[normhead]

One thing for sure is that this forum will be around long after the last Pentax camera is released... Which could be this year for all we know.

Balance, balance balance.

One thing for sure is that this forum will be around long after the last Pentax camera is released... Which could be this year for all we know. Or could be in another hundred years, for all we know.

[texandrews]

You might be thinking that a new 645 camera is overdue, but that's just impatience. This is a system that has had just 5 models since 1984. It has long lifecycles.

Thanks for that reminder.

[Jeff]

Have they not released any new verions of the GR, Theta, WG or binoculars since 2013 or 2014?

I still tend to think of the GRIII as a pretty new camera, but it's been out almost as long as the GRII was before replacement (a little over three years) and people wondered if the GR line was dead. Both the Q and 645 bodies have been untouched for seven years. In consumer electronics that's a long time, especially with no rumored replacement even under development, much less ready to be released.

Q and 645 are mostly dead more than the Dread Pirate Roberts.

Absolutely.

If ever Kunzite's tagline was true, it is in this instance...

"What is dead [645 and Q] can never die"! They've been dead for some time but we've not yet seen the bodies..!

I don't think RI will spend money on resurrecting the 645, with attendant new lenses, just to go up against Fuji... that horse has been flogged. It would be a poor business decision. Higher MP FF cameras, new lenses, K3.3 and a new mid range APSC - this is all doable and will provide a much bigger ROI than a very nich product in MF cameras. The Q isn't even worth mentioning.

[Belnan]

Balance, balance balance.

One thing for sure is that this forum will be around long after the last Pentax camera is released... Which could be this year for all we know. Or could be in another hundred years, for all we know.

Yes, that is also true. So on average it could be another 50ish years, for all we know.

[normhead]

Yes, that is also true. So on average it could be another 50ish years, for all we know.

I'm pretty sure I'll be dead by then....

If you're already dead... it never happened.

[ThorSanchez]

The GR III under development was presented at Photokina 2018 but the camera was announced on 22 February 2019, less than two years ago and almost four years after the GR II (18 June 2015).

See, that's what I get for trusting the first source I find online.

[repaap]

They have next 645 on the drawing board already, this is based on rumour made by OokU. They have been working on renewing the whole system. Yes, they did do very big work with K-mount lenses too. And since they are more popular it is where they have done very big work long overdue too.

This new tech will find it's way in next cameras too. If one does look what ambassadors are shooting with, it is 645 Z and then K-1 and then K-3. Not many with Q.


Many shooting wih 645 Z have said that they are excited about the new comer K-3 mk.3, but they are just so in to image quality of 645 Z.

To me it would be difficult to see that branch going away anytime soon.

[Kunzite]

I don't think we can use the past to predict the future.
The last years were spend building a new hardware platform - while pretty much abandoning the limiting, old one. The GR III runs a Linux-based OS, and I expect the new K-mount cameras will do the same.
On the lens side, there was a transition towards true high-end lenses (like the D FA* 50mm and D FA* 85mm). They had to fight with stuff like the barrel not being rigid enough, or some type of optics not offering the required very high performance; you don't find these things until you try them.
Next steps should be faster. We might see at least 2 lenses this year, and perhaps more than one camera.

[Serkevan]

Next steps should be faster. We might see at least 2 lenses this year, and perhaps more than one camera.

We don't really need more... two lenses per year (ideally three, switching between 2 FF/1 APS-C and viceversa) and one camera per year is plenty, IMO. In 2021 we'll probably see the D FA 21 and the 16-50/2.8 PLM. Mayhaps another as a surprise. Next year, who knows.

[reh321]

The Q isn't even worth mentioning.

I will make this one statement; you can believe whatever you do .... I will not argue the point.

The "Q" is a very good camera - too bad for Pentax that they don't realize that - based on the "Q" and on the K-01, they decided "MILC isn't for us" instead of "MILC's without EVF won't sell" - but that is their loss.

[ThorSanchez]

I will make this one statement; you can believe whatever you do .... I will not argue the point.

The "Q" is a very good camera - too bad for Pentax that they don't realize that - based on the "Q" and on the K-01, they decided "MILC isn't for us" instead of "MILC's without EVF won't sell" - but that is their loss.

I'm sure that there have been incredibly beautiful photos taken with the Q series, but there have also been great photos taken with the *istD and almost any other camera.

The Q series' issue is that it's a cell-phone sized sensor without any of the modern cell phone computational tricks to overcome the limitations of that sensor. Yes, it's great to have interchangeable lenses. But once you get outside of really good lighting conditions it has a lot of the same limitations of an 8- or 10-year-old cell phone. There isn't much of a niche for a 1/2.3" sensor without the software tricks to punch above its weight, when almost everyone has a phone that does have those tricks built in.

I would like to see a Q with the processing and networking guts of a 2021 phone. But there's no indication they're working on that, or would have the resources to.

[Kunzite]

The Q concept is most vulnerable to smartphones. Particularly now, that smartphones have multiple lenses and are doing neat processing.
What's this concept, anyway? A nice little camera offering... an image quality not better than a smartphone's?
I don't think they could have been saved by an electronic viewfinder.

In contrast, here's the GR III - a nice little camera (not as small, but still fits into a t-shirt pocket), with excellent image quality.

[Serkevan]

The Q has a sensor smaller than that of any current smartphone, so the system does not have any chance of surviving today. It would be throwing money in the dumpster to develop it, unfortunately.

[Jeff]

The Q concept is most vulnerable to smartphones. Particularly now, that smartphones have multiple lenses and are doing neat processing.
What's this concept, anyway? A nice little camera offering... an image quality not better than a smartphone's?
I don't think they could have been saved by an electronic viewfinder.

In contrast, here's the GR III - a nice little camera (not as small, but still fits into a t-shirt pocket), with excellent image quality.

Exactly.

The GRIII is THE small and compact camera with excellent IQ that many people want - I have one because it is small and fits into my pocket...and the images are far superior to anything a smartphone can take, IMHO. There is no room in the Ricoh stable for cheap cameras anymore. Those days are gone. Low volume, high profit is the only way they will be able to maintain any market share. I suspect that the days of a dud camera, with weakness such as aperture block failure on the K-consumer line, are gone.

Ricoh's core business now has to continue to be its focus on premium Pentax products. If it sticks with this approach it has every chance of continuing as a viable and profitable business. The carcasses of companies who flirted with 'nice idea let's try it' approaches are littered for all to see. There are examples in every MBA program in the world.

It may take time but if Ricoh perseveres then it can make something special out of the Pentax brand. Think about how Toyota grew the Lexus brand to the extent that most people don't make the connection between the two, and happily pay a premium for the Lexus brand name, unaware that they are driving a Toyota. Not that there is anything wrong with that of course - I'm sure you get the intention of what I am saying.

Ricoh has to think with the head...with a little heart thrown in for good measure.

[ThorSanchez]

The Q has a sensor smaller than that of any current smartphone, so the system does not have any chance of surviving today. It would be throwing money in the dumpster to develop it, unfortunately.

I would like to think there could be a niche for a Q with a modern smartphone sensor, modern smartphone processing, modern smartphone interconnectivity, and interchangeable lenses. But with multi-lens smartphones a new Q would be a somewhat more flexible smartphone without the phone. That still probably costs $500-1000 body-only. So, probably not.