[mlt]

…. Sure, but you don't make money on bodies. This is why these consortium always seem to fizzle out after a while. Competitors who are supposed to cooperate start to see that cooperation costs them.

Even more so when you’re producing an adapter that allows others to use your lenses on someone else's bodies. No, the L mount alliance would appear to have little upside. Better to start from scratch with your own mount and a dedicated adapter for the existing K mount lenses.

[RobA_Oz]

That's not the way I see it. If Ricoh offered DSLR and their mirrorless version reusing the same guts, but with variation in firmware, they'd sell DSLR to people who prefer OVF and they sell mirrorless (with same UI) to people who prefer having an EVF who would otherwise leave Pentax. Since both Pentax DSLR and Pentax MILC would take K mount lenses, customers wanting a MILC would have a huge incentive to buy the Pentax MILC instead of going e.g Sony. Since a Pentax MILC would use K mount lenses, Ricoh wouldn't be limited by their capacility to make new lenses, and MILC sales could take advantage of the large user base of K mount lenses. When Ricoh doesn't offer other than DSLR alternative, customers are leaving to Sony, Nikon, Canon. If Ricoh would offer both DSLR and MILC for K mount lenses, they would address 100% of their user base, and making MILC cameras wouldn't be costly because it would be "design by removal" approach , take a working DSLR, remove the mirror box to make it light weight, lock the firmware to live view only, done.

If the hybrid viewfinder never makes it to a production model (and the longer things go on without one, the less likely it will be, I think) then, possibly, a better way to effectively do what you’re suggesting is not to make two models, but one with an interchangeable viewfinder. The LX system is a model for this concept, having multiple electrical contacts and weather-sealing included in the interchangeable prism heads. Moving the viewfinder information layer from the pentaprism to the focus screen stack, as with the K-1 and the K-3iii, makes this a bit easier.

[Serkevan]

Anyway, this "K-02" idea as a line of MILCs is not thought out at all, you'd be forever at a disadvantage (size, retrofocus lenses) without getting anything in return.
The only company which tried to "mirrorless-ize" their SLRs did that as an intermediary step towards MILCs; but the reasons (lack of fast on-sensor AF) don't apply today.
Pentax would do that... to have the worst mirrorless on the market?

A "K-02" dedicated to a specific task and attempting to complete - rather than compete with - the SLR line is another story. But, what would that be? A video oriented camera? It's not Pentax' area of expertise. An astrophoto dedicated camera? I doubt there's enough of a market for that.

Yeah, to be clear I don't think a K-02 would be a good idea - probably in any way, shape or form.

[Pål Jensen]

I'm not saying that. What I'm saying is, among Pentaxians are the ones who prefer DSLR and the ones who prefer MILC. .

Why being a Pentaxian when one prefer a MILC? Whats next? Prefering a pick-up truck but drives a Ferrari,

There's no shortage of mirrorless cameras to choose from. A K-mount mirrorless makes no sense.

[Rondec]

I am not sure why people think that an MILC where the only innovation is that it has a K mount is a good idea. The reason the K-01 didn't sell particularly well is because it was poorly featured compared to other MILCs on the market. It had slow auto focus, no EVF, almost no buffer and very slow frame rate.

Clearly Pentax has come a little way since that time, but why anyone would buy a K-3 III with an EVF instead of an OVF is beyond me. I can't imagine that you would attract many standard MILC users who want higher end specs than that sort of camera would offer. And the vast majority of folks currently shooting Pentax prefer an OVF to an EVF.

People have this odd perception that if you slap an EVF on block of cow manure, it would sell well. I don't think so. Nikon struggled out of the gate because people were upset about certain (pretty small) decisions they had made with regard to memory cards and things like that. The overall Z cameras were nice and the lenses were coming and the F mount lenses could mount seamlessly with an adapter. It still was slow getting off the ground. What are the chances that Pentax could have a camera that has all of the specs of a Z6 or Z7?

[Cerebum]

Quick -- in a few words or sentence, name the unique selling proposition (USP) of Sony. Canon. Nikon. Panasonic. (Hint: it's probably not 'mirrorless'.)

What's the current USP of Pentax?


- Craig

This is a good excersize that pretty much gets us to answer our own questions

Based on zero evidence and little factual knowledge I would say
Sony: Class leading AF & video
Canon: size of company, global fan base
Nikon: Heritage
Panasonic: M4/3 & links to Leica
Fuji: Unique style
Pentax: Modern DSLR with bright pentaprisms
Olympus (OM Systems): size, style and functionality
Leica/Hasselblad: If you need to ask, you can't afford one!

