[Mistral75]

Last time I checked it was close to 50% of interchangeable lens camera marked in spite of no new camera models. The DSLR market certainly must be more profitable than the mirrorless marked with all the R&D money going into a completely new mount and system.

45% in units shipped and 28% in ¥, which is more important to manufacturers.

Profitability comes from lenses, not camera bodies, and new (mirrorless) mounts have the advantage (for manufacturers) of enticing customers into buying new lenses.

[Pål Jensen]

Whatever has truly been going on behind the scenes at Ricoh (who can really tell?), the fact that the K3III was delayed after leading up to its release for quite some time, with an official development announcement, video's, specifications published etc., indicates that there have to be uncertainties around Pentax' fate at Ricoh.

No it does not. Pentax have stated the reason for the delays. Other camera companies have experienced delays too, and other industries as well.

[bdery]

May i object that there are other value proposals, not to mention the "corporate" ones, that give Pentax advantage versus competing labels
- ergonomy
- ruggedness and WR/AW's high standards
- durability
- retrocompatibility
- contained cost (at nearest brand performances)

Those are all strengths. And the market knows them, in general terms, I think. When discussing with users of other brands, about WR in particular, the general consensus is that Pentax AND Fuji AND Olympus are good for WR.

That's why I didn't mention it in my comment: it's a strength, but it's not unique.

The same could apply to retrocompatibility. Lenses with an aperture ring can be adapted to almost any system nowadays.

I agree about ergonomy, although users from Fuji will likely disagree. It's a strength of Pentax, but a Unique Selling Point? I don't think so.

So to grow again, imho Ricoh Imaging should both change it's communication software and open new markets "aggressively" basing the message on it's strenghs.

That I fully agree. The brand was crippled by years of poor advertizing and aversion to risk-taking.

[BarneyL]

It sounds more like baloney to me......

I certainly hope that it is the case.

However, it's hard to refute that K-3 III is taking its sweet time to arrive on the market, and I'm not exactly sure if we can blame it entirely on COVID-related complications.

I certainly don't envy Ricoh Imaging's management. Times for the entire industry are really though, and the "mothership's captain" statements regarding Pentax don't exactly inspire confidence.

[Pål Jensen]

45% in units shipped and 28% in ¥, which is more important to manufacturers.

Profitability comes from lenses, not camera bodies, and new (mirrorless) mounts have the advantage (for manufacturers) of enticing customers into buying new lenses.

That's an oversimplification. You only make profit on lenses if you sell enough of them, and you' will only do that if you sell enough bodies. The reason that most SLR companies didn't have the lens line-up of Nikon and Canon is because they couldn't sell that many types of lenses to smaller number of customers. Bigger lens selection means sales divided between more lenses. Many special lenses in large lens line-ups are loss-leaders. Pentax probably had their share. Its a chicken and egg problem, and you must be willing to invest and/or sell high-end stuff with (or without) large profit margin to succeed. This is what Canon understood sometimes in the early 70's, while most other companies were busy with the next million seller for the masses. Canon did that in addition to try to cater to the pro market.

The biggest obstacle for success for all those SLR manufactures that didn't make it historically, was the lack of a big lens line-up. They couldn't afford it, and most of those lens mounts are now dead.....

[bdery]

To me it is quite apparent that Ricoh is going to make technical differences with DSLR and MILC less apparent.

I hope they will. They will still need to convince current users to upgrade to a flagship APS-C (after trying to convince us to go for a full frame) AND convince a portion of the remaining market (which has been moving, "switching" already) to move again, this time towards Pentax. Will the K3-3 be enough of a "game changer" to really do that?

I don't see how they could "determine it will be a loss" at this point.
They have shown it - they will deliver it.

I believe also that they will deliver it. However, it's not because they poured money in it that they will. That's the sunk cost fallacy. If they decide, at any point, that they wont make money out of it, they will stop spending, whatever the development stage.

[lemono]

Oh interesting, would have been interesting to know what the conflict was about. (I realise that won't happen). Hopefully the conflict is internal to the camera design group rather than top Ricoh management vs pentax group. The camera guy has been looking a bit tired in the recent videos so maybe he's ended up in a position he'd rather not with the K-3 III. Or he's the winner but the battle has taken it's toll.

I have to say I also wonder about the R&D requirements for big step dslr such as the K-3III vs new milc mount. A lot of the development stories are about things a milc could skip completely whilst things like for instance tracking AF software are similar in both.

It's just a struggle between DSLR and MILC. Now we all know the result of the struggle (do you remember the five principles of PENTAX?), but it also led to many delays of K3III (think back to the release time of K3II).
These things I said happened before 2020, which has no relationship with the K3III delay in 2021.
Whether the decision was wrong or not, Pentax did consider turning to MILC.A photographer wrote an article criticizing Ricoh because of this, which is very interesting.

[Pål Jensen]

It's just a struggle between DSLR and MILC. Now we all know the result of the struggle (do you remember the five principles of PENTAX?), but it also led to many delays of K3III (think back to the release time of K3II).
These things I said happened before 2020, which has no relationship with the K3III delay in 2021.
Whether the decision was wrong or not, Pentax did consider turning to MILC.A photographer wrote an article criticizing Ricoh because of this, which is very interesting.

If there indeed was such a struggle, the outcome was easy to predict. The only companies having a future in the camera industry are big electronic giants and small specialists. DSLR is in the latter category. Olympus didn't make it in spite of investing a lot in cameras, lenses and advertising.....

