[usernametaken]

I agree, I'm not expecting a D500 killer from Pentax, I shoot all types of sports with a well beaten K3 and my keeper rate is pretty decent but an upgrade to better AF will always be welcomed. I only hope when they do release a new crop body that they don't stray too far from the K3 design, for me the K3 with the grip fits like a glove.

That's my wish too. If the memory interface / buffer and AF-Performance is improved over the K-3 besides a little high-ISO-tweaking that would be enough for me. Doesn't have to be class-leading, just noticable better. The K-3 body is perfect and shouldn't be altered too much. Shoulder-display, D-LI90 battery support and two card-slots are a "must".

[Merv-O]

If it's so easy, do it yourself.
That's my standard response to anyone who says "it's so easy!" without having a clue.

Improving the autofocus to class-leading standards would likely be the most difficult and expensive. Or the second, see below. Anyway, if it was easy they've done it by now (and Canon/Nikon would've had their current AF much sooner, instead of developing it in decades).

UHS-II and the larger buffer might be the second, or perhaps it's the other way around. See, both requires different processors and off the shelf Socionext ones might not cut it. Changing to a different processor would be very labor intensive.

And "APS-M" sensor - that generates a cascade of cost increasing changes - SLR viewfinder system, maybe AF...
Of course, larger pixels aren't really better than more, slightly smaller ones.

Sorry for the rant... but you should understand that there are no shortcuts, only hard, tedious work for even what we perceive as small improvements.

L.E. I'm willing to pay a fair price for performance improvements. I've got the D FA* 50mm f/1.4, so this is not just empty talk.

My point is that Ricoh can seek to license technology from Sony and/or Canon...Global DSLR manufacturers are facing a permanent loss of market share/shrinking market. Wouldn't Sony/Nikon/Canon wish to license additional components to generate revenue? Examples of cross-technology licensing abound: Leica/Panasonic/Lumix Partnership has yielded great mutual results; Sony TV uses LG OLED screens; Mazda/Ford have automotive sharing on platforms, computer manufacturers use outsourced components, etc.

The updates would naturally cost more, but the price point would not cost-prohibitive. If Pentax is the remain relevant, RICOH will have to develop in-house or license the technology. As Lee Iacocca said almost 40 years ago: "Lead, Follow or Get out of the way !"....Ricoh should heed that advice...

---------- Post added 10-14-18 at 05:21 PM ----------

Hmm... Replicating the decades of R&D and millions of dollars that Canikon have put into fast class-leading AF would hardly be a minor investment. Faster wifi, faster USB, and a deeper buffer all require more expensive chips and more battery power.

As much as I'd love all these updates, too, most are neither minor nor cheap.

Ricoh as an imaging company has a lot of this technology available--it's the implementation. naturally, Pentax, as a world brand lacks total market share for my full wish list, but as the world camera market shrinks (camera phones seem to be the mainstream now), companies with advanced technology may license it to others to augment their coffers....Just saying.

[reh321]

Exactly! There's almost nothing in a DSLR's AF system that is off-the-shelf: the optics, aperture mask, and PDAF sensor are all custom designed.

Rudimentary AF software could be created by any decent engineering student but it would be slow, not very accurate, and likely to be confused by complex scenes. Class-leading AF software that tracks moving objects against a moving background is orders of magnitude harder. And any AF involving tracking requires coordination with the software running the electromechanical controls of the lens motor system with both a feedback loop (to check focus) and a feedforward loop (to predict how Af changes are changing the AF systems). In tracking scenarios: the scene is moving, the lens motor is moving, and the sensor is getting new data all at the same time. The software needs to be written to compensate/predict for the fact that the system is using old data at every instant in time and trying to predict how the last command to the lens will affect the next sample of data in the context of an estimated mathematical of subject motion. It requires some really heavy math in signal processing and control theory to get this right.

