[surfar]

camera brings a lot more fun for the money.

So a drone should be next?

[biz-engineer]

So a drone should be next?

;-) .. ah ah , the difference between a Drone and Ricoh Theta? Drone is fun...although authorities are now requiring a license to fly a drone over interesting places.

[mecrox]

Well, that's interesting. I was recently in Japan and I was stunned by how many Ricoh Theta I saw in the streets. Now, what is the Theta experience?: Press one button and with seamless pairing with mobile phone post direct on social media, browse the picture with one or two fingers, zoom in zoom out, change the viewpoint. Ricoh Theta does what Canon, Nikon, Sony and Fuji don't. You can't have the Ricoh Theta experience with a D850, although D850 costs 10 times more than the Theta. There is recent post about image quality pixel peeping of the K1 vs D850... tiny difference mostly irrelevant for real life shooting, especially given the cost of a D850 system upgrade.That made me realize that Ricoh understands better the market than pentax forum users hanging on traditional DSLR and now I understand much better why Ricoh purchased Pentax and why it takes forever to release a couple more lenses for the K1. Basically, the trend isn't into increasing image quality, the trend is about providing more fun to take pictures, Ricoh does it well with the Theta, that is something that can't be done with either a DSLR or a phone. Based on growing Ricoh Theta, I guess most criticism is missplaced here with regards to Pentax lagging behind in the DSLR/mirrorless arena. For example, there is a lot of criticism of Ricoh not making a mirrorless system... I would say that a mirrorless camera brings nearly nothing more than what a DSLR can do, a 360 camera brings a lot more fun for the money.

The Theta is a smart idea and appears to be a great success. It also has lots of new-generation thinking which Pentax would surely benefit from. However, it is a one-trick pony and it doesn’t answer any of the questions folks may have about conventional photography on Pentax DSLRs. Other camera companies seem to be doing well and scoring hits, so there’s no reason why Pentax can’t too, imho. They just need to want to and tell the world they want to. Have Pentax said anything to their many users about how they want to succeed since Ricoh's formulaic statement on 12 April? That's nearly six months now.

[johnmflores]

Of course you haven't seen - the camera does not exist as an end product. There's nothing to review.
Regardless, the specs show that it doesn't have a particularly long reach, and it can't take any pictures as it doesn't exist yet. The L16, sorry, is a red herring.

And... you're changing the context, which was about smartphones incorporating "a decent zoom function" and supposedly making the DSLR market evaporate, and soccer moms standing on the sidelines. I have this bad habit of sticking with the original context until a conclusion is reached.

A traditional camera has no need to mess with images on people's faces. The computational techniques incorporated would likely be subtler, helping capturing an image as opposed to making it up.

P.S. I don't want to quench your enthusiasm for whatever emerging (???) technology, and I truly appreciate when someone is open minded and imaginative. I simply believe, and quite strongly, that enthusiasm should not be done at the expense - read: spreading doubt about the future - of existing, working technology.
To paraphrase Bjarne Stroustrup, "legacy" cameras differs from their suggested alternatives by actually working.

The context is still there, I just switched the example from L16 to the iPhone because of all of the pre-criticism of the L16 lol. The iPhone has evolved from a single lens, 30-31mm EQ wide angle to a pair of lenses (one wide, one normal/long normal) plus computational algorithms to take vastly improved portraits that under certain conditions can look like they were taken with a long normal or short telephoto. And the Google Pixel 2 has a single camera but the 12 megapickle sensor is a Dual pixel sensor. According to PhoneArena.com, this is how it works:

"the Pixel 2 now supports Portrait mode that blurs the background and lets the subject in a photo stand out. And it works not only with people and faces. This is possible due to Dual Pixel technology. Dual pixel means just what it says: every pixel on the camera sensor is actually two pixels. This is traditionally used for faster auto-focus, but Google uses it in a clever way: it creates a depth map of a scene and allows separation of an object from the background."

There's a lot of innovation happening in phone cameras right now because they are all seeking a competitive advantage. There's no reason to think that we're at the endpoint of development, and future phones will continue to encroach the low end of the ILC market.

And what you call spreading doubt is trying to realistic about the situation. Every camera maker has been hit hard by the phone invasion. Some think the worst is over. Some think we're in the eye of the storm. We'd all love Pentax to be more competitive in this new camera landscape and it's ok to disagree on how that can be achieved.

