[lytrytyr]

WG (B2B) and Theta (B2C) are RIcoh products from a different business line, not Pentax.

Badge engineering.

Theta 360 tech has been moved to automotive.

Then why suggest that an automotive products line would "foreclose" consumer camera production?

MX-1 was a rebadge, one-off, not a mount system.

It was a 1/1.7" sensor Pentax camera with outsourced production,
showing that a lack of in-house production capacity
does not preclude the offer of a product line in the modern lean-and-mean world.

Pentax outsourced the lenses.

Thank you for confirming my point.

Q is most likely dead AFA new products.

I have little doubt about that,
even though the 09 telephoto macro lens was promised for so long,
and reached the prototype production phase.

This is precisely why I'm so skeptical of all these "Ricoh has a plan" claims,
and why I think that Ricoh lens road maps are not to be trusted.

They’re probably gradually selling existing inventory.

They're definitely doing that.

[monochrome]

So, back to PentaxIsDoomedTM? They’re just throwing stuff against the wall? Or are you just determined not to be optimistic? Q failed. Ricoh has financial stress. Imaging won’t get much capital. We’re lucky to have what we have.

The plan is sell in the niche between top-end Nikon and Leica, to Japanese enthusiasts and ‘alternative’ enthusiasts outside Japan, by word of mouth. There isn’t enough volume to spend money marketing in the west, support professional services and offer low-volume products like Q or capital-intensive categories like full-sized mirrorless. They lower prices by omitting costs like marketing and support in markets outside Japan. Otherwise they have to just exit’ like Samsung.

This has been known since 2013.

[lukulele]

Is that wishful thinking?
You would have said the same about FF if the opposite situation was true.
You're 'Ronnish' as hell lately aren't you?

Wonder how the ronnish K-01 is doing?

[clackers]

Wonder how the ronnish K-01 is doing?

Or APS-H. All the companies were wrong for not going with it.

[Zygonyx]

The 645 system has a complete line of lenses.

Let me doubt that the old FA line can cope with the possibly forthcomming 100 Mpix 33x44mm sensor.

[Tranzistors]

Let me doubt that the old FA line can cope with the possibly forthcomming 100 Mpix 33x44mm sensor.

If the next 645 camera is true 6x4.5 sensor camera with 100Mp, it will have the same pixel pitch as 645Z, which has about same pixel pitch as K-1 and K-5.

[Zygonyx]

I want to believe that

---------- Post added 15-08-18 at 01:19 ----------

Which imho is the best way to move forward against competition.
But then you stop current DA28-45 and need desperately some new optics in the WA department.
Or maybe doing with this zoom the reverse operation like the one that was done with DFA 25/4 => DA 25/4

---

Last edited by Zygonyx; 08-15-2018 at 01:25 AM.

[northcoastgreg]

Let me doubt that the old FA line can cope with the possibly forthcomming 100 Mpix 33x44mm sensor.

Let me doubt that there's going to be a forthcoming 100 Mpix 33x44 sensor. After all, isn't the 100 Mpix (which is already being used) 53.4 by 40mm? It also seems to be quite expensive --- probably too expensive for Pentax to bother with.

The 645 system exists primarily to be used with Pentax's older 645 lenses, both the FA and even the A versions. If there hadn't been so many of these lenses floating around, there would have no economically viable reason for Pentax to market an MF camera. The price of the camera along with the price of the newly produced lenses pushes most photographers out of that market, and FF provides greater value in any case.

[photoptimist]

Let me doubt that there's going to be a forthcoming 100 Mpix 33x44 sensor. After all, isn't the 100 Mpix (which is already being used) 53.4 by 40mm? It also seems to be quite expensive --- probably too expensive for Pentax to bother with.

The 645 system exists primarily to be used with Pentax's older 645 lenses, both the FA and even the A versions. If there hadn't been so many of these lenses floating around, there would have no economically viable reason for Pentax to market an MF camera. The price of the camera along with the price of the newly produced lenses pushes most photographers out of that market, and FF provides greater value in any case.

Sony's own announcements (http://www.sony-semicon.co.jp/products_en/news/detail/170301.pdf) claim they will be releasing a 100 Mpix 33x44 sensor (the IMX461) and a 150 Mpix 53.4 by 40 sensor (the IMX411) sometime in 2018.

Putting the IMX411 in the next 645 would let Pentax both outspec the Fuji and Hasselblad MILCs and undercut the prices on full-frame 645s from PhaseOne and Hasselblad. The only issue is whether the total medium format market is large enough for a high-spec, relatively lower-price option.

