[BigMackCam]

The biggest problem with the K-1 was that it came to late to the market. Everyone was expecting it at the 2014 Photokina, but it didn't. If they had started development of the K-1 in early 2012 then it would be ready for this launch in september 2014.

Here, I agree with you - to some extent. It would have been better if the K-1 was ready earlier. But let's not forget that Ricoh only acquired Pentax in the second half of 2011. To be up and running on (continued?) development of the K-1 in early 2012 would have been quite a challenge at best, and more than likely impractical.

After that date Pentax lost almost everyone who was still waiting for a fullframe k-mount camera. They all went to other brands that did offer a fullframe model.

No. I don't buy that at all. I can believe that a few might have switched, but I don't believe "they all went to other brands", knowing that the K-1 was coming. Such a statement deserves evidence to back it up, Ron, especially since response to the K-1 (based on activity here, at least) was phenomenal.

What left was either not interested in fullframe or didn't have the money to buy into such a system. So in 2016 when the K-1 came there where around 25.000 customers waiting for it and after that sales went down a lot and never went up.

See my comments above.

With respect, you maintain a reputation for negativity towards Pentax since (or perhaps slightly prior to?) your departure from the brand, so I can put your views in context and even separate those that I feel have merit from those that don't (my opinions only, of course). But let's be frank, even if the K-1 had been released earlier and you'd bought one, by now you would have sold it and would still be dissecting the company's performance here from a critical perspective. Am I wrong?

---

Last edited by BigMackCam; 01-15-2019 at 04:22 PM.

[JPT]

Most of the discussion online is among enthusiasts who want more high end equipment. We want better tracking AF in full frame cameras. We want an APS-C flagship. Ricoh should go more professional with Theta.

This would not help them one bit in the BCN Rankings.

As I mentioned in a previous year, BCN is mainly composed of electronic store chains that sell low end products. That’s why you see Canon outselling Sony in mirrorless. It’s also why Olympus does well. Nikon outsells Sony in compacts, but I bet Sony makes more money on them because their products are pitched higher.

Sadly, a lot of these stores don’t sell Ricoh/Pentax at all these days, because the only products they ever sold were the Q, K-S1 and WG. They had the catalogue for other products to order but I don’t think they even have that now.

So if Ricoh really wants to do better in the BCN Ranking, they’ll have to make more effort at the low end, but ironically the reaction here would be brutal if they launched an entry level camera before the K-3 successor.

Edit: As an illustration of this, take a look at the the current ranking.
https://www.bcnretail.com/research/ranking/list/contents_type=41

[Mistral75]

I don't think Ricoh engaged into the DSLR FF system because they lacked resources for a MILC FF system. (...)

I didn't write that. Ricoh Imaging had to top their K-mount line with a 24x36 DSLR anyway. Had they had enough resources, they would have developed a mirrorless system (APS-C and/or 24x36) in addition to their K-mount line, not as an alternative to a K-mount 24x36 camera.

(...) Before Ricoh released the Pentax K1, there were nearly no DFA lenses (...)

Weren't they? What about:

• FA 35mm f/2
• FA 50mm f/1.4
• D FA 50mm f/2.8 macro
• D FA 100mm f/2.8 macro
• FA 31mm f/1.8 Limited
• FA 43mm f/1.9 Limited
• FA 77mm f/1.8 Limited
• DA★ 200mm f/2.8
• DA★ 300mm f/4 and
• DA 560mm f/5.6?

Almost two-thirds (ten out of 16) of the current 'Pentax K-mount lenses compatible with 35mm full-frame format', to use Ricoh Imaging's phraseology, were available (much) before they released the Pentax K-1.

[reh321]

What about:

• FA 35mm f/2
• FA 50mm f/1.4
• D FA 50mm f/2.8 macro
• D FA 100mm f/2.8 macro
• FA 31mm f/1.8 Limited
• FA 43mm f/1.9 Limited
• FA 77mm f/1.8 Limited
• DA★ 200mm f/2.8
• DA★ 300mm f/4 and
• DA 560mm f/5.6?

Almost two-thirds (ten out of 16) of the current 'Pentax K-mount lenses compatible with 35mm full-frame format', to use Ricoh Imaging's phraseology, were available (much) before they released the Pentax K-1.

