book. All of it. Literally."

He said Carl Icahn left the Trump victory party early and walked to his office.

Computer algorithms, not people, sold everyone out - short - and they had to buy back - which created momentum. And now psychology - Behavioral Finance - has taken hold.

But nothing REAL has changed in a month, and it it won't change for at least another year.

Wow. That is the first time I've heard that explanation. But, if true, what caused the 'computer algorithms' to sell short? All that has been in the news, at least as far as I've seen, is people got skittish due to Trump thinking the sky was falling when it wasn't.

rbelyell · 12-09-2016, 06:14 AM - **2 Likes**

ive been following this thread for awhile, and its been awhile since anything relevant was said about a possible new pentax mirrorless. i keep hoping, though participants seem intent on travelling further and further afield. at the end of the day, i guess the only logical conclusion to draw is no one actually has any relevant information. thus an intersting discussion that has long ago devolved into several different and quite meaningless threads. who was it that said something about 'a great sound and fury signifying nothing'? not sure, but it mustve been after experiencing something similar to this.

**RobA_Oz** · 12-09-2016, 06:21 AM

Originally posted by rbelyell

…the only logical conclusion to draw is no one actually has any relevant information.

If anyone here did have relevant information, it's most likely they'd be bound by contract to not say anything about it. I wouldn't be waiting on anything concrete to be announced here.

**monochrome** · 12-09-2016, 08:04 AM

Originally posted by mee

Wow. That is the first time I've heard that explanation. But, if true, what caused the 'computer algorithms' to sell short? All that has been in the news, at least as far as I've seen, is people got skittish due to Trump thinking the sky was falling when it wasn't.

Uhmm, when the price of the contract drops to the STOP level a computer sells more, which drives the price down to the next STOP . . . Until every open stop-loss has been executed. Then selling itself stops happening.

Most trading is automated today. Some computer programs actually read and interpret breaking news and react by trading, as they have been programmed.

All without human intervention.

That's what happened. The programs were pre-set, acted, then reacted to each other. Unintended consequencences . . . .

As far as not hearing this, the truth contradicts the preferred narrative. Unless you actually were there, or know someone who actually was there it might as well not have happened.

mecrox · 12-09-2016, 08:06 AM

Originally posted by rbelyell

ive been following this thread for awhile, and its been awhile since anything relevant was said about a possible new pentax mirrorless. i keep hoping, though participants seem intent on travelling further and further afield. at the end of the day, i guess the only logical conclusion to draw is no one actually has any relevant information. thus an intersting discussion that has long ago devolved into several different and quite meaningless threads. who was it that said something about 'a great sound and fury signifying nothing'? not sure, but it mustve been after experiencing something similar to this.

If you want a modern mirrorless camera the sensible thing is buy your choice from another brand. Keep it tight and it's not much of a punt. Or, wait for a couple more years of threads like this plus a while after that before Pentax develop a reasonable ecosystem for whatever they produce since they aren't large enough to do it all at once. I can see a K-mount mirrorless/DSLR hybrid, which could make a lot of sense, but that's about all. I suspect other ships sailed a long time ago now. It's just too late for major major new stuff given the state of the camera market. We may well be in the endgame now, the chapter in which the surviving photography players sit tight with what they have, capitulate, withdraw or generally rearrange themselves.

photoptimist · 12-09-2016, 09:55 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by monochrome

Uhmm, when the price of the contract drops to the STOP level a computer sells more, which drives the price down to the next STOP . . . Until every open stop-loss has been executed. Then selling itself stops happening.

Most trading is automated today. Some computer programs actually read and interpret breaking news and react by trading, as they have been programmed.

All without human intervention.

That's what happened. The programs were pre-set, acted, then reacted to each other. Unintended consequencences . . . .

As far as not hearing this, the truth contradicts the preferred narrative. Unless you actually were there, or know someone who actually was there it might as well not have happened.

Indeed!

Yet although it's easy to blame automation for these kinds of cascades, the real culprit is the difference in the speed of data versus speed of knowledge. Price data flows at the speed of light. Knowledge (the contextualized explanation for why the price moved) flows much slower. Thus, traders (whether automated or human) see the price move first but don't learn why until later. The issue is whether they can wait for knowledge or must react to data.

