[RobA_Oz]

At the risk of repeating things said here and elsewhere, I don’t think Ricoh’s comparative lack of action in releasing new or different lenses and bodies or systems is due to a lack of imagination on their part, but simply that the company itself has a cautious approach to product development and the associated costs.

The recently-revealed patent on the switchable OVF/EVF system is a good demonstration of an imaginative approach to providing new features within their existing range of products. Whether or not it makes it into production is another matter, of course, but I was encouraged by the number of members here who showed interest in the basic idea (not Ricoh’s patent, but the concept of a hybrid viewfinder) when it was first floated some time ago. That certainly doesn’t indicate a closed group mindset, to me.

The idea of an “open” lens mount is an interesting one, though probably restricted to the hypothetical at this stage. Did Leica use that terminology for their planned cooperative agreement with Panasonic and Sigma? I would have thought it was a commercial agreement between the partners, but I might have missed something. Pentax, of course, rode to popularity on the back of something akin to that with the M42 and earlier K-mount varieties. Leica, however, didn’t need to do that, as their products sell at a premium, so market share is pretty much irrelevant to them. Panasonic obviously needed it more, to get into the 35FF market without reinventing the wheel.

[Kiwi645hauler]

I've read your opinion and since I also shoot mainly aviation photography we seem to have the same interests, but my philosophy is very different than yours.
I've shot M4/3 cameras and got great results in terms of AF performance and burst rate-buffer but you seem to not pay much attention to the results. What you get is images in the end and the IQ of the M4/3 sensors was mostly on par with my K-5IIs and often worst. So this system gives me nothing more than I had. I'm not interested in quantity of images. I have tsousands of aviation photos. When I bought my K-1 that was a whole new world that was opening up in front of me... I was amazed by the IQ and I can't (and don'teven want) explain this to people who haven't shot with the K-1 (or -mkII). Now that made the difference to me and it makes the difference to all those who see my pictures now. If you have selected to get the most pics in an airshow then the M4/3 or a D500, 7DII might be the best option for you. But not for anybody.

Now concerning the Pentax future and philosophy, all I want is to make the great K-1 even better in terms that lags behind competition and make another great APS-C with the same rational of the K-3. In other words stay at DSLR world and make the best FF and APS-C cameras they can give us. That is all I need and I see that this is the philosophy of Ricoh/Pentax as well, so I'm glad I'm their customer
t.

I would LOVE Pentax to futher improve the K-1, K-P & even a new K-3ii replacement that offers new things, and improved tech too, but also as the market moves towards MILCs then it is something they seriously need to address as well.

I use M43 because not just the burst rate and AF Performance. I shoot m43 because of shoulder & back issues stemming from a car accident & sporting injuries that range from uncomfortable to pain if there is too much direct weight on my shoulder or use over a long period of time. IQ Results for me are more than adequate, I am not shooting commercially on a regular basis, and having spent a bit of time when i got my gear to dial it in to what i need, and made the MicroAF adjustments for each lens i get great results.
I have shot the K-1 a number of times, as a second shooter for a friend who uses K-1s commercially doing event photography and i recently shot as second shooter for my friend where i was tasked with a K-1 & 70-200mm f2.8 for a full day to get portraits & general shots at a comicon style event, after 7 hours and a heap of frames later, the K-1 as expected performed flawlessly, and my friends clients were super happy with results, but i spent the next 3 days taking care of the shoulder.

[reh321]

I would LOVE Pentax to futher improve the K-1, K-P & even a new K-3ii replacement that offers new things, and improved tech too, but also as the market moves towards MILCs then it is something they seriously need to address as well.

I use M43 because not just the burst rate and AF Performance. I shoot m43 because of shoulder & back issues stemming from a car accident & sporting injuries that range from uncomfortable to pain if there is too much direct weight on my shoulder or use over a long period of time. IQ Results for me are more than adequate, I am not shooting commercially on a regular basis, and having spent a bit of time when i got my gear to dial it in to what i need, and made the MicroAF adjustments for each lens i get great results.

What focal length lens {"35mm equiv} do you use most of the time with your M43 kit?

