[biz-engineer]

Yeah, they wanted to do it professionally....and thats the reason for their choice of equipment

:-) happiness comes from wanting what we can have. There is virtually no limit to what someone may want, so is the amount of unhappiness that result in wanting things we can't have. When we have 4K we may still be discontent of not having 8K. The beauty of marketing is to make people spend their money, that's what Ernest Dichter call "making people constructively discontent of what they already have". It's like taming animals for the zoo. Promise them a bit of food, never give them the whole amount of food to keep them hungry and motivated, and exploit them for how long as they live. Such is the poor life of consumer not seeing the big picture. Aren't we all hamsters pedaling in our little cage? Is 4K the next carrot? Well, if I was Ricoh, I'll make a K1 without 4K, so that I can make a K2 with 4K and put 4K video forward as a new reason for K1 owners to sell their K1 second hand and buy a K2.

[surfar]

Aren't we all hamsters pedaling in our little cage? Is 4K the next carrot?





well, how ive been a HAMster all my life...


And ive been seeing the BIG picture.....WALL SIZE for the last 2 years with Samsung and Panasonic....so I don't need 4K....the 2 bodies I shoot it on do just fine.


However, feeling sorry for the Pentax hamsters gives me a feeling of remorse.How I wish Pentaxians could catch up with moving picture technology(its been around since 1920s I think?, is that close to 100 years?)





Well, if I was Ricoh, I'll make a K1 without 4K, so that I can make a K2 with 4K and put 4K video forward as a new reason for K1 owners to sell their K1 second hand and buy a K2.


Why didn't Ricoh think of that?.....OH, they did, as far as the K1 is concerned.....My one wont shoot 4K even though I keep asking it nicely.

[Uluru]

Such an arrangement could extend the life of the K-mount, considerably.

Not a single company should have changed their mount from the film age. It was not necessary, but that is the problem when the engineers and other smarter people are totally excluded from strategic meetings, and the latest CEO steps on a table, and delivers some kooky idea how to 'reinvent the market', 'change the world'. That is, create stir, confusion, then grab some quick cash and run away in other company, to preach same. Managers have that messianic problem, they smoke some strange dope of egotism, that ruins good things, and sell people false salvation.

Tell me, when was the the last time Sony issued a thin lens for their new mount? It is a joke, it was always a lie! They issued two, to use them for fake marketing, and every single lens they issue now is humongous, and they still have a nerve to say mirrorless is smaller than a DSLR. It is all fake narrative, selling of some wacko messianic hopes, which preach to the confused that if we cut off the past entirely, very bright future will fall into our hands. But mirror has nothing to do with it. It is a fake Beowulf, fake monster under the bed. If they only had a mirror to look at themselves when talking such nonsense. But they don't because they know they can't blush.

We live in age of false hopes, broadcasted by messianic leaders who are as blind as a bunch of colourblind hedgehogs, tied in a bag, in a dark attic.

The only reason Pentax has been waiting for an EVF, is the suitable tech: sufficient resolution and refresh rate to remind of OVF, and optimum price, to be integrated economically in more than one body.

When that camera comes, one that may or may not use mirror, may or may not use EVF, may or may not use OVF — however user wants it — then people will start thinking: what the industry has been doing during the last 10 years? What is really going on there?

The answer: the industry was chasing its own tail and selling fake messianic hopes.

[surfar]

Hallelujah!

[Tatouzou]

Not a single company should have changed their mount from the film age. It was not necessary, but that is the problem when the engineers and other smarter people are totally excluded from strategic meetings, and the latest CEO steps on a table, and delivers some kooky idea how to 'reinvent the market', 'change the world'. That is, create stir, confusion, then grab some quick cash and run away in other company, to preach same. Managers have that messianic problem, they smoke some strange dope of egotism, that ruins good things, and sell people false salvation.

