[Smolk]

The GXR did have an electronic VF add-on, so Ricoh has some experience with it; had the K-01 had one, it would probably done better (at least for me). There were other shortcomings, but I for one liked the design.
Of course, they would have to rebadge it a Ricoh

[reh321]

Anyone for a 10-year anniversary K-01 model? Exact same Marc Newson design with new colour variations, the K-70 sensor and the new touch interface. Strictly no EVF. Modern day sensor AF would probably make it quite a lot better.

. . . guess it would be just for me and the few sticker wielding fans in Tokyo!

No. No, No.

As I have already commented, the "Q" {first my Q-7, then I recently purchased a Q-S1 when the Q-7 was showing its age}, has found a place for itself as a small discrete camera.
At one time I was saving {reserving} money in case they ever put an EVF on their MILC, but then I purchased a KP. I don't like to fly, but if I were ever to visit Japan, I would put my sticker on a KP. The K01 is too large and noisy to take the "Q"'s role, and lack of viewfinder (I am willing to carry a collapsible "Hoodman" with the "Q", but that would make a K-01 even larger} eliminates consideration of the KP's role.

[thibs]

The GXR did have an electronic VF add-on, so Ricoh has some experience with it; had the K-01 had one, it would probably done better (at least for me). There were other shortcomings, but I for one liked the design.
Of course, they would have to rebadge it a Ricoh

Absolutely.

[davidsladek]

I'm not sure how much Pentax's mirrorless models cost them.

In the case of the K-01, they did not "go mirrorless", with all the investment that would imply. They just made an individual model within their K-mount system. The lenses and even the battery were not new. As far as I can see, the amount of K-01s they sold in Japan was on the level of the K-m and K-r, quite a bit less than the K-x or K-30, and considerably more than the K-50, K-S1, K-S2 or K-70. But considering the K-01 was a contemporary of the K-30, taken together they probably sold a lot of low-end K-mount in those years. But it's worth noting that the K-30 got a splashy TV ad campaign and the K-01 got nothing like that. In the RICOH IMAGING Square Tokyo, they have a chart listing all their cameras where visitors can place a dot sticker to indicate their favorite models. You'd be surprised how many stickers the K-01 has accumulated compared to some other DSLRs.

The Q also sold well for a time over here (with TV ads). I've always seen it as a low-effort system anyway. They made one model and then rehashed it three more times. They only made a few serious lenses. Did they not make money on it? Who knows, but after the initial release, I don't think they invested a lot of resources in it. It probably paid for itself.

On the pre-Pentax Ricoh side, I think the GXR system must have cost a lot to develop. It was such an interesting concept, but they just didn't make enough units to give it any momentum.

Anyone for a 10-year anniversary K-01 model? Exact same Marc Newson design with new colour variations, the K-70 sensor and the new touch interface. Strictly no EVF. Modern day sensor AF would probably make it quite a lot better.

. . . guess it would be just for me and the few sticker wielding fans in Tokyo!

One has to remember that both K-01 and Q were sold at massive discounts in the end as a result of negative publicity and large stock overheads. At one point I remember buying Q and Q10 for some £60 when the starting price for Q was I think £600. Unit sales don't bring a lot of revenue in such sell-offs

[Rondec]

It's cost them several times. I'll add the Q system in there, and the K01. Neither threatened to bring the company down, but in a small company like Pentax each camera needs to be a success of some sort and these cameras weren't or else they'd have been continued. And while we're talking, just want to remind everyone chattering about Pentax's need to "go mirrorless" that these latter 2 were MILC's.

The K-01 was basically a mirrorless version of the K-30 -- just without a mirror and viewfinder. It was cheap to make, but was released at something like 800 dollars. It turned out that its "style" wasn't enough to warrant the high price tag, but it sold well enough after the price drop that Pentax had a couple of more production runs.

The Q camera line seemed to sell decently in Japan as well. I remember it placing fairly high on Japanese mirrorless sales lists. I just think the camera ended up being a dead end. Pentax didn't know where to go with it next and so eventually dropped it to focus on full frame, where they hoped there would be more high-end sales.

I agree with you that mirrorless isn't really a solution for Pentax. Even with an EVF, the K-01 was a very limited camera. Obviously, Pentax is better than that now, but it doesn't mean that they have anywhere near the tech that is in a camera like the A-1 or Z9. Jumping into the MILC lake again requires a huge investment that would probably sink the company.

[TwoUptons]

Yeah, I seem to recall my K-01 in late 2012 was $350 with the DA40xs, so $200 for the camera... a fantastic deal...
If it had been $600 with an EVF, I would not have bought it.