From a risk management standpoint, traders (or their organizations) are all but forced to have stop-loss orders which instantly dump positions that have moved unexpectedly against them. The only way to prevent these cascades would be to require a sufficient percentage of traders to use options as a hedge rather than rely on stoploss orders.

D1N0 · 12-09-2016, 10:03 AM

and that's why Pentax won't make a K-01 that looks like a K1000

reh321 · 12-09-2016, 11:04 AM

Originally posted by mee

Wow. That is the first time I've heard that explanation. But, if true, what caused the 'computer algorithms' to sell short? All that has been in the news, at least as far as I've seen, is people got skittish due to Trump thinking the sky was falling when it wasn't.

This is totally totally off-topic, and totally irrelevant to MILC, but since you asked ... when you "sell short", you are in essence borrowing stock from someone else to sell with the promise you will replace it in the near future. Your expectation is that the price of the stock is going to drop, so when you buy it, you will buy it at a lower price than you sold it at.

JPT · 12-09-2016, 07:13 PM

I'm not sure the economic conditions are all that relevant to whether Ricoh makes their next K-mount body a DSLR or mirrorless, or whether the style is retro or modern. They have to make what they think has the best chance of selling.

Going back to the original rumour, it seems quite feasible, because what appears to described is just like a Fuji XT2 or an Olympus EM5 camera, but with a longer flange distance. The K-mount flange distance was not objectionable in the days of the K-1000 so If designed right, I think it would be fine now. I measured the distance from mount to the back of the camera on my MZ-3 and my K-01. The difference is 5mm, or about 10% of the camera's depth. Perhaps they can make the screen and SR mechanism even thinner four years on from the K-01.

If this kind of design were possible with a digital-era DSLR, it would have been done by now. In fact the only company to have tried was Nikon with the Df. It has retro trimmings, but it is as big as a K-1, and doesn't have the elegant design of cameras like the MX (my personal favourite). Mirrorless is probably the only way to reduce the number of components and free up the design.

I think such a camera would be a success because K-mount has a good line-up of small retro lenses already, unlike Canon or Nikon. Also live view through an EVF would be great for focusing legacy lenses. It would be something different when compared to Canon and Nikon. Even if they decided to follow, they don't have to design small APS-C lenses, while Ricoh has them already.

mee · 12-09-2016, 08:16 PM

Originally posted by monochrome

Uhmm, when the price of the contract drops to the STOP level a computer sells more, which drives the price down to the next STOP . . . Until every open stop-loss has been executed. Then selling itself stops happening.

Most trading is automated today. Some computer programs actually read and interpret breaking news and react by trading, as they have been programmed.

All without human intervention.

That's what happened. The programs were pre-set, acted, then reacted to each other. Unintended consequencences . . . .

As far as not hearing this, the truth contradicts the preferred narrative. Unless you actually were there, or know someone who actually was there it might as well not have happened.

Yes, I'm aware of automation. A human can't click a button as fast as the software can perform the trade... or really many many trades. And they are done near instantly as the market opens.

But preset by whom? Why did the price of the contract drop to the STOP level? Did the computer get afraid of US politics and decide to sell on it's owners behalf? I see there was a cascading effect, but what I'm driving at is what caused the cascading effect? Who automated the apps to perform the actions they took?

---------- Post added 12-09-16 at 09:19 PM ----------

Originally posted by reh321

This is totally totally off-topic, and totally irrelevant to MILC, but since you asked ... when you "sell short", you are in essence borrowing stock from someone else to sell with the promise you will replace it in the near future. Your expectation is that the price of the stock is going to drop, so when you buy it, you will buy it at a lower price than you sold it at.

How does that have anything to do in relation to what I said?

Zygonyx · 12-09-2016, 08:43 PM

JPT : agreed !

Mee : same. I wouldn't buy any forecast scenario even for the first 2017 quarter, based on the classical "end-of-the-year-rally" that we obviously can see now !

reh321 · 12-09-2016, 09:01 PM

Originally posted by mee

How does that have anything to do in relation to what I said?

You asked "what caused the 'computer algorithms' to sell short?" The short version on my answer is "They expect the values of the stocks in question to decline"

mee · 12-09-2016, 09:55 PM

Originally posted by reh321

You asked "what caused the 'computer algorithms' to sell short?" The short version on my answer is "They expect the values of the stocks in question to decline"

Yes yet my question was more why 'they' thought the value of their stock was going to decline? What precipitated the brief fall?