Tell me, when was the the last time Sony issued a thin lens for their new mount? It is a joke, it was always a lie! They issued two, to use them for fake marketing, and every single lens they issue now is humongous, and they still have a nerve to say mirrorless is smaller than a DSLR. It is all fake narrative, selling of some wacko messianic hopes, which preach to the confused that if we cut off the past entirely, very bright future will fall into our hands. But mirror has nothing to do with it. It is a fake Beowulf, fake monster under the bed. If they only had a mirror to look at themselves when talking such nonsense. But they don't because they know they can't blush.

We live in age of false hopes, broadcasted by messianic leaders who are as blind as a bunch of colourblind hedgehogs, tied in a bag, in a dark attic.

The only reason Pentax has been waiting for an EVF, is the suitable tech: sufficient resolution and refresh rate to remind of OVF, and optimum price, to be integrated economically in more than one body.

When that camera comes, one that may or may not use mirror, may or may not use EVF, may or may not use OVF — however user wants it — then people will start thinking: what the industry has been doing during the last 10 years? What is really going on there?

The answer: the industry was chasing its own tail and selling fake messianic hopes.

I agree with much of what you posted above, but with one caveat: why should a camera body do everything, i.e. be OVF DSLR+ mirrorless EVF? Why not two different bodies with different features, i.e. the K1 DSLR + a new K-mirrorless (K02?)sharing the same bag of lenses?

[mecrox]

Not a single company should have changed their mount from the film age. It was not necessary, but that is the problem when the engineers and other smarter people are totally excluded from strategic meetings, and the latest CEO steps on a table, and delivers some kooky idea how to 'reinvent the market', 'change the world'. That is, create stir, confusion, then grab some quick cash and run away in other company, to preach same. Managers have that messianic problem, they smoke some strange dope of egotism, that ruins good things, and sell people false salvation.

Tell me, when was the the last time Sony issued a thin lens for their new mount? It is a joke, it was always a lie! They issued two, to use them for fake marketing, and every single lens they issue now is humongous, and they still have a nerve to say mirrorless is smaller than a DSLR. It is all fake narrative, selling of some wacko messianic hopes, which preach to the confused that if we cut off the past entirely, very bright future will fall into our hands. But mirror has nothing to do with it. It is a fake Beowulf, fake monster under the bed. If they only had a mirror to look at themselves when talking such nonsense. But they don't because they know they can't blush.

We live in age of false hopes, broadcasted by messianic leaders who are as blind as a bunch of colourblind hedgehogs, tied in a bag, in a dark attic.

The only reason Pentax has been waiting for an EVF, is the suitable tech: sufficient resolution and refresh rate to remind of OVF, and optimum price, to be integrated economically in more than one body.

When that camera comes, one that may or may not use mirror, may or may not use EVF, may or may not use OVF — however user wants it — then people will start thinking: what the industry has been doing during the last 10 years? What is really going on there?

The answer: the industry was chasing its own tail and selling fake messianic hopes.

Sorry but this is nostalgia. Everything changes, we do and so do all the objects we use in daily life including cameras. What cameras can do, how they work, what they are made from and how they are made on automated production lines has changed dramatically in the past twenty years. It is quite normal to expect the size, shape and format of a camera to change along with all that. Economics would drive it, if nothing else. And I think you overrate some corporations and their CEOs. They are bureaucrats very often, and the cash-grabbing comes from robbing the stockholders rather than from clever ideas out there in the market. It is all too common for companies to be bought and sold without any really credible idea of what to do with them or how to run them. There is a lot of hot air and hype and bonuses for greedy executives, bombastic statements are made about becoming a world player in XYZ, but when when it comes to a strong vision of what one wants to do, well they don't have one. The game lies entirely in the chase and the acquisition. A decade later and the bonuses long banked, the executives are selling off the property out the back door and walking away, hoping no one will notice.

The DSLR is under siege and so are the mounts it uses. It is a steadily shrinking market. Probably there is some gas still left in it but we shouldn't kid ourselves it represents the future. It doesn't.

But when it comes to politicians, you are well on the correct path with those slugs ...

[monochrome]

They wanted to do.

