[reh321]

Did Ricoh said they were planning to become a "Premium brand"? Maybe they did, but every company says that when they want increase their margins a bit. If you like "premium", Uniqlo has got some "Premium Down" coats to sell you for about $50. Sorry to get sarcastic on you, but I'm very cynical about that kind of marketing nonsense. In reality, Pentax is still one of the cheaper ILC makers, and value is a virtue in my opinion.

It wasn't intentional, but I just realized that the camera I described is pretty much a Pentax version of the Canon EOS M5 (Kiss M5). That's the best selling camera in Japan at the moment - maybe for the whole year. What Canon understands very well is how to get people in the brand with approachable cameras (light, easy to use, but actually not that cheap) and keep them in the brand for good.

Ultimately, Pentax needs to get new photographers to buy into the brand from the beginning. They can't survive in the long term by just keeping their existing customers and hoping people switch from other systems.

I believe it was Fall 2017 that they said their aspiration was to become a premium brand - I know it was between the K-70 and the KP, and I found myself wondering if the K-70 was last of the K-n0 line, with KP-type cameras becoming the introductory line. The only products they have released since then are the KP, K-1ii, DFA* 50 {in other words, products which do fit that paradigm}. I choose not to judge their stated goals, just to observe them.

If I understand your suggestion above, the resulting camera would still have roughly the same size as the K-70, in which case it would be quite a bit larger than the M5 {which is a nice camera}. If Pentax does decide to experiment with MILC, modifying a K-70 would be a good place to start, since it already has a PDAF-compliant sensor.

---

Last edited by reh321; 01-09-2019 at 11:04 AM.

[reh321]

They make such quality DSLRs that they're foolish not to offer great alternatives as a company like Canon suspends EF development to get behind its RF mount and comes out half-cocked with the awful first offering, the EOS R.

But you can bet that just as the K-1 development occurred in the background unknown to us, on and off over several years before the economics were right for it to be launched, Ricoh will have at least one mirrorless experiment program running in the background. Someone thought that this was the reason for the K-1 still having USB 2, that work might have in fact started before the K-3. Certainly, it was green lit so fast the K-1 shipped without the square crop mode the test units had, the EFCS was added later in firmware, and the Accelerator popped in during the Mk II release when it was perhaps always intended to be there. I've heard the Q was always designed with the O7's sensor in mind, pricing/availability let that happen later on.

Some of the Pentax employees who were involved with the K-01 or Q might still be there and working on the GR III coming out this year. The economics of sensors and EVFs has changed since then and things that they might wish they could have done back in 2012 are now more affordable.

There would be marketing debate over which format - APS-C, FF or MF - for the first mirrorless product. Whatever it is, Niche Marketing 101, it shouldn't be a me-too product, just as the K-1 was not a clone of the Nikon D810, it should have that Pentax special sauce about it. If it contains the same cost, defects and advantages of a mainstream product, might as well buy the mainstream product!

When I first purchased my Q-7, I expected Pentax to come out with a Q-S2 that would be like a Q-S1, but with an EVF; that obviously didn't happen, and most likely will never happen at all; I still believe it is possible that Pentax could release what I call a QP, a "Q" with cell phone sensor and 'accelerator', as test bed for EVF ..... but I don't really expect it. The easiest path to a MILC would be a modified K-70 as suggested by @JPT or what I call a K-07 {K-70 or GRiii innards in a K-01 body plus EVF) since the K-70 and GRiii are the Pentax/Ricoh cameras we know to have a sensor which can do PDAF.

[JPT]

If I understand your suggestion above, the resulting camera would still have roughly the same size as the K-70, in which case it would be quite a bit larger than the M5 {which is a nice camera}. If Pentax does decide to experiment with MILC, modifying a K-70 would be a good place to start, since it already has a PDAF-compliant sensor.

The flange distance will be the same of course, but even within Pentax's history, they have made K-mount DSLRs that are significantly smaller and lighter then the the K-70, such as the Km, Kx and Kr. The Nikon D3500 is an F-mount camera that weighs less than 400g. It can be done, and removing the heavy prism with a lighter EVF, eliminating the need for an AF sensor, metering sensor and mirror mechanism could be a way to achieve this.

