[Tatouzou]

If Sony could not successfully compete with Nikon on DSLRs how can we expect Pentax to successfully compete with Sony on MILC?

Sony does actually successfully compete with FF Canikon DSLR, as the A7 market share is growing fast in the FF low tier. And now the A9 is announced to challenge the Canikon flagship.

A pure MILC Pentax looks like a no-win proposition for the company:

1) K-mount MILC: the disadvantageous bulk of a DSLR without the advantageous OVF of a DSLR.

IMO, the extra bulk in FF is not an issue. Those who want to go small and light choose M43 or APS-C mirrorless. Those who bought the A7 didnt do it for its smaller size. And MILC with latest EVF best the OVF in several areas: AF accuracy, exposure preview, manual focusing, video, subject tracking, eye AF, AF points across the frame, burst rates.

2) Compact Pentax MILC: extremely high investment in new bodies and lenses (for both Pentax and Pentax users). If current Pentax users must "switch mounts" or use an adaptor for their old lenses, won't many of them realize there's no advantage to staying with Pentax?

I agree, that is why I believe 1) is the only way Pentax can go.

But a hybrid EVF-in-OVF would be amazing! (And far less costly for Pentax to develop and let Pentax continue with K-mount.)

That is IMO something too complex which would be very expensive and very few would buy. Whereas a mirrorless FF K mount could makes sense both as a second camera for K1 users and as an alternative to Sony A7 if Pentax can sell it with A7 features, at A7 prices but with Pentax ergonomy and build quality.

[mecrox]

Depends on what you mean by the expression "clean sheet". My definition is different from yours. I would use the term "clean sheet" to describe what Canon went through thirty years ago when they "abandoned" all their old users, and replaced the FD-mount by the EF-mount. I would use the term "clean sheet" to describe what Pentax went through a few years ago and introduced the Q-mount, which is much more like the EF-mount than like the K-mount. I would absolutely love it if Pentax would develop a new M-mount for mirror-less cameras - basically a grown-up version of the Q-mount - because my Q-7's in-lens leaf shutter is so incredibly quiet. They would, of course, have to provide an adapter to make use of older lenses feasible.

That isn't going to happen, but I see nothing wrong with dreaming big.

I meant a new mount and if necessary a camera designed differently enough to take advantage of efficient production techniques on those automated lines Canon now have. Soon every outfit will have them. Legacy can be accommodated via an adapter and if the adapter is good enough then little is lost. But the idea is not to let "legacy" become a ball and chain dragging on things. An epiphany here was Roger Cicala's teardown of a Sony A7 series camera and his conclusion: "The completely disassembled Sony A7R consists of about a dozen major pieces, held together with 29 screws of just three different sizes. A typical DSLR has around 120 screws of 11 different sizes ... how much cheaper it must be to make this camera, than to make a DSLR."

Of course none of this means anyone has to use these new cameras. If they prefer to use different or even old designs with film inside them then it's very important they do. It's crazy using something you don't like and aren't happy with. But it's idle to pretend the world isn't changing and the changes do all point one way.

[bxf]

Downsampled 4K to 1080 looks better than 1080 native

When I see tables like this: Why can't I tell a difference between 1080p and 4K resolutions video? - Quora, that tell me that at a viewing distance of 8 feet I need a 70" screen to just begin to see the difference between 1080p and 4K, I fail to see how downsampling 4K to 1080 can make the difference more obvious. And would one even watch a 70" screen at only 8 feet?

[Rondec]

Funny how this thread turned into a Pentax needs better video thread.

To me, 4K video doesn't move the needle much at all with regard to SLR sales. It doesn't hurt to have it and might help a little bit, but other than improving reviews of Pentax products, I don't think it would move much product. That doesn't mean they shouldn't add it, but it does mean that it isn't high on their list of things to get done.

The cost isn't so high to add it from an R and D standpoint -- it is just software and some of it can be licensed for relatively small cost from other companies. The cost however to get 4K capable video on a camera like the K-1 could be considerable. I'm not sure what the cheapest full frame sensor is that is 4K capable, but my guess is that it is quite a bit more expensive than the one in the K-1 right now. Which sells more, a K-1 without 4K, that sells for 1900 dollars with a free grip, or a K-1 with the 42 megapixel sensor, with 4K, selling for 2500 dollars? My guess is actually the former rather than the latter, but I'm not in the business so I don't have any hard data to prove one way or the other. Regardless, that is the calculation that Pentax did when they released the K-1 and it is why they chose an older (but still high quality) sensor.