I think it due to some shareholders getting fearful and deciding to sell. At least that is what both left and right leaning news sites that I've seen have reported. Even if some computer model determined it was best to sell, it was due to the computer model determining people were or were soon going to freak out and were going to sell their shares themselves. Or no?

On the other side, those who figured it was a great time to buy staged a surge soon after since they realized the bottom of the bag didn't fall out.. or were even anticipating an illogical freak out and poised to take advantage once the price hit a certain value..

The market isn't a fully automated system in that there is still human thought and emotion involved. People are buying and selling based on their interpretation of the data they have and their feel for the future. While I understand the actual exchanges are computer operated, they get their inputs from people. Doesn't that have anything to do with it?

12-09-2016, 07:13 PM	#191
JPT Pentaxian Join Date: Jan 2012 Location: Tokyo Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,821	I'm not sure the economic conditions are all that relevant to whether Ricoh makes their next K-mount body a DSLR or mirrorless, or whether the style is retro or modern. They have to make what they think has the best chance of selling. Going back to the original rumour, it seems quite feasible, because what appears to described is just like a Fuji XT2 or an Olympus EM5 camera, but with a longer flange distance. The K-mount flange distance was not objectionable in the days of the K-1000 so If designed right, I think it would be fine now. I measured the distance from mount to the back of the camera on my MZ-3 and my K-01. The difference is 5mm, or about 10% of the camera's depth. Perhaps they can make the screen and SR mechanism even thinner four years on from the K-01. If this kind of design were possible with a digital-era DSLR, it would have been done by now. In fact the only company to have tried was Nikon with the Df. It has retro trimmings, but it is as big as a K-1, and doesn't have the elegant design of cameras like the MX (my personal favourite). Mirrorless is probably the only way to reduce the number of components and free up the design. I think such a camera would be a success because K-mount has a good line-up of small retro lenses already, unlike Canon or Nikon. Also live view through an EVF would be great for focusing legacy lenses. It would be something different when compared to Canon and Nikon. Even if they decided to follow, they don't have to design small APS-C lenses, while Ricoh has them already. Last edited by JPT; 12-09-2016 at 08:07 PM.

12-09-2016, 08:16 PM	#192
mee Veteran Member Join Date: May 2010 Posts: 7,403	Originally posted by monochrome Uhmm, when the price of the contract drops to the STOP level a computer sells more, which drives the price down to the next STOP . . . Until every open stop-loss has been executed. Then selling itself stops happening. Most trading is automated today. Some computer programs actually read and interpret breaking news and react by trading, as they have been programmed. All without human intervention. That's what happened. The programs were pre-set, acted, then reacted to each other. Unintended consequencences . . . . As far as not hearing this, the truth contradicts the preferred narrative. Unless you actually were there, or know someone who actually was there it might as well not have happened. Yes, I'm aware of automation. A human can't click a button as fast as the software can perform the trade... or really many many trades. And they are done near instantly as the market opens. But preset by whom? Why did the price of the contract drop to the STOP level? Did the computer get afraid of US politics and decide to sell on it's owners behalf? I see there was a cascading effect, but what I'm driving at is what caused the cascading effect? Who automated the apps to perform the actions they took? ---------- Post added 12-09-16 at 09:19 PM ---------- Originally posted by reh321 This is totally totally off-topic, and totally irrelevant to MILC, but since you asked ... when you "sell short", you are in essence borrowing stock from someone else to sell with the promise you will replace it in the near future. Your expectation is that the price of the stock is going to drop, so when you buy it, you will buy it at a lower price than you sold it at. How does that have anything to do in relation to what I said? Last edited by mee; 12-09-2016 at 08:41 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Lens Size Comparison between Mirrorless and dSLRs	interested_observer	Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands	16	09-28-2016 05:03 AM
For Sale - Sold: Pentax K-01 Mirrorless Camera	Fat Albert	Sold Items	3	07-03-2015 06:45 PM
Some Thoughts on the K-01 and Mirrorless From Pentax	Biro	Pentax Mirrorless Cameras	108	06-25-2014 03:20 PM
New K-01 mirrorless camera coming	Mister Horrible	Pentax News and Rumors	2067	02-21-2012 09:09 PM
Pentax k-x and Pentax k1000 (old camera) question	huskies4ever	Pentax DSLR Discussion	14	08-23-2010 08:48 PM

12-09-2016, 04:50 AM	#181
monochrome Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Working From Home Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 26,276	We were talking about whether the US GDP growth is accelerating / growth would accelerate further over the next 18 months. My point is, independent of Trump, it will, due to internal consumption. For that discussion Germany, EU, Japan, China - external economic activity short of global recession is irrelevant. Risk is China missteps and enters recession, which wouls transmit a slowdown throughout the entire system.