You are torpedoing your own case here. Pentax clearly had a better start on lenses for the K-1 {10 by your count} than they had for a mythical FF MILC using a new mount {0 by any count}

My personal opinion is that if they do create another MILC, they'd be better off finding some way to make it use K-1 mount anyway.


added: the primary stated reason for Pentax to release a FF camera was to provide a 'natural' digital body for all those older 35mm lenses out there. The K-1 was the most natural way to accomplish that goal.

---

Last edited by reh321; 01-15-2019 at 04:08 PM.

[Mistral75]

I am not 'torpedoing [my] own case' since my 'case', if any, is not that Ricoh Imaging should have developed a 24x36 mirrorless camera using a new mount instead of the K-1.

I wrote it already, I'll write it again and use bigger letters since you didn't catch it the first time apparently:

Ricoh Imaging had to top their K-mount line with a 24x36 DSLR anyway. Had they had enough resources, they would have developed a mirrorless system (APS-C and/or 24x36) in addition to their K-mount line, not as an alternative to a K-mount 24x36 camera.

[reh321]

I am not 'torpedoing [my] own case' since my 'case', if any, is not that Ricoh Imaging should have developed a 24x36 mirrorless camera using a new mount instead of the K-1.

I wrote it already, I'll write it again and use bigger letters since you didn't catch it the first time apparently:

I saw that all along, but that is the weakest part of your argument. You still haven't explained how Pentax would have developed the lenses needed to make a credible MILC effort, something which has been a problem even for both Canon and Nikon so far, nor have you explained who would purchase the camera, given the shortage of appropriate lenses and the antipathy of so many members here to EVF.

[Kunzite]

No. I don't buy that at all. I can believe that a few might have switched, but I don't believe "they all went to other brands", knowing that the K-1 was coming. Such a statement deserves evidence to back it up, Ron, especially since response to the K-1 (based on activity here, at least) was phenomenal.

Of course you don't buy the random nonsense against the K-1 #972
People who needed the FF jumped ship. Others continued to wait. Others didn't even want FF at first.
But the fact is, the K-1 did well for a Pentax. Quite a few of us bought it, and new lenses - at price levels very difficult to reach with APS-C.

Note that Ron is militating for the disappearance of Pentax (diverting essential money away from Pentax means precisely that), which is a weird thing to do here on Pentaxforums.

[Mistral75]

I saw that all along, but that is the weakest part of your argument. You still haven't explained how Pentax would have developed the lenses needed to make a credible MILC effort, something which has been a problem even for both Canon and Nikon so far, nor have you explained who would purchase the camera, given the shortage of appropriate lenses and the antipathy of so many members here to EVF.

Again, my whole point is:

(...) had Ricoh Imaging had enough resources, they would propose a full mirrorless offer by now. If they are full-DSLR, it's out of necessity, not conviction.

Had Ricoh Imaging had enough resources, they would have developed three or four lenses and various adapters (e.g. with and without AF motor) which would have been available at the launch of their first mirrorless camera (as did Canon and Nikon) and they would have then developed around six or seven lens per year (as did Fujifilm after launching their X mount and as Nikon forecast in their roadmap, Canon being less loquacious on the topic).

And they wouldn't have needed to make a choice between K mount and the new mirrorless system, nor would have they had to abandon the Q ecosystem, put the 645 ecosystem on the back burner and considerably slow down APS-C developments just to launch a 24x36 DSLR and a 24x36 lens every second year.

Unfortunately, they didn't have such resources nor do they have them now nor in the foreseeable future.

No money, no mirrorless and not much else.

[BigMackCam]

People who needed the FF jumped ship.

Right. And I'm not sure that many truly needed FF. Many people wanted it, for sure, but I'd hazard a guess that most of those were pretty dedicated Pentax users, so most - despite some understandable impatience - would have waited a little longer, IMHO. As I said, I can easily accept that a few jumped (similarly, we've had a small few jumping due to a lack of K-3II replacement). But I'd suggest that was a very small portion of those who were waiting for FF. Of course, I don't have hard evidence to back that up, but nor do I have any evidence to disprove it - and I know which possibility seems more probable...

[Kunzite]

Right. And I'm not sure that many truly needed FF. Many people wanted it, for sure, but I'd hazard a guess that most of those were pretty dedicated Pentax users, so most - despite some understandable impatience - would have waited a little longer. As I said, I can easily accept that a few jumped. But I'd suggest that was a very small portion of those who were waiting for FF. Of course, I don't have hard evidence to back that up, but nor do I have any evidence to disprove it

The evidence is that the K-1 sold relatively well (for a Pentax). It would've benefited from a stronger follow-up, but as a camera it was successful.
And I'm still not done buying FF stuff.