Actually, market share comes essentially from the momentum built on a global scale marketing mix, whether Pentax does 4K in its DLSR has so little influence when being supported by other components of the marketing mix.
Regarding the market share of Pentax (relative to other brands), what a Pentax camera doesn't have is what's the most discussed here. It's a very narrow view of how thing are.
If we disregard profitability, it is obvious that if Ricoh would distribute the K1 on a scale of what Sony and Canon are doing; the K1 would outsell outside of the current k mount user base. Of course that would require a lot of inventory buildup , a lot of wasted resources, but the absolute number of Pentax camera unit sold would be much higher. Just by looking around, it's not difficult to figure that Pentax is absent in 80% of the camera distribution channels. Over here, Pentax is present in one shop out of 10. And that's not at all related to video , 4K, whatever goes into a camera.

Pentax doesn't have the manufacturing capacity to do that and Ricoh won't/can't give them the capital to build it; and they couldn't afford the promotion expense while they built the volume. They would need to be prepared to invest, and initially lose, billions.

[biz-engineer]

Pentax doesn't have the manufacturing capacity to do that and Ricoh won't/can't give them the capital to build it; and they couldn't afford the promotion expense while they built the volume. They would need to be prepared to invest, and initially lose, billions.

That's not my point. In short, my point is:
1) people associate low market share with poor product specs / performance, saying something "You see, Pentax low market share is because the video is not good"
2) I say, pentax market share is not related to having 4K video or not, Pentax market share is related to whether extensive marketing and efforts (incentive to dealers etc.) is done or not. So, no one can say that Pentax specs aren't good based on their market share. Camera specs are camera specs and market share is market share.

[K David]

1) people associate low market share with poor product specs / performance, saying something "You see, Pentax low market share is because the video is not good"

I don't agree with that at all. I think people, maybe not all people, are savvy enough to recognize that low market share can mean a niche, specialty product. Tesla has a relatively low market share in the car industry. Great reputation and a niche product. Philz Coffee has a tiny market share compared to Folgers, Starbucks, etc. Philz is a niche product and excellent, too. LED light are still a very small part of the market, but growing, but are a niche product compared to CFLs. I think there would be little argument that LEDs produce better light. I can't support the idea that there's a necessary mental connection between low market share and representative quality.

2) I say, pentax market share is not related to having 4K video or not, Pentax market share is related to whether extensive marketing and efforts (incentive to dealers etc.) is done or not. So, no one can say that Pentax specs aren't good based on their market share. Camera specs are camera specs and market share is market share.

Yeah, this seems pretty much accurate. if Pentax did a bit more dealer service and treated dealers like Canon and Nikon do, they could probably have a market share equal to or at least nearing parity with those two. But, niche products are generally more profitable. I work in a division of a company that provides a niche construction service. Trust me when I say that niche has MUCH -- MUCH MUCH MUCH -- higher margins than a mass market or commodity product.

[clackers]

I agree with much of what you posted above, but with one caveat: why should a camera body do everything, i.e. be OVF DSLR+ mirrorless EVF? Why not two different bodies with different features, i.e. the K1 DSLR + a new K-mirrorless (K02?)sharing the same bag of lenses?

Yes, Tatouzou, at some stage, I'm sure a successor to the K-01 will be looked at.

Pentax have said it won't be in the near future, but that had also been true of the K-1 ... an on-again, off-again project that bubbled in a pot at the back of the stove until the strategists said financially it made sense to go ahead.

[Uluru]

I agree with much of what you posted above, but with one caveat: why should a camera body do everything, i.e. be OVF DSLR+ mirrorless EVF? Why not two different bodies with different features, i.e. the K1 DSLR + a new K-mirrorless (K02?)sharing the same bag of lenses?

It is a good question. Thank you. But here is good answer for that, I hope: to be more usable in critical situations. And critical situation scenarios are more likely to happen more and more, when you decide to go out with a proper camera and lenses, because you know you go out to challenge the set, the elements, and odds, to get the result you really, really want. You want a really unique result.

