[JPT]

As I mentioned somewhere earlier (and I.m more convinced of now) the reason I find this convincing is that it's sufficiently counter-intuitive not to be arrived at by normal logic, and yet people like Tony Northrup (who must have industry contacts) were predicting it in his predictions for 2018. All uninformed logic would have said that a 645Z or K-3ii replacement was more likely -which doesn't mean that they won't happen, but it's not what he was majoring on. There must have been a reason for that.

I think it depends on the logic you choose to follow. A lot of people seem to follow the idea that the cameras will be updated sequentially, based on past precedent. Another way of looking at it is to look at Ricoh's future plans, some of which are public. We know that most of the lenses they plan to release are full frame, so it makes sense to expand the base of users that would consider buying them. It's difficult to do that with just one model.

Let's say they introduce a new FF camera with better AF and better video at a price if 2,500-3,000, and then reduce the price of the K-1 a bit and introduce a lens kit with the 28-105. That would extend the appeal of the system both up and down. I don't think keeping the K-1 as it is will be enough, because the people who were going to buy it have mostly done so by now. Really there needs to be more choice in both bodies and lenses, and they have to go hand in hand. I don't know much about Sony's FF A-mount efforts, but didn't they have just one body most of the time? Look where that ended.

2018 is going to be an interesting year if the rumors are to be believed. Both Nikon and Canon are expected to release serious mirrorless systems and they will need to manage that very carefully not to alienate their existing users. There will have to be a switching of resources from their DSLR lines to these cameras. If Ricoh introduces a number of solid full frame products, they could end up looking like the only company really committed to OVF cameras, and that could be an opportunity for them.

And as for Kunzite's comment about cheap cameras damaging the brand, I don't think that's really valid. Canon and Nikon have had the 6D and D600 for years, and it hasn't done them any harm. It just makes the system more accessible for people with less to spend.

---

Last edited by JPT; 01-27-2018 at 02:24 AM.

[Kiwipixter]

This could justify a K1-II in the $2000-3000 range

+1. The market size and segments in FF are big and numerous. One model cannot cover all segments. If Ricoh is serious about FF, and since they are a late player, another model this soon after the K-1 is a necessity.

[thibs]

Do you seriously think a K-1 needs to be priced that low to be attractive??

It does not. But continual slow decrease in price (down to a point of course) would play the same role as a K-2 (24MP like) many asked for without cost of development.
Of course it means some stock of 36MP is still available right now from Sony.

[BigMackCam]

The point is, I wouldn't take Tony N.'s prediction as a confirmation of any kind.

Agreed. I'll admit, I quite like Tony Northrup, but I don't think he has his finger on Ricoh's pulse.

[Kunzite]

And as for Kunzite's comment about cheap cameras damaging the brand, I don't think that's really valid. Canon and Nikon have had the 6D and D600 for years, and it hasn't done them any harm. It just makes the system more accessible for people with less to spend.

I'm not talking about having some cheap cameras; but having a strategy built around "cheap". We can see the damage when people say, a K-1 should cost no more than the cheapest, lousiest piece of *@&# FF camera out there.
Be known as the "cheap" brand, and people won't be willing to pay a fair price.
Build your strategy around "cheap", and you won't be able to fix long standing issues like autofocus (and performance, in general).

So while some people sees this K-1 Mark II as a way of cheapening an existing K-1 they probably won't buy anyway, I'm seeing it as an opportunity to partially solve the performance issue, probably at a somewhat higher price point.

[thibs]

I agree in general but it is still much wiser to have bodies at competitive prices and more expensive lenses (if quality follows of course) then the opposite.
I don't hink K-1 should go down to 1000€ but cheapening a bit would be nice.

Of course all those speculations are nul until we have an idea of specs/price for this hypothetical K-1II.
If it goes quite a bit higher than K-1 there will be less space for lowering K-1 price.

[ffking]

I think it depends on the logic you choose to follow. A lot of people seem to follow the idea that the cameras will be updated sequentially, based on past precedent. Another way of looking at it is to look at Ricoh's future plans, some of which are public. We know that most of the lenses they plan to release are full frame, so it makes sense to expand the base of users that would consider buying them. It's difficult to do that with just one model.