[jpzk]

Be happy with the equipment you have, and use it to* the best of your abilities.
Camera envy is for others.
Cut down your visit to the forums as unfortunately there is too much negativity there, use the forum for what you registered for; for advice , exchange of ideas, and inspiration.
The "mirrorless revolution" will continue without you , it is ok to dislike evf.
Therefore, bless Ricoh for their commitment to explore and better DSLR.
When YouTube bloggers going crazy about a feature on a new camera, it might be very different,* when experiencing it first hand.
Photography is very diverse, hope is will stay that way.
A camera is a tool, develop your abilities.
Go to see as many exhbitions of photography as you can.
Gr III is tiny 😉
I love my kp even more then before, and thats a good thing. 😊

Good advice, even if it reads as an Oath !
Cheers!

[RobA_Oz]

I would LOVE Pentax to futher improve the K-1, K-P & even a new K-3ii replacement that offers new things, and improved tech too, but also as the market moves towards MILCs then it is something they seriously need to address as well.

I’m not picking on you, just picking up something you’ve said: We have to beware of our language fooling us into believing something that isn’t necessarily accurate. In this case, I think you’ve succinctly stated a way of looking at things (with the phrase I’ve highlighted) that leads to a specific conclusion, which can be translated as “the whole camera market is going MILC”. You may not have intended that, but that’s the way it reads, to me. My view is that “there is a move within the market towards MILCs”. I think you’ll agree those two things aren’t quite the same thing. It’s the “inevitability of history” mistake (or, perhaps, Francis Fukuyama’s mistaken assertion about “the end of history”).

Anyway, I hope Ricoh does adopt their hybrid viewfinder patent for the K-3ii replacement, because I think it would shift people’s thinking about the OVF/EVF argument, and it would revive interest in the APS-C segment.

I use M43 because not just the burst rate and AF Performance. I shoot m43 because of shoulder & back issues stemming from a car accident & sporting injuries that range from uncomfortable to pain if there is too much direct weight on my shoulder or use over a long period of time. IQ Results for me are more than adequate, I am not shooting commercially on a regular basis, and having spent a bit of time when i got my gear to dial it in to what i need, and made the MicroAF adjustments for each lens i get great results.
I have shot the K-1 a number of times, as a second shooter for a friend who uses K-1s commercially doing event photography and i recently shot as second shooter for my friend where i was tasked with a K-1 & 70-200mm f2.8 for a full day to get portraits & general shots at a comicon style event, after 7 hours and a heap of frames later, the K-1 as expected performed flawlessly, and my friends clients were super happy with results, but i spent the next 3 days taking care of the shoulder.

I feel your pain. I’ve been giving serious consideration to trying a MFT kit for overseas travel, for much the same reasons, albeit my issues have a congenital origin, not a MV accident. The K-1 is a great body – I just wish mine was equally as good.

[biz-engineer]

What happened after photokina? The Nikon Z7 and Canon EOS R are now on the shelves next to Sony A7, and everything came down quiet again, shops waiting for the rare customer in town willing to drop 5 grands on a new camera for not having a mirror. OTOH, I've seen Canon 5DIII and 24-105 f4 kit used at 1500 Euros.. that's a third of the price of the Nikon Z7 24-70 f4 kit.

[redpit]

I would LOVE Pentax to futher improve the K-1, K-P & even a new K-3ii replacement that offers new things, and improved tech too, but also as the market moves towards MILCs then it is something they seriously need to address as well.

I use M43 because not just the burst rate and AF Performance. I shoot m43 because of shoulder & back issues stemming from a car accident & sporting injuries that range from uncomfortable to pain if there is too much direct weight on my shoulder or use over a long period of time. IQ Results for me are more than adequate, I am not shooting commercially on a regular basis, and having spent a bit of time when i got my gear to dial it in to what i need, and made the MicroAF adjustments for each lens i get great results.
I have shot the K-1 a number of times, as a second shooter for a friend who uses K-1s commercially doing event photography and i recently shot as second shooter for my friend where i was tasked with a K-1 & 70-200mm f2.8 for a full day to get portraits & general shots at a comicon style event, after 7 hours and a heap of frames later, the K-1 as expected performed flawlessly, and my friends clients were super happy with results, but i spent the next 3 days taking care of the shoulder.

