[Rondec]

I like the video.

As for mirrorless, I question what Pentax would bring to the table that Olympus, Leica, Sony, Canon, Nikon, Fuji, and Panasonic don't already cover. The reality is that MILCs tend to be tech heavy gadgets. This does not feel like a market that Pentax can play well in and certainly dumping a bunch of money into R and D to develop a new MILC and the lenses needed for it could sink Pentax -- certainly it is stressing Nikon's position quite a bit.

[Jonathan Mac]

My main argument against the OVF is bad manual focus calibration and fickle AF calibration of the PDAF system. What you see in focus in the OVF is not in focus in the image. For AF and CIF you need to calibrate every time you use a lens because apparently it depends on conditions how much it is out of wack. So what Pentax needs to do is properly calibrate the focussing screen so that is correct out of the box and create a lens calibration feature using live view. I don't think they will do it so my next camera will be mirrorless.

I have very similar thoughts. My main argument against OVFs is that modern OVFs are not precise enough to use for manual focusing, especially the APS-C ones. It's no good harping on about OVFs being better than EVFs when you're not puting everything you can into making those OVFs as good as they can be. I can precisely manual focus using the EVF of my Fujifilm X-T20 much better than I can with the OVF of my K-3.

Having said that, the live view implementation on my K-3 isn't much better, even with magnification, so there's room for improvement there too. The solution is to go back to the principle of making OVFs as big and bright as possible, which I understand is what they've done with the new APS-C model. Time will tell how successful they've been.

[BarneyL]

Hi Barney

Why are you surprised that the FA 85 is better than the Sigma 85.?
I would be surprised if it wasn't.
OEM is generally better than 3rd party.

Dave

FA 85 is a design from 1992. Sigma Art is design from 2016 with record-breaking resolving power (better than Otus 85).

[NZ_Ross]

And maybe they are. Charging more and more for cameras and lenses, seemingly ignoring the bottom end and newbies. Severing ties with the doomed bricks and mortar retailers. Selling off factories, laying off employees, realizing most marketing dollars are completely wasted, releasing lots of cameras and lenses that will take years to make a return on investment (how many of the new Olympus 100-400 will sell now?). They're doing now what Ricoh did before it got this bad!

Figures courtesy of the great Mistral75:
Attached Images

Thank you Clackers and Mistral75 for providing these numbers, they make interesting reading

I have also been running some numbers this evening, following the Future Vision presentation to try and get my head around what is going on, and what Pentax are trying to achieve.

I have used the CIPA 2019 data and BCN 2019 results as follows. The first half of 2020 is a disaster in terms of numbers, so we will see where that heads.

CIPA 2019 digital interchangeable lens cameras = 8,461,490 (8.46M)
Canon predict future 5M annual, Thom Hogan 4M annual - I will work with 5M for this analysis

CIPA worldwide 2019 53% DSLR, 47% mirrorless
BCN 2019 DSLR% Canon 57.4%, Nikon 39.3%, Pentax 3.1%
BCN 2019 FF10.4%, APSC 89.6%, I will use FF 10%, APSC 90% for simplicity

So Pentax 2019 DSLR sales from this data works out at 8.46M*53%*3.1% = 139,000 units, round to 140,000 and at 10% FF = 14,000, APSC 126,000

First Observation Knew is extremely important to Pentax

Now, lets project into the future a few years with the assumption of 5M ILC per year, and an ongoing trend to mirrorless:

If DSLR 30% only then 1.5M units per year, if DSLR 20% only then 1M units per year.

Remembering that Pentax is selling about 140,000 DSLR a year at the moment, how does this translate. Lets assume that Canon and Nikon transition more to mirrorless, and put less development effort into DSLR, but still maintain some useful high end units for some time to come. There is an opportunity for Pentax to sell a slightly higher percentage of DSLR than current, as they concentrate on excellence in optical viewfinders. So, to play with some numbers:

Scenario 1: 5M total ILC, 30% DSLR = 1.5M units
Pentax 5% 75,000, 7.5% 112,500, 10% 150,000

Scenario 2: 5M total ILC, 20% DSLR = 1M units
Pentax 5% 50,000, 7.5% 75,000, 10% 100,000

So, if Pentax can gain 10% of 5M per year market with 30% DSLR sales then that is about the same or better than current sales, with 10% of a 20% DSLR market being about 70% of current sales.

In this analysis the lower 5% of market being 75,000 and 50,000 units per year respectively. As best I could work out taking Leica's 2019 revenue of USD 338M, making some assumptions around lenses and sport optics percentage of revenue and then dividing by an average camera sales cost - is that they are selling about 40,000 to 50,000 camera units a year, and still making good money.

Summary

You can make a profit on 50,000 units per year if you have sized and marketed for it - example Leica is achieving this
The Pentax DSLR only strategy can easily deliver current sales volumes in a market that is still predicted to shrink from 8.4 million to 5 million units per year
Pentax are making a profit now on DSLR turn over of about 140,000 units per year, in conjunction with the GR and Theta's
Pentax DSLR only strategy makes a lot of sense with only a relatively small lift in DSLR % market share needed to deliver stable numbers and profit
Knew is a very important camera for Pentax in this strategy

Cheers
Ross

---

Last edited by NZ_Ross; 07-17-2020 at 03:36 AM.

[dbs]

FA 85 is a design from 1992. Sigma Art is design from 2016 with record-breaking resolving power (better than Otus 85).

I stand corrected then
I prefer the photos the FA produces but thats just me.

Dave

[Pål Jensen]

The existing range is mostly screw driven stuff from the days of yore. Introducing new mount and new lenses, assuming having a partner, shouldn't be that much of a problem in MF sector, as medium format never demanded a range of lenses as vast as smaller formats.