Eventually the cost of those sensors will come down and then we'll see them in Pentax cameras too.

[clackers]

Like I said before the K-1 was released, I didn't want it to cost one cent more or be delayed by one more day because of some requirement for video.

Video is so unimportant to me I'm happy to shoot it on my Sony or with my phone.

YMMV.

[Kunzite]

Yeah. Pentax/Ricoh clearly had price and time targets - they actually missed the time target; lack of 4K or a completely new AF system were the result of that.
All things considered, they make the right choice.

[x4rd]

To me, 4K video doesn't move the needle much at all with regard to SLR sales. It doesn't hurt to have it and might help a little bit, but other than improving reviews of Pentax products, I don't think it would move much product. That doesn't mean they shouldn't add it, but it does mean that it isn't high on their list of things to get done.

True, that's why Canon did not sell many 5D MK II (despite its poor AF)

[surfar]

Once again, 4K, 4444444KKKKK aint going away(what a name for a song)


Embrace change....the world hasn't stopped STILL!

[Rondec]

Once again, 4K, 4444444KKKKK aint going away(what a name for a song)


Embrace change....the world hasn't stopped STILL!

It isn't going away, but how much more would you be willing to pay for a K-1 with 4K on it? Assuming roughly the same performance otherwise.

[Erictator]

Once again, 4K, 4444444KKKKK aint going away(what a name for a song)
Embrace change....the world hasn't stopped STILL!

I have been a Home Theater fan for many years... I suffered through all the format changes. From VHS, to SVHS, to Laser Disk, DVD, 3D Bluray, etc. Spent embarrassing amounts of money on keeping up with the tech for a while. All the while, noticing the effect that Home Theater was having on high quality 2 channel (stereo) traditional audio sales. A home theater sound system is pretty much crap for real audio quality, and relies heavily on software magic embedded into movie tracks for the wiz bang. Put your favorite Album/CD on there and yuck!

Always with a new format comes new displays, new copywrite protection issues, bandwidth issues, storage issues, and refreshing your audio/video library.

Most people don't realize, we could have had awesome direct digital hookups many years ago... a single HDMI or Optical cable to hook up your home theater devices, but because of Hollywood freaking out over copy protection, we were stuck with a rats nest of wires to convert digital to analog and back again.... augh!!!! And everything got hacked and copied anyways, didn't slow the bad guys down one second and we the consumer get to foot the bill and put up with the mess of cables.

And then people wonder why consumers are FED UP with the constant upgrade wagon, and lately have begun to go EVERY TIME for INFERIOR quality for convenience, IE: IPOD-ITunes vs/ SonyDVD-A or SACCD Walkman, Netflix vs/Blockbuster Bluray rental, Smart Phone Camera vs/ DSLR etc etc etc.

Yes, the smartphone market drove the quest for bigger and higher resolution screens, video, etc and is still evolving, but once you reach a point where nobody believes the marketing hype anymore, and they can't see the difference plainly for themselves, they will call BS on the whole thing and not buy into it. (See Curved LED TV, 3D TV, etc etc etc).

Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on how you look at it) we are a capitalist consumer driven economy. We must grow, or die. We must have a constant refresh cycle or the companies business model that makes the toys we like to play with will fail and go out of business.

That is the other reason for planned obsolescence and why your "smart refrigerator" will prolly only last 3 to 7 years instead of 50 years like the Westinghouse that is prolly still running fine in your parents/grandparents basement.

4K video? Really? The DRONE market and manufacturers are probably pushing this more than any real outcry for it. You can currently get playback devices, but there is no real industry standard yet, and content is nearly nonexistent.

AFAIAC it is heavily marketed brain washing item that it is a check-list must have item for DSLR to be considered not behind the times ... If Pentax was big enough to just implement it, no matter how crappie, I guess it would be like being able to claim 2million ISO... whoo hoo! Lets all get drunk.