[troenaas]

Some people have an urgent need of daily press releases from Ricoh, affirming that Pentax isn't doomed.

I've read similar speculations here on the forum for the past decade, but Pentax is still alive.

Groundless speculations doesn't help anyone, especially not potential Pentax customers.

Until there is solid proof either way, take a deep breathe and take your Pentax camera for a stroll (if you still have one).

[MMVIII]

45% in units shipped and 28% in ¥, which is more important to manufacturers.

Profitability comes from lenses, not camera bodies, and new (mirrorless) mounts have the advantage (for manufacturers) of enticing customers into buying new lenses.

And I am a costumer and appreciate if one manufacturer keeps supporting a system that suits my needs, that's why I have chosen it, and adds steadily new products, even if this is done with a very slow pace and does not want to force me to spend huge amounts of money for the "new" thing.

If I would need a new mirrorless camera I could already find one from various sources. What, from a consumer perspective, could be my motivation to wish Ricoh to change to a mirrorless system and abandon development in K mount DSLRs? I am not a stakeholder and have no shares or investment in the company. If there is any chance they have keeping the DSLR development alive I will applaude them and support it as much as possible.
I don't have any benefit if they bring out a completely new system which would everyone now using Pentax bring in the position to be free to choose any other camera on the market if a system has to be built from scratch.

My profession is not in business and I actually can't understand how this could bring them in a better position than keeping to cater to a small but existing niche. If someone wants fast development cycles and new "better" products twice a year or if the announcement of a new camera brings so much angst and uncertainties to multiple times change a system back and forth he might be better off with an electronics company like Sony or the like.
But why can't slow but steady developments be sustainable? The turn over of the market has already been done, and it came from a hyped growth to a decline and will stabilise. But this must hurt those who were living of big market share more, and their panic reactions can be seen now. That Ricoh is defining it's new position in it is just natural. What is happening in the background does certainly not reach this forum, even if some like to pretend being insiders. For the moment Ricoh has shown in dozens of videos and on special webpages a camera they are developing and that will be announced soon, in their words. That is the only factual information I have. Everything else is more or less profound speculation.

[lemono]

If there indeed was such a struggle, the outcome was easy to predict. The only companies having a future in the camera industry are big electronic giants and small specialists. DSLR is in the latter category. Olympus didn't make it in spite of investing a lot in cameras, lenses and advertising.....

In my opinion, Olympus's mistake lies in the direction of the market. In fact, Olympus found the problem and adjusted it in the last two years, but it caught up with covid. The whole camera business had to be abandoned.

Specifically, Olympus has been focusing on the low-end market with little or even negative profit for a long time. In the last two years, it has launched professional equipment such as em1x and 150-400pro, which is the real high profit point.

According to my understanding, the sales volume of Olympus's low-end cameras ranks the first in Japan all the year round. This is because the purpose of cultivating potential users is to sell them to students at a low price through activities. However, the reality is that these students choose other brands of cameras after graduation.

Therefore, it is of no practical significance to entangle in DSLR or MILC. What is important is continuous capital input and technology output.Only when you have enough amazing products (camera and lens) can you have more development space and time.

[MMVIII]

I hope they will. They will still need to convince current users to upgrade to a flagship APS-C (after trying to convince us to go for a full frame) AND convince a portion of the remaining market (which has been moving, "switching" already) to move again, this time towards Pentax.

And in how far they would be in a better position if they would have to convince every one, the own costumers and newcomers, to switch to a completely new Pentax mirrorless system?

[jersey]

My profession is not in business and I actually can't understand how this could bring them in a better position than keeping to cater to a small but existing niche.

This small but existing niche is dying out? Literally. Can Pentax survive like Leica did by catering to the nostalgia while providing high quality special gear (like Leica M's)? Because I doubt DSLR can with with MILC in a tech race.

[Pål Jensen]

According to my understanding, the sales volume of Olympus's low-end cameras ranks the first in Japan all the year round. This is because the purpose of cultivating potential users is to sell them to students at a low price through activities. However, the reality is that these students choose other brands of cameras after graduation.

But that is a problem Pentax doesn't have. They already have plenty of potential users. 30 000 000 k-mount lenses (way more if count third party lenses as well) are in the hands of potential customers of Pentax new products. The added functionality of non-A lenses in the new K3III is example of cultivation of this user base. In order to get these people to buy new lenses, Pentax needs to add functionality and value to their new lenses, something they are doing.....

---------- Post added 03-15-21 at 02:11 PM ----------

This small but existing niche is dying out? Literally. Can Pentax survive like Leica did by catering to the nostalgia while providing high quality special gear (like Leica M's)? Because I doubt DSLR can with with MILC in a tech race.

It is a wrong analysis. It is common with the analysis, widely proselytized in this very forum, that APS was dead and everyone will switch to FF. Digital enable larger design freedom than film ever did. Hence, it is about a fragmentation of the market. Not a shift from one solution to another.....

[BarneyL]

This small but existing niche is dying out? Literally. Can Pentax survive like Leica did by catering to the nostalgia while providing high quality special gear (like Leica M's)? Because I doubt DSLR can with with MILC in a tech race.

Leica makes more things than rangefinder cameras. It's not all about nostalgia there (although it might had been at the time Andreas Kaufmann decided to invest into them).