So my friend you see that what you're asking is Pentax to fulfill your needs and give you something that suits your requirements. Everybody wants that and is perfectly normal. You chose the M4/3 because it covered your needs/particularities, I chose Pentax for the same reasons (top IQ, affordable high quality equipment). Bear in mind though that now Pentax already covers my (and other Pentaxians') needs and you are expecting a future project from them to suit your needs that it may never materialize! I would also love a FF camera with OVF in the size of a M4/3 body and a 600/4 lens in the size of the superb Olympus 300/4 that gives the IQ of my K-1+DA 560, but you can't beat physics and optics laws! So you have to compromise with a system that covers most of your basic photographic needs. It would be pointless to buy myself an Olympus M4/3 and get in some fora with Olympians (is that how they are called? ) and complain about Olympus not releasing a FF or a MF system... It makes no sense, my choice was wrong in the first place. I don't say that you do that, but many in here are doing it. It's nice to make proposals or say ideas of how Ricoh/Pentax should move on but on a realistic basis. There is a difference between wishful thinking and ideas on realistic evolution steps. Again I highlight that my comment is general not personal. I doubt based on the facts up to now, that Pentax next release would be a "D500 killer" APS-C with Sony MILC video capabilities that will sell for less than $1500 and will be smaller and lighter than the KP. But they can make a great camera with some innovative features a new improved AF module and even better sensor that will again hit the top in APS-C IQ with excellent high ISO performance and sport oriented like the K-5/K-3 models were

PS: the K-1+DFA*70-200 is a really heavy combo indeed! But the IQ it gives is nothing but superb!

[MMVIII]

So my friend you see that what you're asking is Pentax to fulfill your needs and give you something that suits your requirements. Everybody wants that and is perfectly normal. You chose the M4/3 because it covered your needs/particularities, I chose Pentax for the same reasons (top IQ, affordable high quality equipment). Bear in mind though that now Pentax already covers my (and other Pentaxians') needs and you are expecting a future project from them to suit your needs that it may never materialize! I would also love a FF camera with OVF in the size of a M4/3 body and a 600/4 lens in the size of the superb Olympus 300/4 that gives the IQ of my K-1+DA 560, but you can't beat physics and optics laws! So you have to compromise with a system that covers most of your basic photographic needs. It would be pointless to buy myself an Olympus M4/3 and get in some fora with Olympians (is that how they are called? ) and complain about Olympus not releasing a FF or a MF system... It makes no sense, my choice was wrong in the first place. I don't say that you do that, but many in here are doing it. It's nice to make proposals or say ideas of how Ricoh/Pentax should move on but on a realistic basis. There is a difference between wishful thinking and ideas on realistic evolution steps. Again I highlight that my comment is general not personal. I doubt based on the facts up to now, that Pentax next release would be a "D500 killer" APS-C with Sony MILC video capabilities that will sell for less than $1500 and will be smaller and lighter than the KP. But they can make a great camera with some innovative features a new improved AF module and even better sensor that will again hit the top in APS-C IQ with excellent high ISO performance and sport oriented like the K-5/K-3 models were

PS: the K-1+DFA*70-200 is a really heavy combo indeed! But the IQ it gives is nothing but superb!

Absolutely agreed. Why is it so attractive for some to suggest things, that are completely without any basis? Neither has Ricoh any history in video oriented cameras (lately and above Theta) nor where there any indications or communicated plans for that. It's like suggesting in a car forum that you would buy a Ferrari immediately if it would be smaller, with only two wheels, or larger, with more loading power. There are companies who produce motorbikes and pickuptrucks on the market, wouldn't it be wise to just go there?

[Kiwi645hauler]

What focal length lens {"35mm equiv} do you use most of the time with your M43 kit?