[Rondec]

By all accounts, the K-1 sold well. Well, at least, for a Pentax. It is getting a bit old -- its three year birthday will be in April. What we know about cameras -- both mirrorless and SLR -- is that they sell best in the first several months after release and then they do begin to drop off as other cameras are released. Pentax may have gotten a bit of a boost from the K-1 II, but I doubt it was a huge one and certainly in the next year they will probably be looking at replacing the K-1 II.

There is no particular reason for them to look at mirrorless right now. They don't have the tech, they don't have the lenses and they would be starting from square zero, even with regard to figuring out an adapter. Honestly, I felt really good about Pentax in the time right after Ricoh took over as they released a lot of different products. The last couple of years have been quite a bit slower and I do think that that is sort of depressing for Pentaxians, particularly combined with the mirrorless doom-tellers who show up regularly to tell us that Ricoh should jump on that train.

[photoptimist]

.........And, despite what I've said about DSLRs, at least in the short term I think a mirrorless platform would have attracted the majority of new sales. As for the longer term, the jury is out, I think.......)

It seems many people were convinced that MILC would kill DSLRs once Canon and Nikon joined the MILC wagon. So what does the jury tell us so far?. The sales and production figures for November 2018 (which should surely show the MILC launch peak for Aug/Sept/Oct launches of the new cameras) still show DSLRs had 28% more units made and 38% more units shipped than did MILCs. Even with Canon, Nikon, Sony, Fuji, Olympus, Panasonic, and Leica now all offering MILCs, DSLRs still beat them.

MILC may have dominated the internet chatter stream, but that noise was not reflected (HA! ) in the actual sales figures.

[Rondec]

I guess I would add that the K-1 sequel should be an SLR that "checks all the boxes." That is to say that it has better frame rate and auto focus, it has better video, and it maintains excellent still image quality. It keeps the top end ergonomics Pentax is well known for. I guess I'm seeing 8 fps, 4K video, buffer size that is double that of the K-1, and improved shake reduction. Body size just slightly smaller than the K-1, but still with excellent build and weather sealing. A true silent shooting mode available and live view auto focus that is pretty nice. It will include an accelerator, but will allow it be disabled below iso 1600. Price tag in the 2200 to 2500 range.

K-1 II will remain on the market for at least a year after this camera's release and be a cheaper option for those who don't need the K-1 III's specs.

[Larrymc]

or perhaps they will be underwhelming again. the dslr is over... it is only a matter of time. canon is revamping their aps-c dslr line - down to one camera.

Good grief?? Dude you just don't give up do you?

[reh321]

Had Ricoh Imaging had enough resources, they would have developed three or four lenses and various adapters (e.g. with and without AF motor) which would have been available at the launch of their first mirrorless camera (as did Canon and Nikon) and they would have then developed around six or seven lens per year (as did Fujifilm after launching their X mount and as Nikon forecast in their roadmap, Canon being less loquacious on the topic).

And they wouldn't have needed to make a choice between K mount and the new mirrorless system, nor would have they had to abandon the Q ecosystem, put the 645 ecosystem on the back burner and considerably slow down APS-C developments just to launch a 24x36 DSLR and a 24x36 lens every second year.

Unfortunately, they didn't have such resources nor do they have them now nor in the foreseeable future.

"Had enough resources" is a meaningless statement. That is like saying "If France had enough resources, they would have landed men on Mars by now". 'Scarcity of resources' is a fact of life; an entire discipline, the field of economics, is based on the fact no one lives in Eden, no one has exactly what they want, as much as they want, when they want it. You are also assuming that MILC is a desired goal above all other goals, just as my example assumes that landing on Mars is a desired goal above all other goals. As I said in a previous response, there are people here who do not see MILC as a desired goal at all. Right now, Pentax is re-evaluating goals and deciding how to move forward; they will let us know when they have reached decisions.

No money, no mirrorless and not much else.

. I totally disagree with your final conclusion. The K-70 is a fine lower tier camera. My KP is a fine camera. The K-1ii is a fine camera, regardless of what DPR wants - Pentax has a lot of "else".