[MarkJerling]

Why luckily ?

Well, a few reasons for using the word "luckily":

1. I'd not like to see DSLR's phased out.
2. At the end it all comes down to optics. "Folding" a 150mm or a 300mm lens light path into a 6mm thickness means mirrors rather than tubes with lens elements. SLR's have developed the way they have because it happens to be a very efficient way of bending light. I don't think there's any good reason to depart from that. In the end, we do after all need cameras that are easy to hold. Holding a smartphone (as a camera) is not a very pleasurable experience. The nice thing with DSLR's is that they have enough bulk to hold onto nicely.

In my view anyway.

[sibyrnes]

I love my “crappy” KP. Just sayin’!

[Rondec]

The context is still there, I just switched the example from L16 to the iPhone because of all of the pre-criticism of the L16 lol. The iPhone has evolved from a single lens, 30-31mm EQ wide angle to a pair of lenses (one wide, one normal/long normal) plus computational algorithms to take vastly improved portraits that under certain conditions can look like they were taken with a long normal or short telephoto. And the Google Pixel 2 has a single camera but the 12 megapickle sensor is a Dual pixel sensor. According to PhoneArena.com, this is how it works:

"the Pixel 2 now supports Portrait mode that blurs the background and lets the subject in a photo stand out. And it works not only with people and faces. This is possible due to Dual Pixel technology. Dual pixel means just what it says: every pixel on the camera sensor is actually two pixels. This is traditionally used for faster auto-focus, but Google uses it in a clever way: it creates a depth map of a scene and allows separation of an object from the background."

There's a lot of innovation happening in phone cameras right now because they are all seeking a competitive advantage. There's no reason to think that we're at the endpoint of development, and future phones will continue to encroach the low end of the ILC market.

And what you call spreading doubt is trying to realistic about the situation. Every camera maker has been hit hard by the phone invasion. Some think the worst is over. Some think we're in the eye of the storm. We'd all love Pentax to be more competitive in this new camera landscape and it's ok to disagree on how that can be achieved.

I refuse to believe that people truly interested in photography will be satisfied with the fake blur that these cameras offer. Yes, they satisfy, but they satisfy in the same way that instagram and snapchat filters do and if people are interested in "better" images, they will eventually move away from cell phone cameras.

[Kunzite]

@johnmflores:
Good answer... how did we get to the L16 in the first place?

Computational photography is an interesting subject, but I'm not seeing any proof that it could replace "traditional" photography in the next years. What I'm seeing is potential for improvements addressed to those already using a smartphone, and making them better as a compact camera replacement.
OTOH I'm rather interested in what can - and should - be done with ILCs. As Rondec said, faking it is no good, and there's no added value for us.

How could you be realistic when you admitted the impossibility to predict the future? People predicting more than 5 years ago that MILCs would replace DSLRs thought they were realistic, too... but it's the enthusiasm speaking, not realism. It's the "I want that, faster".
IMHO technology should be promoted (or discussed) without declaring it a "winner" a priori - or without declaring the competing, existing, working technologies "losers". Just on its technical merits.

[wjjstu]

Yes, different people want different sensor sizes for ILCs.

But no camera company covers all the formats. Fuji have failed to offer full-frame or M4/3. Canon, Nikon, Sony don't have a M4/3 or medium format system. It's just too expensive to create a new line of bodies with a new line of lenses.

Just because Pentax isn't trying to be all things to all photographers doesn't mean it's in stasis.

That wasn't the point. The point was that even in the markets that Pentax is/was competing in (where Pentax/Ricoh had an excellent product) they've stood still and haven't iterated any new product or given current users any hope of any sort of upgrade coming soon (while existing competitors moved forward and new ones have shown up to the party) and even in the markets where they've shown a bit of life (K-1 FF), there doesn't seem to be any urgency to their actions. Where's the new GR? Where's the 100mp 645Z+? Why are there people saying the KP is not a K-3 successor?

You clearly fail to understand the Q concept.

I understand it's as dead as the Nikon 1 with not much development in almost 4 years, not even toy lenses. With no new products in almost 4 years, does this mean Pentax/Ricoh doesn't understand the Q concept either? Maybe they think it's complete?