I simply can't agree with Kunzite that EOS M buyers are buying a sub-standard product just because of the brand name. The brand and advertising will get the product noticed, but people aren't so stupid that they will buy something they don't want. EOS M is the right size and right design for people who a meaningful step up from a smartphone, but not something that is too big or complicated to use. I have to admit that I have been quite tempted by an EOS M body, the kit zooms and the 22mm lens as a travel kit.

Don't worry, though! Anyone who doesn't like the my idea for Pentax can sleep safe in the knowledge that this cheap, mirrorless abomination is only a figment of my imagination.

[reh321]

The flange distance will be the same of course, but even within Pentax's history, they have made K-mount DSLRs that are significantly smaller and lighter then the the K-70, such as the Km, Kx and Kr. The Nikon D3500 is an F-mount camera that weighs less than 400g. It can be done, and removing the heavy prism with a lighter EVF, eliminating the need for an AF sensor, metering sensor and mirror mechanism could be a way to achieve this.

I simply can't agree with Kunzite that EOS M buyers are buying a sub-standard product just because of the brand name. The brand and advertising will get the product noticed, but people aren't so stupid that they will buy something they don't want. EOS M is the right size and right design for people who a meaningful step up from a smartphone, but not something that is too big or complicated to use. I have to admit that I have been quite tempted by an EOS M body, the kit zooms and the 22mm lens as a travel kit.

Don't worry, though! Anyone who doesn't like the my idea for Pentax can sleep safe in the knowledge that this cheap, mirrorless abomination is only a figment of my imagination.

I don't disagree with you. I have handled an M5 in a "big box" store here, and it feels like a reasonable product; if I were looking for a lower-tier Canon, I would probably stop there.

What we don't know, it what is Pentax thinking, and they seemed to have done a lot of thinking between CP+ and Photokina last year. What makes sense to me is another K-mount MILC, possibly constructed of aluminum to save weight - but we may have to wait another eight weeks {or more} to get even a hint of what makes sense to them.

[Docrwm]

Replace the K-3 with a camera that incorporates all the advantages of Pentax, what they've learned from the K-1, and make it as usable as the K-5 series. Nothing Earth shattering, just better, newer, and not Canikon. Next.

[Trickortreat]

The flange distance will be the same of course, but even within Pentax's history, they have made K-mount DSLRs that are significantly smaller and lighter then the the K-70, such as the Km, Kx and Kr. The Nikon D3500 is an F-mount camera that weighs less than 400g. It can be done, and removing the heavy prism with a lighter EVF, eliminating the need for an AF sensor, metering sensor and mirror mechanism could be a way to achieve this.

I simply can't agree with Kunzite that EOS M buyers are buying a sub-standard product just because of the brand name. The brand and advertising will get the product noticed, but people aren't so stupid that they will buy something they don't want. EOS M is the right size and right design for people who a meaningful step up from a smartphone, but not something that is too big or complicated to use. I have to admit that I have been quite tempted by an EOS M body, the kit zooms and the 22mm lens as a travel kit.

Don't worry, though! Anyone who doesn't like the my idea for Pentax can sleep safe in the knowledge that this cheap, mirrorless abomination is only a figment of my imagination.

Yeh.... i think pentax has some burns from their earlier ventures into mirrorless land.
But on the other hand if they managed to make a light DSLR like the ones you mentioned with modern insides I'd me all over those

[mtgmansf]

So.. they gave 645 MF market to Fuji with no new camera expected in next few years and no lenses introduced in last few years.

Q system is dead for sure.

FF system is laughable if compared to any other current FF system because important FF lenses like 12-24, 20/1.4, 24/1.4, 28/1.4, 35/1.4, 85/1.4, 135/1.8 etc are still missing, while competitors do offer them and in most cases customers even have choice between own or 3rd party options. Not to mention telephoto lenses or special lenses like tilt-shift.