I think if Ricoh wants to try a bit of mirrorless, their own label should be the pathway... a Ricoh G-I for interchangeable or something...
Just make sure it has full compatibility (via an adapter, of course) with K-mount lenses...
But that would need to be something unique to Ricoh, which would be hard; chasing the Z9 and other top-end mirrorless models is several steps too far...

-Eric

[Mistral75]

Don't forget that K-01 and Q were two projects launched by Hoya in order to make the Pentax Imaging business more attractive to potential acquirers. From the beginning it was only meant to have a short-term impact.

[Kunzite]

Don't forget that K-01 and Q were two projects launched by Hoya in order to make the Pentax Imaging business more attractive to potential acquirers. From the beginning it was only meant to have a short-term impact.

The Q actually did well for a while, at least in Asia; it made into top10 BCNRanking for example.
The K-01 started doing OK, AFAIK, after they dropped the price. Still, they later made another (blue) batch for the Asian market, so it wasn't a complete disaster.

I have no inside information about this, but IMO both were Pentax being told to be creative without the funds to do so.
The other part of Hoya preparing Pentax Imaging Systems for sale being basically ceasing the development of K-mount.

[Rondec]

The Q actually did well for a while, at least in Asia; it made into top10 BCNRanking for example.
The K-01 started doing OK, AFAIK, after they dropped the price. Still, they later made another (blue) batch for the Asian market, so it wasn't a complete disaster.

I have no inside information about this, but IMO both were Pentax being told to be creative without the funds to do so.
The other part of Hoya preparing Pentax Imaging Systems for sale being basically ceasing the development of K-mount.

For some reason the K-01 always comes up in these discussions. It was a "stylish" K-30 knock off with no added features, and worse auto focus/buffer/general specifications (Buffer of 3 RAW images and that only obtainable by shooting multiple exposure mode?!). I bought one for 250 dollars and at that price it was fine, but I don't think it tells us anything, either about Pentax then or now.

And no, I don't think it would have sold better if they had tacked an EVF on to it.

[reh321]

And no, I don't think it would have sold better if they had tacked an EVF on to it.

You don’t know that.
I, for one, would have purchased one if only it had a viewfinder.

Added:
Canon’s “M1” was a ‘failure’ ten years ago {I was a Canon user then}.
Canon sold the “M2” in Asia only.
Unlike Pentax, Canon persisted, and the MILC lines took over the company.

[Rondec]

You don’t know that.
I, for one, would have purchased one if only it had a viewfinder.

Added:
Canon’s “M1” was a ‘failure’ ten years ago {I was a Canon user then}.
Canon sold the “M2” in Asia only.
Unlike Pentax, Canon persisted, and the MILC lines took over the company.

Right. Would you have bought K-30 stuck in live view, with a 1 shot RAW Buffer, dismal auto focus performance, at 800 dollars just because it had an EVF?

If it had been priced at exactly the same as the K-30 with the only difference being the form factor and the EVF/OVF on the two models and the significantly worse specs on the K-01 I think most folks would choose the K-30. I have a K-01 and the issue with it is not the lack of a viewfinder. The issue is that it is slower than molasses running down a hill in the middle of winter.

[Kunzite]

Added:
Canon’s “M1” was a ‘failure’ ten years ago {I was a Canon user then}.
Canon sold the “M2” in Asia only.
Unlike Pentax, Canon persisted, and the MILC lines took over the company.

Interesting to mention probably the next (MILC) system to go

[reh321]

Right. Would you have bought K-30 stuck in live view, with a 1 shot RAW Buffer, dismal auto focus performance, at 800 dollars just because it had an EVF?

I might have, since EVF has certain advantages, such as FocusPeak, since I virtually never use ‘burst’ shooting.

[reh321]

Interesting to mention probably the next (MILC) system to go

I don’t know if that is true, nor do I know how many “EOS-M” cameras have been sold in the past ten years compared to how many K-mount cameras were sold during that time period.

My point was that Canon learned from the experience, while Pentax simply gave up on the concept. Without that learning, Canon could be no better off than Pentax is.

[Kunzite]

I don’t know if that is true, nor do I know how many “EOS-M” cameras have been sold in the past ten years compared to how many K-mount cameras were sold during that time period.

My point was that Canon learned from the experience, while Pentax simply gave up on the concept. Without that learning, Canon could be no better off than Pentax is.

It's up to Canon, but it makes little sense to have a separate, APS-C only mirrorless line. Besides, I'm not seeing much development on that front...

Anyway: Canon made a proper mirrorless, but they chose a too small mount; Pentax-under-Hoya couldn't even try.
I guess my point was, EOS-M isn't the RF. If indeed it fails, it's not that much different than the K-01 except (of course) the scale.