When I worked for a "U.S. Defense Contractor", the most respected engineers were those who worked with radar, because it is such a specialty and someone cannot jump into it and do it {I did jump into Air Traffic Control and Digital Radios and "do it"}. I am guessing that is how AF is viewed in the camera business .... as a real specialty.

[Kunzite]

My point is that Ricoh can seek to license technology from Sony and/or Canon...Global DSLR manufacturers are facing a permanent loss of market share/shrinking market. Wouldn't Sony/Nikon/Canon wish to license additional components to generate revenue? Examples of cross-technology licensing abound: Leica/Panasonic/Lumix Partnership has yielded great mutual results; Sony TV uses LG OLED screens; Mazda/Ford have automotive sharing on platforms, computer manufacturers use outsourced components, etc.

The updates would naturally cost more, but the price point would not cost-prohibitive. If Pentax is the remain relevant, RICOH will have to develop in-house or license the technology. As Lee Iacocca said almost 40 years ago: "Lead, Follow or Get out of the way !"....Ricoh should heed that advice...

OK... now you're thinking of a way to "make" it happen. But would it?
I doubt either Sony (was their AF from the A99 II class leading?) or Canon and Nikon would license their top of the line AF, hardware and algorithms (and in conditions convenient to Pentax). Such thing didn't happen in the past, I have no reason to expect it to happen now.
Ricoh Imaging has some interesting AF (and SLR sytem) related patents; I hope they'd go bolder in SLR technology.

P.S. I've been on the receiving side of "it's easy". It ain't pleasant and it doesn't motivate.

[Merv-O]

Kunzite:
Ricoh has a dearth of dealers, their products are in no big box stores, they have virtually no advertising, yet they still command about 7% of the market. They do it through word of mouth, past user experience, etc. For me, I have to go from Philly to New York in order to look at potential products and test equipment for Pentax. Why? because there is no factory retail dealer in this part of PA (oh sure a couple of places will special order for you, but I can do that myself on the internet).

Understand, I shoot with Leicas also and their "tech" is way old school. the digital Pentaxes I have owned throughout the years (100D, K-50, K-3, K-S2, K-3ii, K-1ii) have always felt and performed well for my style of photography. However, Leica has partnered with Panasonic for some of their electronics and innards. The brand was once teetering on insolvency (the M9 sensor fiasco was a doozy), but their alliance was healthy and the brands have remained mutually exclusive. RICOH has to make a decision: keep the DSLR market for Pentax relevant or the brand will eventually fade away.

The GRiii and a 50 1.4 Limited isn't enough even for a niche brand....

[Kunzite]

Merv-O: on the other site, some people are loudly protesting against the partnership with Tokina.
To be accurate, the excuse is that Tokina Opera is somewhat cheaper than the Pentax D FA*. But that's what happened with Panasonic-Leica since ages.

The NA distribution issues require quite a different solution, perhaps some help from the B2B Ricoh's network. It's not solved by a class leading AF
And honestly, I don't see them investing in a continent-wide distribution network (brick stores & co) - a huge spending just to have cameras and lenses sitting on shelves. I'd like to see some well placed Pentax stores though...
Around here, companies which had dedicated stores (esp. Nikon) started to close them a few years ago. The market conditions are bad for everyone.

[RonHendriks1966]

Kunzite:
Ricoh has a dearth of dealers, their products are in no big box stores, they have virtually no advertising, yet they still command about 7% of the market. They do it through word of mouth, past user experience, etc. For me, I have to go from Philly to New York in order to look at potential products and test equipment for Pentax. Why? because there is no factory retail dealer in this part of PA (oh sure a couple of places will special order for you, but I can do that myself on the internet).

Not even close to that marketshare number.

[Kim Coxon]

I will make a prediction. I can't predict what Ricoh will do or even if they will update the K3, though I thought the KP was supposed to replace it. However, I will predict this thread getting ever longer, with everybody saying what they want Ricoh to do and saying that Ricoh are doomed unless they do. Eventually it will stop when Ricoh bring out the "replacement". However as soon as that happens a new thread will be started asking when Ricoh will bring out a replacement for that and how it should be specifically tailored to each and everyone of the posters wishes.


