@JPT
Thanks heaps for putting in the effort to translate and share the outcome with us!
Most of the content may have already be known to some here, but it is always good to see confirmation and/or how statements differ that come from different sources/interviews.
Originally posted by JPT Regarding 645, the next model is currently being considered.
I hope they'll be able to use a full-sized 645 sensor in the future.
That would be a nice differentiator to competition from Fuji, for instance, who are using what I like to call "baby MF", the same format as the 645Z which is a 1.27 crop of the original 645 format. This crop factor is roughly the same as that between FF and baby-MF (1.29) and would thus increase the crop factor between FF and (645-)MF to 1.64 which is a more convincing distance to FF. Fortunately, Pentax already has the mount and the lenses that work with the uncropped 645 format.
Originally posted by JPT However, they are more interested in serving their customers than following trends.
Yay to that!
I hope that they are aware that Pentaxians don't care much about video (as per a PF survey) and like optical viewfinders (EDIT: the ratio between DSLR and MILC preferences is 179:100, according to the latest pentaxforums survey). In any event, there are some advantages to mirrorless systems but there is no free lunch. Still photography performance is very likely to suffer if Ricoh were to jump on the mirrorless bandwagon. They could potentially join the L-mount alliance, but I'm not sure it would work well for them as they may not be able to profit from lens sales, given that Sigma and Panasonic should be able to do better at the performance/price game.
Anyway, I hope Ricoh will at least always offer an OVF option!
Originally posted by JPT I can’t understand what they say about noise reduction, but it seems that they are aware that opinion is divided on the approach to noise reduction in the K-1 mark II.
Well, that would be fantastic.
If awareness about the issues associated with the denoising in the K-1 II -- some of them related to the technology, some of them related to review sites -- could persuade them to make the denoising of RAW data optional, that would be much appreciated.
Originally posted by JPT They haven’t seen much development [regarding the SDK] yet, but the reaction was greater than expected.
Nice to hear.
I wish I could have worked on using the SDK already but couldn't for lack of time so far.
Last edited by Class A; 01-04-2019 at 05:12 AM.
Reason: Corrected crop factors