Let's say they introduce a new FF camera with better AF and better video at a price if 2,500-3,000, and then reduce the price of the K-1 a bit and introduce a lens kit with the 28-105. That would extend the appeal of the system both up and down. I don't think keeping the K-1 as it is will be enough, because the people who were going to buy it have mostly done so by now. Really there needs to be more choice in both bodies and lenses, and they have to go hand in hand. I don't know much about Sony's FF A-mount efforts, but didn't they have just one body most of the time? Look where that ended.

2018 is going to be an interesting year if the rumors are to be believed. Both Nikon and Canon are expected to release serious mirrorless systems and they will need to manage that very carefully not to alienate their existing users. There will have to be a switching of resources from their DSLR lines to these cameras. If Ricoh introduces a number of solid full frame products, they could end up looking like the only company really committed to OVF cameras, and that could be an opportunity for them.

Yes - that's interesting - going back to my original point, I don't think Tony Northrup's reasoning would have been that subtle, but that in no way invalidates what you say more generally. I don't think Pentax can successfully market a DSLR in the 2,500 - 3,000 price bracket without seriously upgrading the perceived weak points - fairly or not, people are going to hammer them on AF and video if they are not up to comparably priced alternatives - their pay would have to be a solid performer on the AF and video fronts (it won't be as good as Nikon or Canon in those areas, but it has to be good enough not to be a deal breaker) with a higher Mp sensor that could deliver class leading results in DR, noise etc. -that might be enough reason for landscapers to buy it, and a few more tethering and flash improvements might draw in studio users too, although static objects are usually shot with larger formats and AF could come into play for moving models etc.(It could usefully add the Kps user modes on the top control dial, also, but I'm not getting into other specs here). But would that be a K-1ii, or an entirely new camera? If we're talking higher price point, then I suspect it would have to be the second.

[BigMackCam]

So while some people sees this K-1 Mark II as a way of cheapening an existing K-1 they probably won't buy anyway, I'm seeing it as an opportunity to partially solve the performance issue, probably at a somewhat higher price point.

I don't disagree... but Ricoh will have to seriously address things like AF-C, continuous shooting frame rate, buffer clearing speed etc. to remain competitive at a higher price point. Not just incremental improvements, but real transformation (which is what I think you're talking about). A higher price point for something that's just a little bit better would be a risky strategy, I think. Cheap may not be prestigious, but it buys some compromise from existing and potential owners

[Kunzite]

What was first, the chicken or the egg? To solve the performance issues (which implies including more expensive hardware) they need to target a higher price point. To target a higher price point they need to solve their performance issues.
And in the end, that would also help with the more affordable equipment - as technology advancements could trickle down into the lower tiers.

[Rondec]

I guess I would make a couple of comments.

I would not be surprised to see Pentax release sequels to the K-1, 645z, and K3 II this year. The K-1 is probably the one of those that needs replacing the least, but it is still using some version of the original sensor that was in the D800 which went on sale in March of 2012. So, even though the K-1 isn't that old, the sensor is getting a bit long in the tooth. Part of the issue is that there really weren't many releases last year meaning that a lot of stuff slid into the first part of this year.

I do think of the cameras I mentioned, the K3 II sequel is the toughest one. I think Pentaxians would be satisfied with a K3 style body with a new sensor, accelerator chip, faster auto focus, and a little faster frame rate. Unfortunately, the market has moved forward to the point that you probably need something between the D7500 and D500 with quite a bit faster auto focus, 4K video, etc. Video hasn't been Pentax's strong point over time, but they aren't stupid either and they have to know that at least the K1 and K3 II sequels will need 4K video.

Overall, I think we should be pleased to see new products coming. We are early in the year and there will be many other things announced and released this year. Good things usually come to those who wait.

