[Kunzite]

Are you suggesting it was late to the market?

I'm glad it arrived!!!

A Pentax is never late, nor is it early. It arrives precisely when he meant to!

I'm suggesting its development took a longer time than the "allowed" 14 to 18 months. The first time I've heard Pentax Ricoh saying they were going to develop a FF DSLR was in (IIRC) October 2012. Of course, they could've "researched" until March 2016 - 14 to 18 months

[Mistral75]

Actually developing a camera can easily take 3 years or more. Remember Samsung stating how it took 3 years for the NX-1?
What, you actually believed that Sales Manager's claim about short development times?

The 3 years development time is not "pure speculation" but a statement of some highly ranked Samsung official. To give an exact quote:
"About three years ago we started planing the NX1, with the target of making the world’s best mirrorless camera, to compete with DSLRs"
CES 2015 Samsung Interview: Mirrorless to outsell DSLRs 'in three years': Digital Photography Review

(...)

Thank you for providing the link. I'm afraid Mr Byungdeok Nam's statement contradicts your assertion:

1. Start planning is not start developing
2. 'About three years ago' is 'about three years before CES 2015', i.e about January 2012. The Samsung NX1 was announced in September 2014.

Therefore It took Samsung less than three years between (i) starting planing to make the world’s best mirrorless camera to compete with DSLRs and (ii) launching the NX1, i.e. much less than three years to develop the NX1.

[Kunzite]

Mistral is talking about sequential development of flagships. The parallel development was with the entry level bodies. What are the mechanical engineers doing? Working on the different body that uses the same software and sensor.

When did they start development of the K-1?

Again, quoting your source (which you keep ignoring): "We are now starting to develop a new DSL to succeed the K-3ii". What, the mechanical engineers spent 3 years doing nothing while the only cameras released were... K-70, K-1, KP? And after one a half years from then, there's only a prototype.

Things get delayed, priorities change. Ricoh wanted the K-1 to be the new flagship, it didn't pan out as they hoped, so after knowing that they started to work on the K-New.


Since this is the forum equivalent of banging heads with a titanium-covered, kevlar-reinforced, prestressed concrete wall, I'm bowing out.

Mistral tries to be right

In practice, things are not that simple nor obvious.
The K10D and the K20D used basically the same body, same for the K-7->K-5 but different from the K10D's; let's say the effort of designing the camera body wasn't uniform.
The K10D and K20D's mechanics were similar except the sensor. If I'm not mistaken, they were using the same PRIME processor. The K-7 had a Samsung sensor similar to the K20D's - perhaps this part wasn't as difficult as the following switch to a completely new Sony sensor.
Counting months between successive models is easy, but is it a good indication of the development time of a completely new (as I suspect) advanced APS-C camera?

And let's not forget, the intervals between these cameras was dictated by marketing, not engineering.

[fsge]

In 2019 would a close successor to the K-3 be successful? I don't think so. The K-3 II was a dud really and I think they are wise to rethink it. The market has changed. Users are more interested in small/classic cameras, hence the KP. Or otherwise fps/video monsters that could never be achieved at the cost of the old K-7/K-5/K-5 lineage. The K-3 II was uncomfortably in the middle, not really satisfying either group of users.

It's also the first all new camera designed to live in a mirrorless dominated era, and a camera whose technology is going to power a number of other lines in future. It's not an easy task.

Very good analysis I agree with. People thinking Knew will be priced the same way as K3/K3 II are probably delusional. Pentax already adressed small form factor with KP, I am sure Knew will be loaded specs wise and price will reflect that.

[Mistral75]

Very interesting.

As you already indicated (change of sensors), within that interval they didn't just produce updates/facelifts.
Some of these intervals required to fit in sculpting an entirely new body, major changes to the underlying electronics, changing not only sensor manufacturer but also sensor types.

Apparently there was a bit longer interval between K-5 and K-5 II, with the latter seeing the release of entirely new AF optics and a gapless back LCD design.
FWIW, I'm very fond of the K-5 II. To me, it represents a highlight in the APS-C line.

There was a two-year interval between K-5 and K-5 II, easily explained by the Pentax camera business being sold by Hoya to Ricoh just in the middle of it.

[Kunzite]

Thank you for providing the link. I'm afraid Mr Byungdeok Nam's statement contradicts your assertion:

1. Start planning is not start developing
2. 'About three years ago' is 'about three years before CES 2015', i.e about January 2012. The Samsung NX1 was announced in September 2014.

Therefore It took Samsung less than three years between (i) starting planing to make the world’s best mirrorless camera to compete with DSLRs and (ii) launching the NX1, i.e. much less than three years to develop the NX1.

Planning, IMHO, is part of the development. It is not sitting idle and thinking if to start at all, as recently seen on some Internet forum

And your own Sales Manager contradicts you: the NX was supposed to be done in 8 to 10 months...
From January 2012 to September 2014 there are 2 years and 8 months. How on Earth is this closer to "8 to 10 months" than to 3 years????