12-09-2016, 04:56 AM	#182
Zygonyx Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: Ile de France Posts: 4,033	I agree on that one, pushed further (or not) by DT. But such a discussion is far from photog market tendencies, which we saw in a fast decline since 2012, whilst macroeconomy was more or less fast recovering from the subprime debacle.

12-09-2016, 06:05 AM	#183
mee Veteran Member Join Date: May 2010 Posts: 7,403	Originally posted by monochrome It was all technical. I had Bloomberg Live on my phone and cable on TV watching the market and the talking heads melt down together. I slept for a couple hours, then I called the head of our trading desk at 5:30 the morning after - he said, "EVERY GOOD TILL CANCELED SellStop on the S&P500 futures contract on earth filled overnight. Literally. Every. Contract. Completely cleared the entire world's Hedge Book. All of it. Literally." He said Carl Icahn left the Trump victory party early and walked to his office. Computer algorithms, not people, sold everyone out - short - and they had to buy back - which created momentum. And now psychology - Behavioral Finance - has taken hold. But nothing REAL has changed in a month, and it it won't change for at least another year. Wow. That is the first time I've heard that explanation. But, if true, what caused the 'computer algorithms' to sell short? All that has been in the news, at least as far as I've seen, is people got skittish due to Trump thinking the sky was falling when it wasn't.

12-09-2016, 06:14 AM - 2 Likes	#184
rbelyell Forum Member Join Date: Mar 2016 Posts: 95	ive been following this thread for awhile, and its been awhile since anything relevant was said about a possible new pentax mirrorless. i keep hoping, though participants seem intent on travelling further and further afield. at the end of the day, i guess the only logical conclusion to draw is no one actually has any relevant information. thus an intersting discussion that has long ago devolved into several different and quite meaningless threads. who was it that said something about 'a great sound and fury signifying nothing'? not sure, but it mustve been after experiencing something similar to this.

12-09-2016, 06:21 AM	#185
RobA_Oz Site Supporter Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Tasmania, Australia Photos: Gallery Posts: 8,209	Originally posted by rbelyell …the only logical conclusion to draw is no one actually has any relevant information. If anyone here did have relevant information, it's most likely they'd be bound by contract to not say anything about it. I wouldn't be waiting on anything concrete to be announced here.

12-09-2016, 08:04 AM	#186
monochrome Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Working From Home Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 26,276	Originally posted by mee Wow. That is the first time I've heard that explanation. But, if true, what caused the 'computer algorithms' to sell short? All that has been in the news, at least as far as I've seen, is people got skittish due to Trump thinking the sky was falling when it wasn't. Uhmm, when the price of the contract drops to the STOP level a computer sells more, which drives the price down to the next STOP . . . Until every open stop-loss has been executed. Then selling itself stops happening. Most trading is automated today. Some computer programs actually read and interpret breaking news and react by trading, as they have been programmed. All without human intervention. That's what happened. The programs were pre-set, acted, then reacted to each other. Unintended consequencences . . . . As far as not hearing this, the truth contradicts the preferred narrative. Unless you actually were there, or know someone who actually was there it might as well not have happened.

12-09-2016, 08:06 AM	#187
mecrox Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Oxford, UK Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,375	Originally posted by rbelyell ive been following this thread for awhile, and its been awhile since anything relevant was said about a possible new pentax mirrorless. i keep hoping, though participants seem intent on travelling further and further afield. at the end of the day, i guess the only logical conclusion to draw is no one actually has any relevant information. thus an intersting discussion that has long ago devolved into several different and quite meaningless threads. who was it that said something about 'a great sound and fury signifying nothing'? not sure, but it mustve been after experiencing something similar to this. If you want a modern mirrorless camera the sensible thing is buy your choice from another brand. Keep it tight and it's not much of a punt. Or, wait for a couple more years of threads like this plus a while after that before Pentax develop a reasonable ecosystem for whatever they produce since they aren't large enough to do it all at once. I can see a K-mount mirrorless/DSLR hybrid, which could make a lot of sense, but that's about all. I suspect other ships sailed a long time ago now. It's just too late for major major new stuff given the state of the camera market. We may well be in the endgame now, the chapter in which the surviving photography players sit tight with what they have, capitulate, withdraw or generally rearrange themselves.