My Kit comprises of lenses with 35mm equivs of 24-100, 80-300 and 150-600mm

---------- Post added 10-11-18 at 05:54 PM ----------

So my friend you see that what you're asking is Pentax to fulfill your needs and give you something that suits your requirements. Everybody wants that and is perfectly normal. You chose the M4/3 because it covered your needs/particularities, I chose Pentax for the same reasons (top IQ, affordable high quality equipment). Bear in mind though that now Pentax already covers my (and other Pentaxians') needs and you are expecting a future project from them to suit your needs that it may never materialize! I would also love a FF camera with OVF in the size of a M4/3 body and a 600/4 lens in the size of the superb Olympus 300/4 that gives the IQ of my K-1+DA 560, but you can't beat physics and optics laws! So you have to compromise with a system that covers most of your basic photographic needs. It would be pointless to buy myself an Olympus M4/3 and get in some fora with Olympians (is that how they are called? ) and complain about Olympus not releasing a FF or a MF system... It makes no sense, my choice was wrong in the first place. I don't say that you do that, but many in here are doing it. It's nice to make proposals or say ideas of how Ricoh/Pentax should move on but on a realistic basis. There is a difference between wishful thinking and ideas on realistic evolution steps. Again I highlight that my comment is general not personal. I doubt based on the facts up to now, that Pentax next release would be a "D500 killer" APS-C with Sony MILC video capabilities that will sell for less than $1500 and will be smaller and lighter than the KP. But they can make a great camera with some innovative features a new improved AF module and even better sensor that will again hit the top in APS-C IQ with excellent high ISO performance and sport oriented like the K-5/K-3 models were

PS: the K-1+DFA*70-200 is a really heavy combo indeed! But the IQ it gives is nothing but superb!

I am not asking for Pentax to fulfill my needs, i put my thoughts out that IF Pentax were to, and i hope they do go back into MILC systems at some point that why spend an awful lot of money developing a new mount system when there is an alliance system out there that is a possibility as the news i have read that the manufacturers who spent the dollars to develop the mount are saying that they would welcome other users to the ecosystem.
Yes you are totally right, you cannot beat the laws of physics.

---------- Post added 10-11-18 at 06:30 PM ----------

Absolutely agreed. Why is it so attractive for some to suggest things, that are completely without any basis? Neither has Ricoh any history in video oriented cameras (lately and above Theta) nor where there any indications or communicated plans for that. It's like suggesting in a car forum that you would buy a Ferrari immediately if it would be smaller, with only two wheels, or larger, with more loading power. There are companies who produce motorbikes and pickuptrucks on the market, wouldn't it be wise to just go there?

I never suggested that Ricoh should concentrate and produce something with that is video orientated.

[photoptimist]

i do think - hopefully in the spirit of the OP, that those - and it's probably a large proportion ere on PF - who learned their photography in the days before automation, learned a different type of photography which was about understanding and working with the limitations of the equipment rather than expecting it to do everything you want for you. To me, it's infinitely more satisfying when it's my picture, not the camera's.

Hmm...

If the equipment is imposing limits on what pictures can be taken, then it's more the equipment's picture than the photographer's. It's when the equipment lets you do anything you could possibly want that it becomes totally up to the photographer.

In ye olde days, the equipment was the limitation.

In fancy-pants modern times, the photographer is the limitation.

These day's a photographer has no excuse for a bad picture because the equipment is so good.

[ThorSanchez]

Hmm...

If the equipment is imposing limits on what pictures can be taken, then it's more the equipment's picture than the photographer's. It's when the equipment lets you do anything you could possibly want that it becomes totally up to the photographer.

In ye olde days, the equipment was the limitation.

In fancy-pants modern times, the photographer is the limitation.

These day's a photographer has no excuse for a bad picture because the equipment is so good.

José Andrés' isn't really creating culinary masterpieces if he's not doing it on a cast iron wood stove.

Lewis Hamilton isn't much of a driver because he's not in one of these.

Can you really call an outfielder an outfielder if he's positioning based on data-driven heat maps instead of hunches?

And didn't music really die when they started recording it and allowing as many do-overs as necessary to get it right?