[luftfluss]

The K-3 II was a dud really and I think they are wise to rethink it.

Was it? From a sales perspective? I had no idea.

In retrospect, it seems to me that part of the K-3 II's legacy and significance is that it introduced new tech - PixelShift, AstroTracer - that found its way into subsequent systems. And it may have been more timely and cost-effective for Pentax to introduce those features in an existing camera rather than a new model.

[Mistral75]

Planning, IMHO, is part of the development. It is not sitting idle and thinking if to start at all, as recently seen on some Internet forum

(...)

No but it can be organising the future development (planning it) according to the expected availability date of the world first APS-C BSI sensor, among other things.

(...)

And your own Sales Manager contradicts you: the NX was supposed to be done in 8 to 10 months...
From January 2012 to September 2014 there are 2 years and 8 months. How on Earth is this closer to "8 to 10 months" than to 3 years????
(...)

You are quite patronizing towards Mr Philippe Farreng, me or both of us. He definitely doesn't deserve to be called 'my own Sales Manager'. Nor did he ever say that the world first mirrorless camera with an APS-C BSI sensor and hybrid AF system covering 90% of the frame, offering 4K video with H.265 codec, took 8 to 10 months to develop.

Anyway, I've never said that Mr Farreng is an expert in development time of mirrorless cameras, his own reference point being the various Q iterations. On the other hand, to know how a camera is positioned within the Pentax portfolio is definitely part of the competences of the General Sales Manager of Ricoh Imaging Europe.

[JPT]

Was it? From a sales perspective? I had no idea.

In retrospect, it seems to me that part of the K-3 II's legacy and significance is that it introduced new tech - PixelShift, AstroTracer - that found its way into subsequent systems. And it may have been more timely and cost-effective for Pentax to introduce those features in an existing camera rather than a new model.

Actually, like all of the "II" cameras, I think it is very good. My main camera is a K-5 IIs. They often take the opportunity to perfect and test some innovative features in these cameras (no AA filter, pixel shift, upgrade program). However, they often get criticized for not being complete model changes. In the case of the K-3 II, I really don't think it sold well here in Japan. That's going on things like the sales rankings and the total number of user reviews.

The K10D and the K20D used basically the same body, same for the K-7->K-5 but different from the K10D's; let's say the effort of designing the camera body wasn't uniform.
The K10D and K20D's mechanics were similar except the sensor. If I'm not mistaken, they were using the same PRIME processor. The K-7 had a Samsung sensor similar to the K20D's - perhaps this part wasn't as difficult as the following switch to a completely new Sony sensor.

What I heard in a recent presentation was that the K20D is considered to be a hugely important camera internally because of the complete overhaul of the JPEG engine and the introduction of the Custom Image function.

There was a two-year interval between K-5 and K-5 II, easily explained by the Pentax camera business being sold by Hoya to Ricoh just in the middle of it.

I think this was probably more a result of the 2011 earthquake/tsunami. That camera and the Q10 were delayed by a few months. In fact, the Kr was the only K-mount camera in some stores for a couple of months.

[Mistral75]

(...)

I think this was probably more a result of the 2011 earthquake/tsunami. That camera and the Q10 were delayed by a few months. In fact, the Kr was the only K-mount camera in some stores for a couple of months.

I forgot this one. You're right, of course.

[Kunzite]

You are quite patronizing towards Mr Philippe Farreng, me or both of us. He definitely doesn't deserve to be called 'my own Sales Manager'. Nor did he ever say that the world first mirrorless camera with an APS-C BSI sensor and hybrid AF system covering 90% of the frame, offering 4K video with H.265 codec, took 8 to 10 months to develop.

Anyway, I've never said that Mr Farreng is an expert in development time of mirrorless cameras, his own reference point being the various Q iterations. On the other hand, to know how a camera is positioned within the Pentax portfolio is definitely part of the competences of the General Sales Manager of Ricoh Imaging Europe.

But did he say that Pentax' upcoming advanced APS-C camera with a new sensor and whatever AF system it will have and likely a new hardware and software architecture took 14 to 18 months to develop?

Patronizing? Mr. Farreng has no part in our dispute, and I'm not questioning his competence or job.
You're using him too much, at the same time creatively interpreting Mr. Takashi Arai's statements. Remember how a certain rumor about Ricoh not being able to use the Pentax brand anymore was propagated?

---------- Post added 13-12-19 at 04:45 PM ----------

Actually, like all of the "II" cameras, I think it is very good. My main camera is a K-5 IIs. They often take the opportunity to perfect and test some innovative features in these cameras (no AA filter, pixel shift, upgrade program). However, they often get criticized for not being complete model changes. In the case of the K-3 II, I really don't think it sold well here in Japan. That's going on things like the sales rankings and the total number of user reviews.

K-whatever - a Pentax camera.
K-whatever II - a Pentax camera made right
Just kidding, but there was this feeling of confidence given by my K-5 IIs, an extra edge/precision in operation over the K-5...

