[Not a Number]

Folks, just a general and cordial reminder that brand-bashing is not allowed, per our forum rules. This is a Pentax community, and whilst we frown on bashing of any brand, we particularly dislike when it's aimed at the very brand most of our members enjoy shooting and discussing in a constructive, balanced way.

Thank you

There's nothing like a thread on Pentax/Ricoh rumors, interview, announcements, new product releases or trade show to bring out the Pentax bashers and thread crappers. My impression is that it is getting worse.

v. Thread crapping occurs when a person comes into a thread and posts something contrary to the spirit/intent of the thread, often derailing the discussion or turning it into an argument.

Urban Dictionary: thread crapping

[Rondec]

reh321 you are missing the entire point of the formation of the 4/3 consortium to have multiple brands working together around a common lens mount. Pentax created the Q to compete against M4/3 and it failed. If Pentax had joined in the 4/3 consortium with the Q the Q would still be viable. M4/3 flange diameter is 38mm and the distance from the flange to the sensor is ~19mm. The Q had plenty of room to implement the mount and 4/3 sensor.

I think the whole point of the Q system was to make something really small and Pentax specific while still allowing for interchangeable lenses. I don't know that Pentax would have a lot to bring to the whole micro four thirds segment. It really feels pretty covered between Olympus and Panasonic. I don't think they would bring a smaller camera, or one with better auto focus, or one with better video or better SR. And so it begs the question as to what they would bring that would actually sell such a camera. The only reason to do it would be because they wouldn't have to do any lenses since the lenses are pretty well covered and they don't really have resources to make new lenses for a new mount right now anyway.

The reality is that Pentax is (used to be) a glass company and their cameras were a way of selling that glass. They are clearly still capable, as shown by the DFA *50, of making excellent lenses, they are just under resourced right now. But I do think rightly or wrongly, their focus is on full frame lenses for the most part and filling out that line up. I don't see them adding another mount without dropping something they are doing currently.

With respect, I'd say 99% of folks here disagree with your views on Ricoh and Pentax, while 1% may agree. That's not religion, but simply a difference of opinion where the balance isn't in your favour - but you'd have to reasonably expect that, given that this is a Pentax-specific community...

I think Pentaxians do tend to be a bit traditionalist in their views. They don't shoot much video. They like optical viewfinders. They like using old lenses. They don't mind a bit bigger camera bodies if it leads to tough builds and good ergonomics. Those are the sorts of things that Pentax has catered to over the years. You could say the "anti-Sony" in that the focus isn't on tech, but more on experience and still image quality.

The mistake we all make in these threads is thinking that Pentax needs to release a camera or lens that is just for me. And while that would sell one or two units, Pentax's goal must be to get the items on the market that are wanted by the most people. So, while someone may want an "all manual digital K1000," the best thing for Pentax will probably be to release a D850-lite and try to improve some of the things that aren't perfect about the K-1. While I may want them to rush a wide angle prime and DFA *85 to market, it is probably more important for them to get their 70-200 f4 and variable aperture 70-300 to market first.

I do hope that they come out with some nice new products soon. It's a bit like a street where there are street lamps every little bit, but between those lamps is darkness. For Pentaxians, the street lamps are product releases and when there is too much space between those product releases, the darkness gets pretty deep here.

[altopiet]

The reality is that Pentax is (used to be) a glass company and their cameras were a way of selling that glass.

Would it ensure the survival of the brand if they supply lenses for other mounts, and if so why haven't they started long ago?

[Kunzite]

I think the whole point of the Q system was to make something really small and Pentax specific while still allowing for interchangeable lenses. I don't know that Pentax would have a lot to bring to the whole micro four thirds segment. It really feels pretty covered between Olympus and Panasonic. I don't think they would bring a smaller camera, or one with better auto focus, or one with better video or better SR. And so it begs the question as to what they would bring that would actually sell such a camera. The only reason to do it would be because they wouldn't have to do any lenses since the lenses are pretty well covered and they don't really have resources to make new lenses for a new mount right now anyway.

That's a popular, but IMO a bit naive reason: not having to do any lenses is ultimately not being to sell any lenses. A strategy based on less revenue, wow.
So the "reason" for doing it is nowhere as strong as one might think. And the disadvantages - just as you said - are there, and quite significant. Yes, Pentax would be at a technological disadvantage just as now (except in image quality, where they're very good).

I'll add another: limiting themselves to a smaller-than-APS-C sensor. Just as the so-called full frame is more affordable than ever.

[Rondec]

Would it ensure the survival of the brand if they supply lenses for other mounts, and if so why haven't they started long ago?

I doubt that moves the needle very much. You make a lot more money off of lenses where you also make the camera body than you do off of lenses sold in a third party position. Look at Sigma's 50mm f1.4 which is priced at 950, while Sony is selling theirs for 1500.

Pentax's nod to that issue has been licensing their lenses to Tokina. It does bring in a bit of revenue, but certainly has not generated millions of dollars either.

What they really need is something like Instax...