12-09-2016, 09:55 AM - 1 Like	#188
photoptimist Pentaxian Join Date: Jul 2016 Photos: Albums Posts: 5,128	Originally posted by monochrome Uhmm, when the price of the contract drops to the STOP level a computer sells more, which drives the price down to the next STOP . . . Until every open stop-loss has been executed. Then selling itself stops happening. Most trading is automated today. Some computer programs actually read and interpret breaking news and react by trading, as they have been programmed. All without human intervention. That's what happened. The programs were pre-set, acted, then reacted to each other. Unintended consequencences . . . . As far as not hearing this, the truth contradicts the preferred narrative. Unless you actually were there, or know someone who actually was there it might as well not have happened. Indeed! Yet although it's easy to blame automation for these kinds of cascades, the real culprit is the difference in the speed of data versus speed of knowledge. Price data flows at the speed of light. Knowledge (the contextualized explanation for why the price moved) flows much slower. Thus, traders (whether automated or human) see the price move first but don't learn why until later. The issue is whether they can wait for knowledge or must react to data. From a risk management standpoint, traders (or their organizations) are all but forced to have stop-loss orders which instantly dump positions that have moved unexpectedly against them. The only way to prevent these cascades would be to require a sufficient percentage of traders to use options as a hedge rather than rely on stoploss orders.

12-09-2016, 10:03 AM	#189
D1N0 Pentaxian Join Date: May 2012 Location: --- Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,802	and that's why Pentax won't make a K-01 that looks like a K1000

12-09-2016, 11:04 AM	#190
reh321 Pentaxian Join Date: Nov 2014 Location: South Bend, IN, USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 23,185	Originally posted by mee Wow. That is the first time I've heard that explanation. But, if true, what caused the 'computer algorithms' to sell short? All that has been in the news, at least as far as I've seen, is people got skittish due to Trump thinking the sky was falling when it wasn't. This is totally totally off-topic, and totally irrelevant to MILC, but since you asked ... when you "sell short", you are in essence borrowing stock from someone else to sell with the promise you will replace it in the near future. Your expectation is that the price of the stock is going to drop, so when you buy it, you will buy it at a lower price than you sold it at.

12-09-2016, 08:43 PM	#193
Zygonyx Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: Ile de France Posts: 4,033	JPT : agreed ! Mee : same. I wouldn't buy any forecast scenario even for the first 2017 quarter, based on the classical "end-of-the-year-rally" that we obviously can see now !

12-09-2016, 09:01 PM	#194
reh321 Pentaxian Join Date: Nov 2014 Location: South Bend, IN, USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 23,185	Originally posted by mee How does that have anything to do in relation to what I said? You asked "what caused the 'computer algorithms' to sell short?" The short version on my answer is "They expect the values of the stocks in question to decline"

12-09-2016, 09:55 PM	#195
mee Veteran Member Join Date: May 2010 Posts: 7,403	Originally posted by reh321 You asked "what caused the 'computer algorithms' to sell short?" The short version on my answer is "They expect the values of the stocks in question to decline" Yes yet my question was more why 'they' thought the value of their stock was going to decline? What precipitated the brief fall? I think it due to some shareholders getting fearful and deciding to sell. At least that is what both left and right leaning news sites that I've seen have reported. Even if some computer model determined it was best to sell, it was due to the computer model determining people were or were soon going to freak out and were going to sell their shares themselves. Or no? On the other side, those who figured it was a great time to buy staged a surge soon after since they realized the bottom of the bag didn't fall out.. or were even anticipating an illogical freak out and poised to take advantage once the price hit a certain value.. The market isn't a fully automated system in that there is still human thought and emotion involved. People are buying and selling based on their interpretation of the data they have and their feel for the future. While I understand the actual exchanges are computer operated, they get their inputs from people. Doesn't that have anything to do with it?