[mecrox]

I don't disagree... but Ricoh will have to seriously address things like AF-C, continuous shooting frame rate, buffer clearing speed etc. to remain competitive at a higher price point. Not just incremental improvements, but real transformation (which is what I think you're talking about). A higher price point for something that's just a little bit better would be a risky strategy, I think. Cheap may not be prestigious, but it buys some compromise from existing and potential owners

The new chairman of Ricoh has stressed that cheap is out, in effect. He’s talked of profitability as the key and has said that sales for the sake of volume are a no-no. He was talking of copiers but no doubt that extends to all of Ricoh’s activities. Pentax may be a bit of a value brand but “fully priced” has always sounded fair to me. Cheap is a mug’s game - there is always someone who will try even cheaper.

If Ricoh want folks to spend markedly more on their cameras, though, they will need a big push on new modern lenses and on marketing, I would think. These are system cameras, not just bodies. One new, refreshed body alone won’t change much.

[Rondec]

The new chairman of Ricoh has stressed that cheap is out, in effect. He’s talked of profitability as the key and has said that sales for the sake of volume are a no-no. He was talking of copiers but no doubt that extends to all of Ricoh’s activities. Pentax may be a bit of a value brand but “fully priced” has always sounded fair to me. Cheap is a mug’s game - there is always someone who will try even cheaper.

If Ricoh want folks to spend markedly more on their cameras, though, they will need a big push on new modern lenses and on marketing, I would think. These are system cameras, not just bodies. One new, refreshed body alone won’t change much.

Pentax's entry level SLR has traditionally been around 500 dollars. The K70 is a little more than that, but I wouldn't say that Pentax is charging "markedly more" for camera gear. The K3 II is selling for way less than the K5 and K5 II did for most of their life cycle and while it is getting older, it still carries the APS-C flagship title for Pentax.

If I were going to say, I think Ricoh just wants to make sure that each segment of their cameras gives value for money, particularly versus other brands. And I suppose they aren't chasing the sub-500 dollar segment either. The last time they did that was with the K500.

[Kenn100D]

I'm thinking that the K1MkII will have the same price as it was the K-1 then reduce K-1 price for every pentaxian to afford it.

[mecrox]

Pentax's entry level SLR has traditionally been around 500 dollars. The K70 is a little more than that, but I wouldn't say that Pentax is charging "markedly more" for camera gear. The K3 II is selling for way less than the K5 and K5 II did for most of their life cycle and while it is getting older, it still carries the APS-C flagship title for Pentax.

If I were going to say, I think Ricoh just wants to make sure that each segment of their cameras gives value for money, particularly versus other brands. And I suppose they aren't chasing the sub-500 dollar segment either. The last time they did that was with the K500.

Agree. My remark was in the context of asking more for a K1 Mark II over the first K1 - i.e. in effect entering the next FF segment up at 2K +, a step change - which was being debated in the thread. Problem with many threads is that multiple conversations are going on at once!

[BigMackCam]

Cheap is a mug’s game - there is always someone who will try even cheaper.

I used the word "cheap" inadvisedly, repeating it from an early post in the thread

I agree, cheap is a mug's game... but "very good value for money" (though not necessarily being the cheapest) is essential when you're competing with larger, well-established brands with greater development and manufacturing capability - unless, that is, you have some truly unique differentiator that's in demand, and that's becoming increasingly difficult to achieve.

The K-1 is very good value for money considering what it offers, and my point is that a considerably higher priced model may not have a willing market unless there's a step change in certain capabilities. Incremental improvements (a so-called "refresh") would justify the same or very slightly increased release price, but not much more.

If Ricoh want folks to spend markedly more on their cameras, though, they will need a big push on new modern lenses and on marketing, I would think. These are system cameras, not just bodies. One new, refreshed body alone won’t change much.

I tend to agree. It's different for the APS-C sector and products... whilst some of the lenses could do with updates (specifically the SDM models), essentially there's already a complete eco-system, so new bodies like the K-70, KP and (hopefully) forthcoming K-3II replacement are relatively easy sales prospects, so long as the features and performance are in line with buyer expectations. But new Pentax FF buyers (and existing owner-upgraders) need more convincing through lens releases and marketing.