You were right, no mention of mirrorless

[Pål Jensen]

Sonys USP is that they are present in every electronic consumer stores on the planet where cameras are increasingly being sold these days (photo stores hardly exist anymore).

Canon and Nikon main USP is that they have the largest systems (and pro presence). Why buy something else when you can buy into the largest system that can meet virtually every need might have now or in the future?. This is an important selling point in spite of the fact that 99% av all lenses that people actually use are available from all manufacturers. This is an opportunity for Pentax as a DSLR manufacturer because Nikon and Canon will want to keep their position as the most complete system also in mirrorless - they don't want to spread themselves too thinly, unless they change decades old strategies. This in contrast to Pentax that for decades have kept three systems and three lens mounts going simultaneously.....

---

Last edited by Pål Jensen; 10-31-2021 at 02:01 PM.

[Kunzite]

Even more so when you’re producing an adapter that allows others to use your lenses on someone else's bodies. No, the L mount alliance would appear to have little upside. Better to start from scratch with your own mount and a dedicated adapter for the existing K mount lenses.

Let's reformulate that first part a bit: "allows Pentaxians to use their already bought Pentax lenses on Panasonic or Sigma bodies, thus never buying Pentax again".
Just to make it clear how much of a winning strategy that is. Convince people they can't stay, because you're redirecting resources from the K-mount. Offer an easy migration path to a competitor's products. Yeah, that's instant success for Pentax

[climbmountainway]

The current announced Pentax gear projects completed, of lenses and the K-3iii, have not carried the Ricoh name onto their product boxes. The Pentax name alone appears. Does a Ricoh "revival" mean the company, and peddling Pentax in the corporate marketplace to Ricoh's advantage, or to another corporation, dealing with the post COVID and COVID marketplace reality, or something else? Time and the industry marketplace will tell.

[c.a.m]

The current announced Pentax gear projects completed, of lenses and the K-3iii, have not carried the Ricoh name onto their product boxes. The Pentax name alone appears. Does a Ricoh "revival" mean the company, and peddling Pentax in the corporate marketplace to Ricoh's advantage, or to another corporation, dealing with the post COVID and COVID marketplace reality, or something else?

As for the labeling on the K-3 Mark III box, 'Ricoh' appears on the box, but not prominently. Perhaps Ricoh Imaging wants to give superior prominence to Pentax, consistent with their promotion of the 'Pentax Principles' and their use of 'Pentax' to indicate both a brand and an entity, as in "Pentax believes in the future of SLR photography" and "PENTAX showed its commitment to the development of the optical viewfinder..."

- Craig

[Pål Jensen]

As for the labeling on the K-3 Mark III box, 'Ricoh' appears on the box, but not prominently. Perhaps Ricoh Imaging wants to give superior prominence to Pentax, consistent with their promotion of the 'Pentax Principles' and their use of 'Pentax' to indicate both a brand and an entity, as in "Pentax believes in the future of SLR photography" and "PENTAX showed its commitment to the development of the optical viewfinder..."

- Craig

Yes, they want to strengthen the Pentax brand.

[biz-engineer]

They lost the prefer MILC users some time ago.

That.. is very possible

---------- Post added 01-11-21 at 08:30 ----------

Clearly Pentax has come a little way since that time, but why anyone would buy a K-3 III with an EVF instead of an OVF is beyond me.

I wouldn't buy a K-3 III because it has an EVF, but I would buy a K-3 III if it did offer 16:9, 3:2, 4:3, 5:4, 7:6, 1:1 crop for composing images. If they can do this in an OVF, then I'm fine with it. But the thing is, it's not even available in live view, makes me wonder what they were thinking about when they defined the firmware.

[house]

That.. is very possible

---------- Post added 01-11-21 at 08:30 ----------


I wouldn't buy a K-3 III because it has an EVF, but I would buy a K-3 III if it did offer 16:9, 3:2, 4:3, 5:4, 7:6, 1:1 crop for composing images. If they can do this in an OVF, then I'm fine with it. But the thing is, it's not even available in live view, makes me wonder what they were thinking about when they defined the firmware.

Aren't the K-3 III framelines hardware?

[Kunzite]

People who wouldn't buy a Pentax DSLR because <insert random excuse> would not buy a Pentax MILC because <insert random excuse>

[Smolk]

Yes, they want to strengthen the Pentax brand.

The recent popularity test of the Pentax brand, where Pentax stood out despite small market share, suggests that is a wise move.