And it looks like they even left the APS-C market to competitors now.. 11-18/2.8 might be ok, but we still have same old DA* line since 10mpix camera era and no advanced body since K3..

And while we can read that xx or yy is under development again and again, competitors are fielding new cameras and lenses every year. No suprise, that Pentax now has lost 3rd party AF lens support and that most camera shops removed Pentax from portfolio completely.

They can eat that GRIII.. that won't save them.

---------- Post added 04-01-19 at 01:58 AM ----------




645Z is 2014 camera... for comparison Fuji in last 2 years prepared GFX50S and GFX50R

HD DFA645 35/3.5 is 2015 lens.. for comparison Fuji since that time released 7 GF lenses..


As a MF customer all I can see is dying Pentax 645 system and fast growing Fuji GF645 system with modern lenses. Guess where customers go...

---------- Post added 04-01-19 at 02:09 AM ----------




FF11-18/2.8 lens would be in $4000+ range. Forget that APS-C users would buy such thing in any interesting numbers.
For comparison Canon 11-24/4 cost more than $2500 and you want 11mm wide F2.8 fullframe zoom lens... that would be monster. Big, heavy and horribly expensive.


I'd rather see FF 24/1.4 or FF24/1.8 and FF 35/1.4 lenses that are good both for FF and APS-C while having at least somewhat affordable price.
And also some UWA FF lens like FF12-24/4 again both usable for FF and APS-C while keeping price that some can afford.

Also some cheap small FF 70-300/4-6.3 is missing. We have several different DA55-300 lenses but none of them fully compatible with FF cameras. This only shows how chaotic that FF project is.

Although I agree with you on most points, including having a universal and FF compatible 12-24mm, the 11-18mm is only intended as a aps-c lens. Either or both of these would replace the 10 year old 12-24mm, non-WR lens from days long gone. As I have said many times before, Ricoh/Pentax have missed the boat for endearing themselves to the low travel weight, landscape crowd by having no WR or Star lens wider than 16mm for aps-c. It is simply no good having a sealed cameras without sealed lenses to accompany them. This why I stopped buying Pentax with the K5IIs (wisely), and will only jump onboard again when there is both a K3II replacement and the 11-18mm that are actually available for purchase. IMO, Ricoh/Pentax has neglected their aps-c buyers for quite a while now. Having three to five iterations of 18-55/50mm and 55-300mm lenses just doesn't cut it, when you need a new, expanded, and improved 12-24mm zoom, 10mm, 12mm, or 14mm prime...

[Rico]

Yeh.... i think pentax has some burns from their earlier ventures into mirrorless land.
But on the other hand if they managed to make a light DSLR like the ones you mentioned with modern insides I'd me all over those

You have stated the DA plasticky(your word) lenses are better than the DA LTD's and now only if Pentax could manage to make a light DSLR.

Your post's are sounding more and more like a trick rather than a treat.

Time will tell... :^)

[Kunzite]

I simply can't agree with Kunzite that EOS M buyers are buying a sub-standard product just because of the brand name. The brand and advertising will get the product noticed, but people aren't so stupid that they will buy something they don't want.

"Sub-standard", "stupid", "something they don't want" - I never made such strong statements

My point is that people (many of them) want Canon products. And it's quite difficult to make them want Pentax instead.

[Rico]

Although I agree with you on most points, including having a universal and FF compatible 12-24mm, the 11-18mm is only intended as a aps-c lens. Either or both of these would replace the 10 year old 12-24mm, non-WR lens from days long gone. As I have said many times before, Ricoh/Pentax have missed the boat for endearing themselves to the low travel weight, landscape crowd by having no WR or Star lens wider than 16mm for aps-c. It is simply no good having a sealed cameras without sealed lenses to accompany them. This why I stopped buying Pentax with the K5IIs (wisely), and will only jump onboard again when there is both a K3II replacement and the 11-18mm that are actually available for purchase. IMO, Ricoh/Pentax has neglected their aps-c buyers for quite a while now. Having three to five iterations of 18-55/50mm and 55-300mm lenses just doesn't cut it, when you need a new, expanded, and improved 12-24mm zoom, 10mm, 12mm, or 14mm prime...