A bit like having to have the very latest issue of an iPhone or Samsung Galaxy and wanting a newer one as soon as that one comes out.

[Mark Ransom]

Merv-O: on the other site, some people are loudly protesting against the partnership with Tokina.
To be accurate, the excuse is that Tokina Opera is somewhat cheaper than the Pentax D FA*. But that's what happened with Panasonic-Leica since ages.

The NA distribution issues require quite a different solution, perhaps some help from the B2B Ricoh's network. It's not solved by a class leading AF
And honestly, I don't see them investing in a continent-wide distribution network (brick stores & co) - a huge spending just to have cameras and lenses sitting on shelves. I'd like to see some well placed Pentax stores though...
Around here, companies which had dedicated stores (esp. Nikon) started to close them a few years ago. The market conditions are bad for everyone.

I'm one of those people on the other site.

There's really nothing wrong with the partnership, it's the pricing policy difference that galls. Evidently both lenses have the same list price, but Tokina is much more free with their discounts. As a practical matter, it means you're better off getting another camera than a Pentax if you want the lens.

The pricing policy ties nicely into your other comment. Pentax is keeping a tight grip to maintain their list prices, but usually that's done to keep the margins healthy for B&M stores. But Pentax doesn't have any.

[ogl]

Kunzite:
Ricoh... yet they still command about 7% of the market. ..

It seems to me 4-5% in Japan and it's the biggest market for them...

[Kunzite]

I'm one of those people on the other site.

There's really nothing wrong with the partnership, it's the pricing policy difference that galls. Evidently both lenses have the same list price, but Tokina is much more free with their discounts. As a practical matter, it means you're better off getting another camera than a Pentax if you want the lens.

The pricing policy ties nicely into your other comment. Pentax is keeping a tight grip to maintain their list prices, but usually that's done to keep the margins healthy for B&M stores. But Pentax doesn't have any.

I know that; not that I had you in mind.
The leading voice was someone who never intends to buy the D FA*. Let's be honest and see it for what it is: complaining for the sake of complaining.

I'm not aware of any circumstance in which a Canon, Nikon or Sony lens would be as much or less expensive than a Sigma, Tamron or Tokina equivalent. A "first party" brand weighs more than a third-party one.
Apparently, Pentax should be the only exception. Sorry, but nope - I'd rather have them develop than giving me a somewhat cheaper product now.

[beholder3]

We still have a market. So unless someone can actually provide solid evidence against it, prices are driven by demand first.

Camera manufacturer lenses always (even with the exact same specs) can demand a massive +30%-50% premium on top of what 3rd party lenses can be priced at.
The market simply does not value 3rd party lenses a lot, regardless of some internet geeks' little personal opinions.

If someone doesnt like this then dont buy it incl. any system. Whining about it is just childish and disqualifies the whiners. It simply is like it is, regardless if we like it or not.

[Kunzite]

Speaking of the demand - I couldn't help but notice that on the other site, the Tokina Opera has fewer "I want it" votes than the Pentax has "I own it".
Given that the Tokina serves the much larger Canon and Nikon user base, I find that unexpected.

(The site gives people the ability to cast an "I own it", "I want it" or "I had it" votes. "I own it" tends to be much fewer than "I want it", for the Pentax is 17 vs. 114 currently. Of course, this is not accurate and some people are giving erroneous votes e.g. choosing "I own it" and even "I had it" before the product is available)

[Franc]

I'm one of those people on the other site.
Pentax is keeping a tight grip to maintain their list prices, but usually that's done to keep the margins healthy for B&M stores. But Pentax doesn't have any.

There are a lot of B&M stores over here that have Pentax. Just look at the Pentax site per country.

[Andrea K]

No way to have a class leading PDAF without in lens shake reduction and in lens... or in the body... strong motor.