Originally posted by D1N0 I think it probably takes four to five years to develop a new camera that is not just an improvement of an existing model.
If a local Italian pasta restaurant does it, yes, four to five years. In more capable hands used to develop new cameras, a camera based on existing technologies can be developed in about 2 years. Actually in less than that time, but it must be tested. Say, from a good source, Leica T was developed in about ~2 years, and was issued first because the Leica SL, based on the same mount, took longer to test.
Some projects take unnecessarily long time, and no one knows what they mean by
x number of years. Nikon claimed 3 years of development for the Nikon Df, which they used to impress, I guess, but which is preposterous; tech inside the Df says it is a hodgepodge of existing stuff that can be done in a few months of lazy work. It most likely means time when they started to toy around with the retro-camera-idea, and then finally gave to someone to design the thing. Because less than three years took them to develop the groundbreaking D3 and its sensor.
Now the other side of the medal; some companies need lots of time. Ricoh Imaging needs it. However, do we think it took them 2 years to advance from the GR to GR2, which is basically the same camera? Not at all. GR2 could be done in a few months work, but that time, since the launch of the original GR, or the original K3 for that matter, is used to buy more time for development of the next bigger step forward which comes after the GR2, or K3II. So when they do GR, they have GR2 almost ready, but work on other stuff. Ricoh Imaging needs more time; they operate on tiny budgets.
Last edited by Uluru; 05-28-2017 at 03:36 PM.