"Couldn't have" is obviously hypothetical, but think about the investment needed to do what Fuji is doing with MILCs.
As we're finding out, Ricoh is not ready to risk that much money in an uncertain market.

I'm talking about before Ricoh's time back when Hoya was raiding the company. The resources that went into the Q could have easily gone into a large sensor Q that would have beat Fuji to market by a year. A mirrorless system with Pentax build/ergonomics with compact metal limited primes and real focus/DOF marks? Yes please. I think they would have made a killing but I think you're correct... we're 7 years too late for that.

IMO, too many posters fail to see the facts, and statements like "sick of crappy KP" or "Q is a toy camera" only prove the poster ignorance or blindness.

Ironically, the Q started off with a cell phone grade sensor (the same ones being maligned in this thread as being subpar and not replacements for ILC's) and only upgraded to a slightly better than cell phone grade sensor a couple of years after release.

FWIW I've never seen a Theta in the wild. I see plenty of Canon/Nikon DSLR's, Sony a cameras, and the occasional Fuji or m43.

[Kunzite]

The resources that went into the Q could have easily gone into a large sensor Q that would have beat Fuji to market by a year.

I'm extremely skeptical about this statement. More likely, Pentax made the Q because they couldn't (as in: no funding) make a large sensor mirrorless system.

FWIW I've never seen a Theta in the wild.

You weren't looking in the right places. Theta is not a DSLR replacement.
Ricoh Imaging is a market leader with their spherical cameras.

[wjjstu]

I'm extremely skeptical about this statement. More likely, Pentax made the Q because they couldn't (as in: no funding) make a large sensor mirrorless system.

Many of the fixed costs are the same and Pentax could have re-used the hardware and firmware guts from the APS line of DSLR's.

You weren't looking in the right places. Theta is not a DSLR replacement.
Ricoh Imaging is a market leader with their spherical cameras.

I was recently in Japan and I was stunned by how many Ricoh Theta I saw in the streets.

Yeah I'm not in Japan. I wasn't looking in the right country. of course if we're talking Ricoh here, like their other product lines, they'll probably stop releasing new iterations at some point in the future and say nothing while new competitors enter the market with new and improved products

[Kunzite]

OK, I'll bite: what are the fixed costs? And how did you estimate the cost of reusing "the hardware and firmware guts from the APS line of DSLR's"?

[wjjstu]

OK, I'll bite: what are the fixed costs? And how did you estimate the cost of reusing "the hardware and firmware guts from the APS line of DSLR's"?

As Pentax did before in the same way that the AF/software/firmware developed for APS DSLR's got re-used in its larger 645-based cousin to cut down on development costs. Why don't you explain to me how designing a small sensor MILC system from scratch requires much less funding than developing a large sensor MILC system from scratch? They had to design new camera bodies, new mount, new glass, and new contrast detect AF system either way.

[Rondec]

Many of the fixed costs are the same and Pentax could have re-used the hardware and firmware guts from the APS line of DSLR's.





Yeah I'm not in Japan. I wasn't looking in the right country. of course if we're talking Ricoh here, like their other product lines, they'll probably stop releasing new iterations at some point in the future and say nothing while new competitors enter the market with new and improved products

I don't totally understand these statements either. You could share parts between a smaller camera and a larger one -- aka putting the K1 focus system in a 645 camera, but I have a hard time seeing how it would go the other direction.

I'm not saying Pentax should abandon the Q line. It feels like they should continue it and release the macro lens for it, it sure seemed like it was a decent seller, at least in Asia.

[wjjstu]

I don't totally understand these statements either. You could share parts between a smaller camera and a larger one -- aka putting the K1 focus system in a 645 camera, but I have a hard time seeing how it would go the other direction.

I'm not saying Pentax should abandon the Q line. It feels like they should continue it and release the macro lens for it, it sure seemed like it was a decent seller, at least in Asia.

A hypothetical Pentax APS mirrorless cam in 2011 could have easily used the imaging pipeline and firmware/menu system from the K-5 at the time as its base with other bits like new contrast detect AF (as developed for the Q) bolted on.

The Q is effectively abandoned anyway. It's getting close to 4 years without anything new or a peep from Ricoh. I mean Nikon hasn't said their 1 system is dead either but most people consider it dead and that system comes from a bigger manufacturer and has had a more recent new product release than the Q.