Sorry, I honestly think the consumer is poorly served trying to buy 4K video in a full frame DSLR for any kind of serious Pro (for pay) use. If I need to go buy or rent a Red Epic something or another for pro video, then that is what I'll go get, not some crappie half arsed DSLR implementation of 4K on a checklist item that was only put there to sell a few more bodies to people who should know better and go buy a dedicated vid cam. The YouTube crowd can do just fine with a prosumer Panny GH-whatever while they do their zillionth video of how to put on lipstick or unbox a purse.

IIWKOTW (If I was king of the world, heh) I would make the edict that Ricoh should invest their time & resources in and in this order:

World class autofocus R&D! would be job #1, NO new camera's released without out it. Constant ongoing R&D into this. FW updates where possible.
MARKETING - Hire people who know how to market to other than the Asian market. Trust them. Do what they say, even if it goes against Asian mind sets.
Roll out the FF lens line refresh would be job #2,
and Roll out the K3 successor would be job #4, Keep making K3II's and KP's. If they could economize the assembly line and just make 2 or 3 models, and cut the price of the KP to the K70, or put the KP sensor and firmware into the "K80", I'd say go for it.
and then, when the K1 is prolly nearing 3 or 4 yrs old, roll out the K1 successor, but no rush. And whatever video is in that chip from Sony by default, slap the basic FW bundle in there to support the vid on it, checkbox checked, but don't go ape on it.

Wow... such snark! Where did all that come from?

I need to go stare at Flickr pics of kittens and puppies for a while. Sorry for the rant folks but my fingers just started going and downloaded what whas on my mind.
Eric

---------- Post added 05-08-17 at 11:12 AM ----------

It isn't going away, but how much more would you be willing to pay for a K-1 with 4K on it? Assuming roughly the same performance otherwise.

I like your logic, and I'll raise you one more to contemplate...

If the problem we have been chasing with better AF is CPU/Mem related, and IF*** better AF could be achieved by dumping video altogether and putting more of the computational power and memory towards AF, I wonder how many would give up video for D500 AF performance? Or at least better AF than we have now? I know I would!!!! I bet a bunch of people who have never even tried the video on their K1 would too.

***(this is purely fantasy for the sake of argument. I would guess that there are real hardware issues like CPU speed, mem speed, etc to address, but if video money and effort was traded for great AF, one does have to wonder...)
Eric

[mecrox]

If they think like that, then they better quit doing what they are doing.
In reality, they should be in the business of creating passion in people, to see and interpret the world, be imaginative.
"Selling gear" is only a capitalist prerogative, a prejudice of a current economic system that has worked out a certain way of production for more money making, not necessarily to satisfy certain human needs it 'apparently' wishes to satisfy. Humans can exist without such a mode of economy, and have existed without it.

A DSLR, produced in Japan by Asahi, or a rangefinder made by Leitz, on the other hand, came out not as a sales needed to make money, but as a creative exercise in solving of a particular creative problem to develop a visual expression. Whatever new came later on, wishes to compete against the established liberal art, and imposes itself as a sales tool. It has to. Therefore modern mirrorless is sales driven, care about real human need is secondary or tertiary concern, and takes all sorts of excuses telling us that "it solves problems". No, it is a stolen excuse, it is a lie.



People still have same old same old eyes. Are we required to pluck them out when new artificial eyes arrive?

There is no clean sheet in anything. Clean sheet mean totally destroying the old paradigm, even the memory of it. That is also a false preset of the evolutionism — just a quick glance at a complex world or different organisms around shows it is an utterly wrong view, forced by competitive and merciless capitalism, which destroys itself because it follows such a 'clean sheet view'. That is a parasitic view, but even parasites stop at a certain obstacle — when there is no enough food, or the environment is too hostile. Yet 'clean sheet' view is so irrational it itself alive.

It is destructive, as is visible from trends that arose in various forms in economy and politics from WW2 onwards. It is sustainable insofar as there is lots of propaganda and deluding of audience, and enough of 'old environment' to draw the energy from. But when the old environment is gone, gone is life too.

'Clean sheet' is too blind to see it.

I'm not sure where to begin because I am not sure what you are trying to say.