[photoptimist]

I am stunned by the closed minded thinking of fellow Pentaxians, The open system gives Pentax engineers an established communication protocol, lens mount, flange distance to start from, It gives Pentax a chance to not have to figure out all that critical stuff and burn R&D Dollars to launch a mirrorless system, does not mean that Pentax Engineers are 'Tied down designing an adapter' only, sure they can develop an adapter, but also develop bodies, lenses with known points of reference to start with. It gives Pentax owners a chance to use other lenses on launch instead of having to wait for ages after a new model is launched for the KAF mount version to be developed.

The negativity over such an idea is astounding

An established communication protocol, lens mount, flange distance does not help Pentax engineers much at all. Anyone can quickly specify these things on the back of a napkin. The hard part is designing new camera bodies, lenses, and accessories that actually adhere to the standard whilst delivering competitive performance. And that can actually be hard in an alliance due to interoperability requirements. If the members interpret the standard in slightly different ways, a Sigma lens might have trouble on a Pentax body with both sides pointing fingers at each other.

Joining an alliance is a very tricky double gamble for Pentax. First, it's a gamble that consumers will flock to the alliance's products. That implies that Pentax would want the other alliance members to be good enough to create attractive products on their part. But, second, it's also gamble that consumers that do pick alliance products will pick the Pentax variants of those products. That has the paradoxical implication that Pentax does not want the other alliance members to be so good as to outcompete Pentax on bodies and lenses. That is, Pentax must believe the alliance members are good but not too good!

Any new mount is basically a "back-to-square-one" experience for a camera company that takes huge investment to create new products fitting the new standard. Thus, joining an alliance is a high-cost, high-risk strategy.

Staying with the K-mount is a low-cost strategy and enables Pentax to build incrementally better products with incremental investment rather than starting from scratch. Whether K-mount is a risky strategy depends on the future of DSLRs. That future has less to do with mirrorless than many think. Even if MILCs gain marketshare, even if MILCs become very popular, that does not imply a company cannot be successful making DSLRs for people who want DSLRs. Many types of products can coexist in the market.

[MMVIII]

In the light of first reviews of the new developments in the FF mirrorless area some disappointments appear.
I find this statement under the Z7 AF-test at dpr quite interesting:
“G G
Neither Nikon nor Canon really needed a FF mirrorless camera. They needed was to improve their live view mode and perhaps add an EVF option. They have been drawn into this quagmire by Sony. How this will end up remains to be seen.“
link

High vignetting, noticeable sharpness dropoff in extreme borders, a soso AF performance and 2-3 EV less AF sensitivity! Oh boy, if Pentax would have come out with something like that...
Well, maybe the late bird can do something better here.

[redpit]

In the light of first reviews of the new developments in the FF mirrorless area some disappointments appear.
I find this statement under the Z7 AF-test at dpr quite interesting:
“G G
Neither Nikon nor Canon really needed a FF mirrorless camera. They needed was to improve their live view mode and perhaps add an EVF option. They have been drawn into this quagmire by Sony. How this will end up remains to be seen.“

High vignetting, noticeable sharpness dropoff in extreme borders, a soso AF performance and 2-3 EV less AF sensitivity! Oh boy, if Pentax would have come out with something like that...
Well, maybe the late bird can do something better here.

Interesting indeed! I think Pentax will firstly take avantage of the gap that will be left in the FF DSLR market, which even for the Canonikon is inevitable after their turn towars MILC. At some point they may get in the MILC too but as the article says a great DSLR with OVF/EVF option is the way to go for Pentax IMHO.

[reh321]

Hmm...

If the equipment is imposing limits on what pictures can be taken, then it's more the equipment's picture than the photographer's. It's when the equipment lets you do anything you could possibly want that it becomes totally up to the photographer.

In ye olde days, the equipment was the limitation.

In fancy-pants modern times, the photographer is the limitation.

These day's a photographer has no excuse for a bad picture because the equipment is so good.

On several occasions recently I've been in a forested area where I had to choose between an ISO level that would result in noisy photos and a lower ISO that would control noise well but not give me the shutter speed I needed to 'stop' birds and squirrels. Some equipment is still the limiting agent.