[cali92rs]

I didn't think anyone was talking about Pentax getting out of DSLRs. Instead, I think it's all about whether Pentax should get serious about the MILC market. To move beyond the barely noticeable market share they currently have, I believe they must.

Exactly...
People were saying Ricoh has huge resources at their disposal when they bought Pentax, which brought optimism. They cant afford to develop a mirrorless mount AND the K-mount? If not, it would be quite a disappointment.

[Kunzite]

I never said anything about huge resources; on the contrary, I believe Pentax Ricoh would use a "healthy growth" approach, rather than a high risk, brute force approach.
Indeed, Pentax does not have the resources to develop a new mirrorless mount, without taking them from their other systems - they have 3 already, more than Canon and Nikon; don't you think a fourth would be too much?
It's not only about investing money, but also e.g. having highly trained people, production capacity and so on. It's also about making money, and again I'll point out to the "excellent" financial state of MILC makers.

[cali92rs]

I never said anything about huge resources; on the contrary, I believe Pentax Ricoh would use a "healthy growth" approach, rather than a high risk, brute force approach.
Indeed, Pentax does not have the resources to develop a new mirrorless mount, without taking them from their other systems - they have 3 already, more than Canon and Nikon; don't you think a fourth would be too much?
It's not only about investing money, but also e.g. having highly trained people, production capacity and so on. It's also about making money, and again I'll point out to the "excellent" financial state of MILC makers.

I never said that you said that they had huge resources...but i recall thread after thread of optimism regarding the Ricoh takeover. That they would go right after Canon and that they were such a huge corporation therefore they would pour vast resources into Pentax.

[jcdoss]

... They cant afford to develop a mirrorless mount AND the K-mount? If not, it would be quite a disappointment.

I don't understand why there need be a dichotomy? Make a FF MILC with an adapter for K-mount lenses. They just did something like this for the Q10, didn't they? Therefore they recognize the importance of K-mount lenses, even for the puny sensor of the Q10.

Maybe they could get uber-creative, and make an adapter with a pellicle mirror and pentaprism and there you've got a modular TTL optical viewfinder. Seems like if anyone would do something wild like that, it'd be Ricoh (ie, swappable lens/sensor module making company).

[Quicksand]

Maybe they could get uber-creative, and make an adapter with a pellicle mirror and pentaprism and there you've got a modular TTL optical viewfinder. Seems like if anyone would do something wild like that, it'd be Ricoh (ie, swappable lens/sensor module making company).

Sony has something like this for the Nex-to-Alpha adapter, but the pellicle mirror is only for the PDAF, I believe. The mirror doesn't reflect enough for a decent optical VF.

I honestly don't see why a new mount is necessary here. If Pentax can put together a solid FF mirrorless in a body only slightly larger than the K-01, but give it WR, a better grip, a metal body with more controls, a high-end shutter, and slap a decent EVF on there, I think that would be a pretty solid product.

As people have noted, shallow bodies with short register distances (Nex, Fuji, even Leica) seem to have significant optical angle-of-incidence issues. This is exacerbated with a FF sensor. The K-mount has that problem essentially solved.

How small do people need a fully-featured FF to be?

[Pål Jensen]

Pentax have said that they won't make a mirrorless FF body cause mirrorless are primarily bught by causual shooters and not enthusiast which are Pentax market (this is reflected in the mirrorless, P&S and DSLR sales volumes). At least for the time being.

The Pentax FF will be the top of the line APS camera with a larger sensor. The 645D2 will be built around the same design...

[Laurentiu Cristofor]

What are you talking about? Pentax is still making DSLR products.

No. Hoya and now Ricoh are making DSLR products. Hoya bought out Pentax for their medical division, kept the photo unit in business until they could find a seller and then they passed it on to Ricoh. Pentax is now just a brand used by Ricoh, the same way that Voigtlander is a brand owned by Cosina. Do you understand the difference between a brand and a company?

Not because of their cameras not being better/smaller/cheaper? Not because attempting a pro system with the smallest sensor? How would a FT consortium (which existed, by the way, except that only Olympus made final products) have solved such issues?
Canon, Nikon, Pentax were alone as well. Pentax even started in DSLRs after Olympus E1, and put much less effort into it; yet they didn't fail.

What? Bringing up Four-Thirds does not help your argument and makes Pentax looks worse than a failure. Let's revisit the history.