[Tranzistors]

It also seems to be quite expensive --- probably too expensive for Pentax to bother with.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but even the DA lenses cover the 6×4.5 sensor size, which shows that whoever made the decisions at Pentax at the time believed that eventually 645 mount cameras will have true 6×4.5 sensor. There is a good reason to believe it could make economical sense, since the production tend to lower with time. I mean, when K-5 was launched, it had $1,750 MSRP, the K-1 was at $1,800, which is actually cheaper if you include the inflation.

Of course, it helps the K-1 that a very similar sensor is used by other brands (that shall not be named) which helps to offset the costs. My point is that the price for sensor production is falling and what might not make financial sense today might be reasonable tomorrow.

Finally, we just don't know the price the Hasselblad pays for that 53×44mm² sensor. Perhaps the camera costs a fortune not because of the expenses, but because there are people willing to pay.

[monochrome]

Let me doubt that there's going to be a forthcoming 100 Mpix 33x44 sensor. After all, isn't the 100 Mpix (which is already being used) 53.4 by 40mm? It also seems to be quite expensive --- probably too expensive for Pentax to bother with.

The 645 system exists primarily to be used with Pentax's older 645 lenses, both the FA and even the A versions. If there hadn't been so many of these lenses floating around, there would have no economically viable reason for Pentax to market an MF camera. The price of the camera along with the price of the newly produced lenses pushes most photographers out of that market, and FF provides greater value in any case.

I think it likely the 645D was viable because there was an inventory of FA 645 lenses available to be sold. It might be the entire project was designed just to sell those lenses. Given the current pace of FF and APSc lens releases, how likely is it there will be a rapid release of D FA 645 replacements?

.:

[lytrytyr]

So, back to PentaxIsDoomedTM? They’re just throwing stuff against the wall?

Oh, puhleese!

Or are you just determined not to be optimistic?

I am determined to make the best use of what Pentax has to offer.

In order to do this, we need to be realistic about how Ricoh operate,
and realize that there is no consistent long-term plan to their operations.

Q failed.

Failed as a low-end consumer camera,
for which purpose the system was not intended, designed, or suited.

It succeeded brilliantly at expanding the "photographic space",
the way the Leica did when it first appeared.

Ricoh has financial stress.

That is not a characteristic of companies with a consistent long-term plan.

Imaging won’t get much capital.

But it seems like automotive will,
and that presents an opportunity for co-development
of devices like smaller stacked BSI sensors
and image processing pipelines.

We’re lucky to have what we have.

Amen to that!

The plan is sell in the niche between top-end Nikon and Leica

Top-end Nikon means D5, so your niche is $5K and up.
That would move Pentax out of the range of the vast majority of our forum members.

[northcoastgreg]

In order to do this, we need to be realistic about how Ricoh operate,
and realize that there is no consistent long-term plan to their operations.

Because the future's uncertain and involves incalculable risks, having a consistent long-term plan is probably not a good idea. When unforeseen circumstances arise (which happens most of the time), you need change your long term plan and adapt to the new situation.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but even the DA lenses cover the 6×4.5 sensor size,

The DFA 645 lenses were originally conceived not merely for digital , but also for 645 film bodies. However, the DFA 28-45 would not cover the entire 6 x 4.5 sensor, so that suggests a commitment to the smaller sensor.

Sony's own announcements (http://www.sony-semicon.co.jp/products_en/news/detail/170301.pdf) claim they will be releasing a 100 Mpix 33x44 senso

Then I've been corrected.
.

[biz-engineer]

In order to do this, we need to be realistic about how Ricoh operate,and realize that there is no consistent long-term plan to their operations.

The future is clear: Nikon & Canon are going to introduce mirrorless systems and all their owners are going to see a drop of value of their DSLR equipment.
Ricoh Imaging said they will not make a full frame mirroless line, which means users can count on K mount for a while.
The long term is.... the long term, not sure how long term is being defined by companies these days, perhaps "long term" is an old concept that customers of ILC used to have, but at the speed at which Tamron, Sigma, Sony etc... are releasing new products, it now seems more like long term = 18 months. The equipment is so good now, that I think I'll get some refurbished DSLR tech for cheap, while other people are going to dump their money on the new mirrorless products for no difference in the final images.

[RonHendriks1966]

You're 'Ronnish' as hell lately aren't you?

what would Wikipedia make of this term?

Being 'Ronnish' - a term used by the fanbase of the former camera Brand Pentax about predicting the future, based on personal research of all available open sources and being right in the end all time.