It strikes me as a fundamental error to think that something developed say seventy years ago was a "creative exercise in solving of a particular creative problem" but that something developed today is not and is instead a cynical exercise in exploitation by the running dogs of capitalism. It doesn't sound so good if you say "walking dogs" or "ambling dogs" does it, and "trotting dogs" is faintly camp, though I suppose Chairman Mao could have done worse than devote the next three hours of his address to the Party Congress to musing on modes of canine locomotion. But we live in a golden age of photographic and technical innovation so what you say simply cannot be the case.

Second, "clean sheet" is a label. Dictionary definitions are available, such as "an absence of existing restraints or commitments". I used it in that sense. That is, starting over with a new mount and if necessary a new design of camera so that the best of modern electronic design and production can be accommodated without commitments to legacy products dragging the whole thing down. Several camera companies have done exactly this - Sony, Olympus, Fuji, Leica, etc. Over the next decade I'd guess that all of them will.

Finally, use whatever you want. No one will care. It won't make any difference. Everything will change anyway. It always does. That's not a put-down, simply an observation. Using what you don't want or don't like is madness.

[reh321]

I meant a new mount and if necessary a camera designed differently enough to take advantage of efficient production techniques on those automated lines Canon now have. Soon every outfit will have them. Legacy can be accommodated via an adapter and if the adapter is good enough then little is lost. But the idea is not to let "legacy" become a ball and chain dragging on things.

I basically agree with your definition {and disagree with the strawman Uluru constructed}. In fact, Canon has done this with the M5, having a retail price very close to the 80D it is said to be based on. As I said, I know Pentax won't do that {so I'm not trying to start a subthread of people telling me why that wouldn't work}, but I would love for Pentax to do that with the K-70.

An epiphany here was Roger Cicala's teardown of a Sony A7 series camera and his conclusion: "The completely disassembled Sony A7R consists of about a dozen major pieces, held together with 29 screws of just three different sizes. A typical DSLR has around 120 screws of 11 different sizes ... how much cheaper it must be to make this camera, than to make a DSLR."

I'm not a camera designer, but I don't know of any reason for screw selection to be a factor here - perhaps Sony is just better at that kind of thing because of their experience in consumer goods; hopefully their stuff will also be long-lived {unlike some consumer goods with planned obsolescence}

[Kunzite]

Obviously, Sony is good at designing cheaply to make products; obviously, this is not without some drawbacks - I don't remember third parties making reinforced camera mounts for Pentax, Canon or Nikon.
Even their brand new shiny A9 is not as well made as it could be, if we believe the Sony manager who promised an improved model.

[RobA_Oz]

Making things that can be extensively repaired also doesn't sell as many new products. Everyone from phone to automobile makers knows that you reduce spares inventory count and raise the price of each by making unrepairable subassemblies. The low major component count of the A7 indicates that may be the case, but a teardown of someone else's similar MILC might be more instructive, rather than comparing it with someone else's DSLR. I'd call that an interesting indicator of several possibilities (including good industrial design), rather than an epiphany about the viewfinder type.

[mecrox]

Making things that can be extensively repaired also doesn't sell as many new products. Everyone from phone to automobile makers knows that you reduce spares inventory count and raise the price of each by making unrepairable subassemblies. The low major component count of the A7 indicates that may be the case, but a teardown of someone else's similar MILC might be more instructive, rather than comparing it with someone else's DSLR. I'd call that an interesting indicator of several possibilities (including good industrial design), rather than an epiphany about the viewfinder type.

If you had my comment in mind, viewfinder type isn't the issue. The matter here is clever design which takes a big step towards the camera of no moving parts, one which can be produced economically on a modern automated production line. The argument is that a DSLR is a design from a previous era which isn't nearly so suitable for such treatment. It is therefore more difficult and more expensive to produce. Tolerances and precise alignments become an issue with the DSLR. It is this kind of contrast which points the way to the future, in my view. I doubt Sony have ease of repair in mind as one of their design goals. They are not exactly famous for their customer service when it comes to repairing anything. Nor does the production technique guarantee decent build quality. Look at Sony's ambiguous position with regard to WR. The smart folks to look at here are likely Canon, not Sony. A tear down of an EOS M5 could be revealing.

In fact Ricoh do have an opportunity to do something similar themselves. They have written down the value of their old compact camera plant and say they intend to repurpose it towards camera equipment for industry, automobiles, etc. They have therefore created an opportunity to install the most advanced automated production facilities for their new, industry-facing camera operation.