Actually the number of cheap Pentax 645 lenses out there make the system among the most affordable MF system there is. It is part of the appeal. Pentax is making digital cameras for the lens user base; whether it is K-mount or 645.....

[beholder3]

I stand corrected then
I prefer the photos the FA produces but thats just me.

Dave

Fun part is: I bet absolutely no one would be able to tell a real image made by one lens from the other based on "resolving power" unless making a completely academic synthetical side by side test analyzing in the basement on screen at 100%.

But: I also bet a bunch of enthusiasts would be able to tell the lenses apart based on real photos based on rendering and bokeh.

Go figure where the value for photographers is versus the marketing.

[Pål Jensen]

I like the video.

As for mirrorless, I question what Pentax would bring to the table that Olympus, Leica, Sony, Canon, Nikon, Fuji, and Panasonic don't already cover. The reality is that MILCs tend to be tech heavy gadgets. This does not feel like a market that Pentax can play well in and certainly dumping a bunch of money into R and D to develop a new MILC and the lenses needed for it could sink Pentax -- certainly it is stressing Nikon's position quite a bit.

Spot on. I believe the people who buy mirrorless are very different from those who buy a Pentax. The latter are enthusiast and photographers. Mirrorless is just another electronic gadget.....

[beholder3]

Spot on. I believe the people who buy mirrorless are very different from those who buy a Pentax. The latter are enthusiast and photographers. Mirrorless is just another electronic gadget.....

There also is this difference between photographers who like photography (which mainly is the joy of the process) and those who only care about an image data file result (sometimes I wonder why these don't just stick to google image search instead of going through the pain).

No enthusiast would ever ask about "ratios" of technically perfect (rubbish) files. It more is about the love for the process which allows maybe one or two great shots in a week full of photography.

That is what this video expresses nicely.

[BarneyL]

Actually the number of cheap Pentax 645 lenses out there make the system among the most affordable MF system there is. It is part of the appeal. Pentax is making digital cameras for the lens user base; whether it is K-mount or 645.....

It's certainly affordable if we take used market into account. As for new stock with warranty, I'm not so sure about that. Some screwdrive lenses are actually more expensive than Fujifilm GF equivalents (like FA 645 45-85/4.5 vs GF 45-100/4), which is kinda insane.


Getting into MILC with smaller formats is, in current climate, suicidal for Pentax. For MF, it's another story.

---------- Post added 07-17-20 at 03:57 AM ----------

Fun part is: I bet absolutely no one would be able to tell a real image made by one lens from the other based on "resolving power" unless making a completely academic synthetical side by side test analyzing in the basement on screen at 100%.

If that's the case, then why Ricoh/Pentax releases large, fat lenses like D-FA* 50 and *85? I don't think it has much to do with bokeh.

[Serkevan]

I have very similar thoughts. My main argument against OVFs is that modern OVFs are not precise enough to use for manual focusing, especially the APS-C ones. It's no good harping on about OVFs being better than EVFs when you're not puting everything you can into making those OVFs as good as they can be. I can precisely manual focus using the EVF of my Fujifilm X-T20 much better than I can with the OVF of my K-3.

Having said that, the live view implementation on my K-3 isn't much better, even with magnification, so there's room for improvement there too. The solution is to go back to the principle of making OVFs as big and bright as possible, which I understand is what they've done with the new APS-C model. Time will tell how successful they've been.

Nah, the OVFs themselves are fine - the issue is that the focusing screens are optimized for slow AF lenses. An f/4 lens on a split prism screen is barely usable because you have prism blackout already, and even the microprism and matte screen get super dark. There's something about having cake and eating it right there I'm afraid ...
Gimme an easily-swappable focusing screen to use with MF lenses and I'll be happy, although I'm already quite alright with the K-1's OVF.

---------- Post added 07-17-20 at 04:05 AM ----------

If that's the case, then why Ricoh/Pentax releases large, fat lenses like D-FA* 50 and *85? I don't think it has much to do with bokeh.

Aberration control is important - they already nailed bokeh on the FA* 85 and the 77 Limited, but the D FA* is on another level entirely (while also having slightly smoother bokeh but I'm not sure it would be too noticeable unless you're nitpicking). The main reason, however, is I think having a "we can make ridiculously good lenses" product that people can "look up to".

[ThorSanchez]

Spot on. I believe the people who buy mirrorless are very different from those who buy a Pentax. The latter are enthusiast and photographers. Mirrorless is just another electronic gadget.....

I think it would reflect better on us as Pentaxians if we didn't constantly say that anyone with a different perspective isn't serious about photography.

[totsmuyco]

The guys who keep on buying and changing gears need to spend a lot of money. If you're filthy rich you can chase all the new MILC editions you want. But, do you really need to keep on updating and upgrading your gears? Camera companies going into MILC are pushing people to get the latest gadgets and in the end, the produced so many that their inventory isn't moving. The real enthusiasts are the only ones in the market for ILC cameras and are not that many to support the shrinking market. People who bought into DSLRs before who aren't enthusiasts are now happy with their cellphones. Cellphones haven't just killed point and shoot cameras but also the ILC market. These guys have dumped their old DSLRs and are now into upgrading their cellphones regularly.

Maybe Pentax is on the right track. I hope.

[beholder3]

If that's the case, then why Ricoh/Pentax releases large, fat lenses like D-FA* 50 and *85? I don't think it has much to do with bokeh.

Those lenses do show that they produce outstanding rendering and bokeh, flare resistance, look/contrasts while not compromising on resolution or other technical aspects.

[fs999]

Did you hear that "Wow" when he looked in the viewfinder ?
Pewrhaps it's only the magnification, but...
I'm sure it is the first hybrid OVF/EVF ! And soon after that on a successor of the K-1 !