[Kunzite]

Would it ensure the survival of the brand if they supply lenses for other mounts, and if so why haven't they started long ago?

What it would ensure is damaging the brand beyond any repair.

[Rondec]

That's a popular, but IMO a bit naive reason: not having to do any lenses is ultimately not being to sell any lenses. A strategy based on less revenue, wow.
So the "reason" for doing it is nowhere as strong as one might think. And the disadvantages - just as you said - are there, and quite significant. Yes, Pentax would be at a technological disadvantage just as now (except in image quality, where they're very good).

I'll add another: limiting themselves to a smaller-than-APS-C sensor. Just as the so-called full frame is more affordable than ever.

OK. I'll say clearly that I actually think Pentax should continue to support the Q. Release the macro lens and the lens line up is about done. Release a new camera body every couple of years with whatever sensor improvements have come along in the meantime. Once again, done.

I do not think they should do micro four thirds. There is just nothing that they bring to the table that that market doesn't already have and they don't have time and energy to invest in another mount. And no, I wasn't saying that they would drop APS-C, I was just thinking that folks were saying substitute micro four thirds instead of the Q line up.

[Kunzite]

Yeah, I understand your position - I was continuing from your stated point, not arguing

Allow me to clarify now.
I'm seeing a large sensor mirrorless as an alternative to the K-mount (for those more into video, or preferring EVFs for some reason). It would be a strategic move with implications for decades to come.
Not as a Q replacement, as they're not exactly comparable - m4/3 is not a "fun" line, with products priced as high as the K-mount FF ones. It's something they'd bet their future on.

With Canon and Panasonic having to launch new mounts just for FF compatibility, I question the sanity of Pentax going m4/3.

[reh321]

I don't understand all this focus on the "Q". If we're going to study history, how Pentax handled AF, then their transition to digital, is where the important stuff was. All that is past - I am looking forward to their Centenary announcements.

[BarneyL]

I remember when I was still on DPR forums, that one of the pentax users there said a peculiar thing. Namely that most pentaxians feel they have to defend the brand in all places dedicated to camera reviews, because "it's the matter of survival". It seems the spirit of Pentax is Doomed™ is strong in hearts of both the Pentax 'bashers' and Pentax fans, though on different level.

I feel this and the next year will be very important for the future of the brand. Ricoh Imaging has been very slow with their releases lately, to the point a lot of Pentaxians started doubting their long term commitment to the cause. K-1 II didn't change much, maybe even fueled more doubts. Premiere of the D FA* 50mm sparked some hope for steady release schedule, but that was quickly offset by the delay of DA* 11-18. Current roadmap says the 70-200 F4 and 85mm will get released this year, but honestly, what level of trust can one put in these declarations after all the delays?

This is what I personally expect to see during the centenary of Asahi Optical - a serious show of commitment. Maybe I'm picky, but one lens released in last two years isn't that convincing, regardless of how good it is.

[reh321]

This is what I personally expect to see during the centenary of Asahi Optical - a serious show of commitment. Maybe I'm picky, but one lens released in last two years isn't that convincing, regardless of how good it is.

I was surprised by the 'nothing' at the end of 2018. I've been hoping that they had several products that were almost ready. I am hoping to see, or at least hear about, those products by CP+.

[Kunzite]

I remember when I was still on DPR forums, that one of the pentax users there said a peculiar thing. Namely that most pentaxians feel they have to defend the brand in all places dedicated to camera reviews, because "it's the matter of survival". It seems the spirit of Pentax is Doomed™ is strong in hearts of both the Pentax 'bashers' and Pentax fans, though on different level.

IMO Pentaxians defending their chosen brand is absolutely normal - other brands' users are doing that, too (and even attacking other brands, which is something I don't see Pentaxians doing often). Seeing this as different is Othering us, plain and simple.
What is not normal is to have to defend your choice on a forum dedicated to said choice.

I don't understand all this focus on the "Q".

The Q mount camera system was an original idea that succeeded, not in sales but in opening new photographic possibilities. Its infinite adaptability coupled with a small format allows it to do things that would be awkward or impossible in a larger format. It isn't a do-everything camera, there is no such thing. That Pentax/Ricoh has not officially shut the door on it (as mentioned in the interview) shows that it may still have future growth, which is why the Q is being mentioned in this thread.

Because trolls who have never used the Q usually have some religious belief in what ever format/system they have invested in, the Qs very existence threatens their limited view. Q users, on the other hand, almost always have other format cameras but keep and use the Q for what it is: a useful, unique tool.

[BarneyL]

IMO Pentaxians defending their chosen brand is absolutely normal - other brands' users are doing that, too

This is correct, and I didn't claim otherwise. What's different is the motivation. People in general don't like being told 'your choice of investment sucks', but I'm yet to find a user of different brand that motivates the defence with 'it's the matter of survival of the brand' (although some m4/3 users seem to show some signs...)

[Kunzite]

I don't think it's a matter of survival - Pentax, fortunately, being a Japanese-centric brand - but I do believe there's a negative impact, perhaps a significant one.