If you agree with most of those points are you sure you are not really xmeda posting a reply with a different user name to create the illusion somebody agrees with those points?

If you believe Ricoh/Pentax missed the boat for endearing themselves to the low travel weight, landscape crowd by having no WR or Star lens wider than 16mm for APS-C I ask how do you think a WR or Star lens wider than 16mm could remotely qualify as a low travel weight lens?

[Trickortreat]

You have stated the DA plasticky(your word) lenses are better than the DA LTD's and now only if Pentax could manage to make a light DSLR.

Your post's are sounding more and more like a trick rather than a treat.

Time will tell... :^)

What i said is true. And I have a pentax camera to fit - ks1.
If they made one a bit lighter - with a pentamirror i would be perfectly happy with my kit (+a DA 23mm f2 prime).
They dont even need to be cheap id buy light stuff at premium price.

[Rico]

What i said is true. And I have a pentax camera to fit - ks1.
If they made one a bit lighter - with a pentamirror i would be perfectly happy with my kit (+a DA 23mm f2 prime).
They dont even need to be cheap id buy light stuff at premium price.

What you said is only "true" to you.

I can not take serious anything you say when you want a DA 23mm ƒ2 prime.

[mtgmansf]

If you agree with most of those points are you sure you are not really xmeda posting a reply with a different user name to create the illusion somebody agrees with those points?

If you believe Ricoh/Pentax missed the boat for endearing themselves to the low travel weight, landscape crowd by having no WR or Star lens wider than 16mm for APS-C I ask how do you think a WR or Star lens wider than 16mm could remotely qualify as a low travel weight lens?

Very simple- if you compare the Sigma, Tamron, or Nikon 10-20mm's or 10-24mm lenses, they are half, or less, the weight of the Pentax/Tamron 15-30mm and Sigma/Nikon 14-24mm, with primes like 12mm, 14mm, 15mm being one quarter to one third the weight of these monster zooms. This is much more than the 200-300 grams you save on the aps-c bodies vs. FF. Of course, the weight you are willing to carry for travel is subjective. APS-C is light enough for me, especially with the very lightweight, Pentax 55-300mm taking the place of the many FF 80-400mm or 100-400mm lenses - which I consider my second most important lens. And, no I am not Xmeda, and I will probably buy the 11-18mm with a Pentax K3II replacement, if and when it becomes available - as previously stated - within the next few years, although a tempting Nikon Z6/Z7 successor with the newly announced for pre-order 14-30mm WR lens might my needs better (and maybe sooner and be just as light), since I am not an astro-photographer. As many have commented about Ricoh's glacial efforts- you snooze you loose...

[reh321]

What i said is true. And I have a pentax camera to fit - ks1.
If they made one a bit lighter - with a pentamirror i would be perfectly happy with my kit (+a DA 23mm f2 prime).
They dont even need to be cheap id buy light stuff at premium price.

Did you mean 21mm f/3.2 lens, or are you asking for a new lens??

[Rico]

Very simple- if you compare the Sigma, Tamron, or Nikon 10-20mm's or 10-24mm lenses, they are half, or less, the weight of the Pentax/Tamron 15-30mm and Sigma/Nikon 14-24mm, with primes like 12mm, 14mm, 15mm being one quarter to one third the weight of these monster zooms. This is much more than the 200-300 grams you save on the aps-c bodies vs. FF. And, no I am not Xmeda, and I will probably buy the 11-18mm with a Pentax K3II replacement, if and when it becomes available - as previously stated - within the next few years, although a tempting Nikon Z6/Z7 successor with the newly announced for pre-order 14-30mm WR lens might my needs better (and maybe sooner and be just as light), since I am not an astro-photographer. As many have commented about Ricoh's glacial efforts- you snooze you loose...

All those lenses will take up half the space in your low weight travel bag.