[Mistral75]

But did he say that Pentax' upcoming advanced APS-C camera with a new sensor and whatever AF system it will have and likely a new hardware and software architecture took 14 to 18 months to develop?

(...)

No, he did not, nor did anybody. So what?

You keep moving the goal posts, so allow me to get back to what separates us and motivated our discussion (that I won't personally call a dispute): was the KP initially designed as a replacement for the K-3 II, as stated by Mr Farreng, or was it not?

Considering that:

• The K-3 II has been discontinued for many months
• The K-New won't be available until several months
• In the meantime, the KP is the top of the Pentax line-up of APS-C cameras

indeed, the KP has replaced the K-3 II as the top APS-C camera in the Pentax line-up.

Was it intentional or the result of chance? Further considering that:

• The development of the K-New commenced around February 2018 ('We are starting to develop a new DSLR which can be positioned as the successor to the K-3 series')
• There was therefore no possibility for the K-New to be ready for launch before the K-3 II was discontinued, even if its development time had been as short as 14 to 18 months

my position is that yes, it was known from Ricoh Imaging that the KP would be the top APS-C camera in the Pentax line-up for many months, i.e. the KP would replace / succeed to the K-3 II as the top APS-C camera.

Was the KP designed ab initio as a replacement for the K-3 II? I'm inclined to follow Mr Farreng on this ('Au départ, nous l’avions conçu comme un remplaçant du K3 Mark II').

[Kunzite]

No, he did not, nor did anybody. So what?

You keep moving the goal posts, so allow me to get back to what separates us and motivated our discussion (that I won't personally call a dispute): was the KP initially designed as a replacement for the K-3 II, as stated by Mr Farreng, or was it not?

So you cannot make the assumption that the K-new's development should take 18 months tops.

No, I am still stuck on the initial subject except that I have to fight a lot of kettle logic
The better question is, "was the KP designed as a replacement for the K-3 II, as stated by Mr Farreng, or was it a separate product, as stated by Mr Takashi Arai?"
I'd take the designer's word for it. You, the sales guy's.

[Serkevan]

So you cannot make the assumption that the K-new's development should take 18 months tops.

No, I am still stuck on the initial subject except that I have to fight a lot of kettle logic
The better question is, "was the KP designed as a replacement for the K-3 II, as stated by Mr Farreng, or was it a separate product, as stated by Mr Takashi Arai?"
I'd take the designer's word for it. You, the sales guy's.

You keep missing the point.

Yes, the KP was designed as a separate product from the K-3ii -this is obvious.
Also, however, the KP was designed as the top-end APS-C camera. In that sense, it was designed as a replacement for the K-3ii -because there was no longer "APS-C Flagship"!

You keep assuming that the product lines stay, well, linear, forever. This is CLEARLY not the case: the KP is another style of APS-C top-end (incredible IQ plus in a platform that takes advantage, mainly, of the most iconic DA Ltd glass), while the straight replacement for the K-3ii was the K-1. Same design brief, same style, different sensor.

Or do you have any reason for Ricoh "orphaning" the K-3ii spot for about 2 years, with no K-3ii production?

Damn it, I'm back here.

[reh321]

Considering that:

• The K-3 II has been discontinued for many months
• The K-New won't be available until several months
• In the meantime, the KP is the top of the Pentax line-up of APS-C cameras

indeed, the KP has replaced the K-3 II as the top APS-C camera in the Pentax line-up.

Was it intentional or the result of chance? Further considering that:

• The development of the K-New commenced around February 2018 ('We are starting to develop a new DSLR which can be positioned as the successor to the K-3 series')
• There was therefore no possibility for the K-New to be ready for launch before the K-3 II was discontinued, even if its development time had been as short as 14 to 18 months

my position is that yes, it was known from Ricoh Imaging that the KP would be the top APS-C camera in the Pentax line-up for many months, i.e. the KP would replace / succeed to the K-3 II as the top APS-C camera.

Was the KP designed ab initio as a replacement for the K-3 II? I'm inclined to follow Mr Farreng on this ('Au départ, nous l’avions conçu comme un remplaçant du K3 Mark II').

I believe you are correct.

An additional thought: The words I get are either of a Japanese 'thinking' man speaking English or through an interpreter; both means can result in subtle miss-choosing words. This is not a fault of Japanese; I don't need anyone here to tell me that English is "a difficult language". Anyway, I don't put much value in what a company says; I am interested in what a company does.

Looking at the actions of Pentax, I believe a combination of the KP and of the K-1ii was expected to fill the function that the K-7/5/3 line had filled. Only after Ricoh executives understood that a meaningful number of shooters expected a long 'fast' string of at least 24mp images {which neither camera could deliver} did they become serious about the "K-3ii replacement". As soon as they finished the KP, they could have started on a larger version with larger buffer and large battery {which I mentally call a "KR"}, but by the time the executives realized all this, it would have been obvious what a KR really was, so they started work on the "K-3ii replacement" as the least bad alternative.