It is not smartphone photography anymore, from a safe distance, under cover. It is something else. Whether you need an EVF overlay to pinpoint focus at razor thin DoF at f2.8 at 10m distance, or a visual aid in dusk, or a mirrorless operation when you desire no sound at all, or a brilliant OVF with no lag and with clarity of natural colours and tones impossible to reproduce in EVF, or strictly mirror operation that saves the battery ... all of that is possible to have in a mission critical camera. And future Pentax cameras, I think, will go more and more in a direction of ultimate image taking experience and results.

So the photography is indeed becoming a challenge, again, offered to serious hobbyists, not just pros. Kinda creative pentathlon discipline together with hiking, swimming, education and creative writing, for those that see there is still beauty outside, things to examine, and many situations not readily photographed before.

[photoptimist]

It is a good question. Thank you. But here is good answer for that, I hope: to be more usable in critical situations. And critical situation scenarios are more likely to happen more and more, when you decide to go out with a proper camera and lenses, because you know you go out to challenge the set, the elements, and odds, to get the result you really, really want. You want a really unique result.

It is not smartphone photography anymore, from a safe distance, under cover. It is something else. Whether you need an EVF overlay to pinpoint focus at razor thin DoF at f2.8 at 10m distance, or a visual aid in dusk, or a mirrorless operation when you desire no sound at all, or a brilliant OVF with no lag and with clarity of natural colours and tones impossible to reproduce in EVF, or strictly mirror operation that saves the battery ... all of that is possible to have in a mission critical camera. And future Pentax cameras, I think, will go more and more in a direction of ultimate image taking experience and results.

So the photography is indeed becoming a challenge, again, offered to serious hobbyists, not just pros. Kinda creative pentathlon discipline together with hiking, swimming, education and creative writing, for those that see there is still beauty outside, things to examine, and many situations not readily photographed before.

^^^^THIS!!!

In Live View mode, a DSLR is a MILC. The only thing that current DSLRs lack is an EVF to preview/review images through a nice shaded eyepiece instead using the sun-bleached back panel.

Add an EVF and a DSLR offers the best of both worlds -- silent MILC mode and zero-lag, natural-image, low-power OVF mode -- along with every feature, control, and high-performance spec of a full-sized DSLR.

Why carry two bodies when all one wants is a small EVF integrated into the main pro-level camera?

[clackers]

^^^^THIS!!!

In Live View mode, a DSLR is a MILC. The only thing that current DSLRs lack is an EVF to preview/review images through a nice shaded eyepiece instead using the sun-bleached back panel.

And you can even do that if you put a Hoodman loupe on the back panel.

[geomez]

In Live View mode, a DSLR is a MILC. The only thing that current DSLRs lack is an EVF to preview/review images through a nice shaded eyepiece instead using the sun-bleached back panel.

Add an EVF and a DSLR offers the best of both worlds.

Main benefits of a MILC:

- EVF

- Smaller size and less weight (lenses notwithstanding)

A DSLR with an EVF gets you half of the best of one world.

I'd probably buy an articulating, hot shoe mounted EVF if I could buy one for my DSLR, but I don't think there's a huge market for it.

IMO what would be a killer camera is a DSLR similar in size to current DSLR with one eyepiece that you can choose between EVF and OVF.

[mecrox]

Main benefits of a MILC:

- EVF

- Smaller size and less weight (lenses notwithstanding)

A DSLR with an EVF gets you half of the best of one world.

I'd probably buy an articulating, hot shoe mounted EVF if I could buy one for my DSLR, but I don't think there's a huge market for it.

IMO what would be a killer camera is a DSLR similar in size to current DSLR with one eyepiece that you can choose between EVF and OVF.

I don't think there is any need for camera-makers to invest lots of money in hybrid or dual OVF/EVF systems. They know that time and demographics are on their side. Soon enough, the OVF or die crowd will become small enough and old enough for it not to matter. They can still be catered to by traditional DSLRs, at a price, for as long as they form a niche worth appealing to - but everything else will move over to modern all-electronic systems. No one will complain. They will have grown up with such systems and, anyway, they offer capabilities a DSLR cannot match.

At the moment we are in the awkward cross-over period, that's all.