[Wheatfield]

It was a mistake for the outgoing CEO to say that there will never be a Pentax mirrorless. That's unrealistic. You never say never in this business. If Pentax could find a way to use the K-mount with a mirrorless camera, that could be a huge boost.

They did. No one bought it and it faded away.

---------- Post added Oct 31st, 2021 at 09:27 AM ----------

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.

People haven't been flocking to Pentax in huge numbers when the only competition was other SLR cameras. Now you are saying they will Flock to them if they become a tiny little player in the mirrorless market?
It might happen in some alternate reality.

[reh321]

They did. No one bought it and it faded away.

To be fair, most other manufacturers had little success with MILC which had only a LCD; they kept at it, and found that an EVF was needed to succeed. Pentax gave up on MILC and decided to concentrate on DSLRs when the K-01 didn’t sell well; presumably we will never know how a K-02, or Q-S2 or GRiv would have done if they had persisted and tried an EVF.

[Kunzite]

But the K-01 was IMO received less well than other MILC cameras which weren't better, perhaps even worse in some way. Back then, many MILCs didn't had EVFs and their AF wasn't great.
Perhaps the trick was in persisting. Perhaps not.

[Dartmoor Dave]

Pentax is going to try to be Leica-lite. It is probably a better path than chasing a mirrorless dream. Well priced, well built products with enough older lenses and gear available to satisfy users who think they are too expensive.

Yes, exactly. Being the only manufacturer of an optical viewfinder DSLR is the best niche for Pentax to occupy, because there will always be some photographers who cherish having that option. And Pentax needs to protect the optical viewfinder in the ways that Leica protects the rangefinder. The only way you can get the full M mount and rangefinder experience is to buy a top-of-the-range Leica M. The only way you will be able to get the full K mount and optical SLR viewfinder experience in the future will be to buy a top-of-the-range Pentax K.

[Serkevan]

But the K-01 was IMO received less well than other MILC cameras which weren't better, perhaps even worse in some way. Back then, many MILCs didn't had EVFs and their AF wasn't great.
Perhaps the trick was in persisting. Perhaps not.

The Panasonic G5, Sony NEX-7, Oly M5 and EOS M are all from 2012. The only one without EVF was the Canon (and has the excuse of being built to be diminutive). The other 3 have both EVFs and flippy screens. I do not know whether the AF was any worse or better than the one on the Pentax, though. IQ would be a toss-up between the K-01 and the NEX-7 with the others a bit behind. Price... the NEX and Oly were significantly more expensive, the Panny was cheaper than the K-01 and the EOS M was in the whereabouts.


IMO the K-01 missed the mark in several aspects, but I believe it was hurt most by its "finderless brick" design and, following from that, the fact that a lot of people back then were interested in mirrorless because of the (later, as we know, mostly unfulfilled) promise of smaller and lighter gear.

[Kunzite]

The Panasonic G5, Sony NEX-7, Oly M5 and EOS M are all from 2012. The only one without EVF was the Canon (and has the excuse of being built to be diminutive). The other 3 have both EVFs and flippy screens.

I never said no camera had EVFs, and I didn't talk about flippy screens at all.
At that time - February 2012 - a good number of MILCs didn't have EVFs. Yes, the EOS M, some Samsungs, some Sonys...

[Serkevan]

I never said no camera had EVFs, and I didn't talk about flippy screens at all.
At that time - February 2012 - a good number of MILCs didn't have EVFs. Yes, the EOS M, some Samsungs, some Sonys...

Ah, no, I just took models that had been quite well received back then and were in a similar price/specs bracket. Of course the Oly Pens and such were finderless as well but they had the "saving grace" of being tiny - and typically cheaper.

A more practical/less artsy take on the K-01 concept might have helped but that ship has long sailed, maybe for the better. I don't know that there's any point in even considering the "what ifs" - since then, two MILC players abandoned ship, Panasonic is basically in there thanks to the video side, and the EOS-M system is... well, middling.


And I anyway much prefer Pentax in DSLR land for selfish reasons

[Zygonyx]

I think it's worth taking stock of what Pentax actually said in their statement last year and what they did not. The page is here.
PENTAX PRINCIPLES | brand | RICOH IMAGING

Their main sentence was: "Pentax believes in the future of SLR photography"

- They didn't say "Ricoh Imaging believes . . ." clearly Ricoh Imaging as a whole has products that are not SLRs.
- They didn't say "Pentax believes SLRs are the future of photography", although some sites and commenters reported it as if that is what they said.
- They didn't say "Pentax will not make mirrorless cameras in the future", although again plenty of people have exaggerated the message to claim that is what they said.

All they really said was that SLR cameras are pleasurable to use, and espoused some other values about photography that most people can identify with. This makes complete sense, because at the time Pentax was getting working up to the release of a new SLR camera. It doesn't mean that can't or won't make a mirrorless camera in future under the Ricoh or even the Pentax brand at some point in the future. I don't think this is imminent, but you can be sure that Ricoh won't be talking up mirrorless until they have one to sell you.

This.

The fact is Q were and WG/G/GR are mirrorless, build by the same company

As regard K-mount mirrorless, all i remember is the Ricoh Management was very unhappy with the K-01 concept at the time they bought Pentax... And Mr Akahane was hired just after...
So i don't belive any more in a K-mount ML, even if this would imho be the best option (i still own two K-01 bodies).

[biz-engineer]

Now you are saying they will Flock to them if they become a tiny little player in the mirrorless market?

I'm not saying that. What I'm saying is, among Pentaxians are the ones who prefer DSLR and the ones who prefer MILC. For a customer, having Pentax lenses already is a big decision factor for staying with Pentax, except if Pentax doesn't offer the camera is a big advantage.
When Ricoh offers only DSLR, the second part of Pentaxians who'd like to have a MILC are pushed toward the exit. When Ricoh offer both DSLR and MILC, out of the same core imaging pieces (reuse), Pentaxians who's like to have a MILC stay with Pentax.
Offering only DSLR, not only Ricoh won't gain customers from outside because outsider don't have K mount lenses already, but they'll also lose Pentaxians who prefer a MILC.

[Serkevan]

but they'll also lose Pentaxians who prefer a MILC.

I'm pretty sure that's been a done deal for a while now

[Kunzite]

Ah, no, I just took models that had been quite well received back then and were in a similar price/specs bracket. Of course the Oly Pens and such were finderless as well but they had the "saving grace" of being tiny - and typically cheaper.

Sure, but my point was - the K-01 was received IMO worse than other non-EVF MILCs. I see no reason to believe anything would change if you'd bring the hardware up to K-3iii level and add an EVF.
If it happened because it was bigger, because it was Pentax or because it was "weird" (people often have this habit of rejecting experiments from selected brands), that would be true with a successor, too.

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.

[Wheatfield]

To be fair, most other manufacturers had little success with MILC which had only a LCD; they kept at it, and found that an EVF was needed to succeed. Pentax gave up on MILC and decided to concentrate on DSLRs when the K-01 didn’t sell well; presumably we will never know how a K-02, or Q-S2 or GRiv would have done if they had persisted and tried an EVF.

True enough, but the difference between little success and zero success is still fairly vast.

[Cerebum]

People assume wrongly that mirrorless requires to change the lens mount, hence many people wanting to keep using their K mount lenses are against mirrorless. But, no changing lens mount is not required for mirrorless, a mirrorless camera can use K mount lenses without adapter. The K-01 was a mirrorless K mount camera , it just needed to be full frame, released later (after all camera brands united to make people believe they need a MILC), have an EVF and PDAF sensor, and the ergonomics of a DSLR. Evidence of this is, Canon and Panasonic MILC are not small , they even designed their MILC models with a deep grip like DSLR.

A Pentax mirrorless full frame would have a lot of advantages:
- its K-AF4 mount takes all K mount lenses , without adapter (better than all other camera brands)
- user can see image style, histogram, blinkie, saspect ratio (16:9, 3:2, 4:3, 5:4, 7:6 and 1:1), in the viewfinder, can't do that with an OVF
- no mirror flap that reduces image sharpness at low shutter speeds
- silent shutter

What I had in mind was an L mount body with a K mount adapter. That way you get the advantage of a much wider lens pool with all the Pentax loveliness, hence the question as to whether it would be possible to make the adapter

[Wheatfield]

I'm not saying that. What I'm saying is, among Pentaxians are the ones who prefer DSLR and the ones who prefer MILC. For a customer, having Pentax lenses already is a big decision factor for staying with Pentax, except if Pentax doesn't offer the camera is a big advantage.
When Ricoh offers only DSLR, the second part of Pentaxians who'd like to have a MILC are pushed toward the exit. When Ricoh offer both DSLR and MILC, out of the same core imaging pieces (reuse), Pentaxians who's like to have a MILC stay with Pentax.
Offering only DSLR, not only Ricoh won't gain customers from outside because outsider don't have K mount lenses already, but they'll also lose Pentaxians who prefer a MILC.

They lost the prefer MILC users some time ago. All they will be doing by introducing a mirrorless line is pirating sales from their DSLR line, have another model line to support, and, if they are going to compete in mirtorless, they will need lenses designed to work with what appears to be the unwritten rule of the ilk which is a short registration distance.

The point here is, making a MILC series is going to cost more than they will recoup in sales.
I think at some point, one needs to look at what the manufacturer is doing and remember that they actually do have people who do product surveys and the like to see what they can make that will sell.
Armchair quarterbacks never gets to see the entire field. The guy taking the ball from the center does.
If Ricoh has determined that they will stay the course with SLRs, it's because they have figured out that they won't turn a profit with mirrorless, and it isn't worth pandering to the handful of users who will shift brands because if the decision.

---------- Post added Oct 31st, 2021 at 01:17 PM ----------

What I had in mind was an L mount body with a K mount adapter. That way you get the advantage of a much wider lens pool with all the Pentax loveliness, hence the question as to whether it would be possible to make the adapter

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.

[c.a.m]

As amiable and interesting as this thread is, I think it points to the basic challenges that any camera manufacturer faces. Here, the discussion seems to focus mainly on a transition to mirrorless cameras. There's talk of the ill-fated K-01, viewfinders, and market share. I'd suggest that those are easy things to imagine and debate.

'Mirrorless' is already being done well by several brands. Personally, I have a hard time seeing any significant difference amongst the various brands and comparable MILC models. All of them can produce images that are excellent technically; they all provide features to ease the photographer's task; and they're matched by plenty of excellent lenses. Use any of the current MILCs and you'll probably produce images of comparable quality. Sure, one or another has a better interface; the ergononics might vary; and there is a wide range of sensor resolutions. But today's top-rated high-spec'd MILC will be overtaken by tomorrow's slightly higher-spec'd MILC. And so goes the 'spec race'.

However, isn't this the more important question: How could Ricoh Imaging/Pentax be truly distinctive in the camera market of today and, more importantly, tomorrow? That question begs vision and imagination. Time will tell whether or how the new incoming President of Ricoh Imaging will address this vital question and what sort of leadership they'll demonstrate.

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

What's the current USP of Pentax?

For those interested, here's a short article on USPs and competitive advantage from Ottawa-based Shopify: What is a Unique Selling Proposition? (Plus 10 Examples) (2021). (Apologies to those who are famliar with this business concept.)

- Craig