Unlike Pentax which had a headstart dating from 1975 with their K mount, Olympus introduced their FT system in 2003. By 2008, when Micro Four Thirds debuted with the Panasonic G1, Olympus was ahead of Pentax in DSLR market share in Japan. They had 3.8% vs Pentax's 1.6%. More than double! And they started from scratch with no existing user base that had a nostalgic investment in their mount.

If FT failed, what can we say about Pentax? That they were an abject failure?

Of important note, at the time of the above statistic, Panasonic's first foray into MFT already gave them 1.4% of that market. A first time entry from an electronic company with no history in photographic business was already getting a market share comparable to that of the historic company that practically launched the SLR market in Japan! Is that something or what?

It was in 2009 that Olympus introduced their first MFT camera, the E-P1 - note that it was Panasonic that kickstarted the system, not Olympus, so the Olympus market share in 2008 was strictly based on their DSLR technology. And in case you wonder if the Olympus lead held only in Japan or it applied internationally as well - well, it did.

Did Olympus fail with FT? They didn't take over the world, but they didn't fail either. They actually built a market from scratch, which is no small feat. And FT made sense at the time it was introduced. Olympus had produced two historical film camera lines: the Pen, which was a half-35mm format, and the OM which was the smallest 35mm SLR system - it was introduced in 1971 and had most likely inspired the Pentax MX (1976) and the M line of lenses with their emphasis on small form. With this history, it was natural for Olympus to look at producing another small system in the digital age. And with technology being what it was in 2003, this took the form of a FT DSLR.

The FT DSLRs did quite well, better than Pentax ones at any rate, but to their credit and in a move that Pentax never did (nor will they ever have a chance of doing now), they introduced a totally new system - MFT - and slowed down their development for their existing DSLR market (last model was E-5 in 2010), to focus on this new one. That took guts and only one other company had the guts to switch directions like this: Canon with their move away from FD, which got them to where they are now. And switching to MFT in 2008-2009 was the smart thing to do. Olympus realized that technology had come together to allow them to build a much better system than FT and they went for it. And it paid for both them and Panasonic.

So, Olympus, which had a larger market share than Pentax, had little hesitation about launching a new mount and restarting their game. And it seems to have worked very well - they have more customers for MFT than they had for FT, which means they have even more customers than Pentax has. To be fair, they also have an advantage that Pentax doesn't - they have designed their FT system from scratch as a digital era mount so when they introduced their MFT mount, they could also easily provide compatibility with their existing line of lenses. Not perfect compatibility in terms of AF performance, but functional compatibility nevertheless. You could even say that having a history like Pentax had is more of a liability than an actual advantage.

So what can we learn from Olympus? We can learn that they succeeded twice (four times if we include their film camera lines) at starting from scratch and building a business. We can also learn that introducing a new mount to replace an old one is not as outrageous an idea as some people make it to be - it worked for Canon and it worked for Olympus as well.

Meanwhile, Pentax had catered to their old declining customer base and that only led to their ultimate dismissal as a company. They were afraid to lose their customers but they lost them anyway. And then they lost themselves too. Sad story, but they deserved it.

Now it's up to Ricoh. And I have hope for Ricoh because they were bold with the GXR. I wasn't particularly interested in it, but putting out a system like that was definitely bold. And what Pentax lacked was the boldness to get out of its comfort zone of making and refining the same old thing. Hearing that Ricoh was kind of letting Pentax control the camera business is a bit scary, but I still have some hope. Once Ricoh shows their cards, I'll know if there is anything that I can look forward to from them or not.

[Kunzite]

No. Pentax continued to make DSLRs, since 2003. It's the same Pentax Imaging Systems Business, part of the Pentax Corporation, who became a Hoya division and, last year, separated and formed Pentax Ricoh Imaging Company. They are the same people, the same factories, it's the same Pentax; just the owners changed.
That a profitable company (Pentax Corporation) couldn't resist a hostile takeover, due to strong shareholders activism, is irrelevant. Also, the comparison with Voigtlander and Cosina would be relevant only if Ricoh would've bought only the brand, using their own R&D department, their own production capacities and so on; but they didn't.

Still, Olympus failed and Pentax didn't.
Success or failure is not a simple matter of market share. What were their goals, and could they be met?

For Pentax, after the hostile takeover, the goal was: higher margins at the expense of market share (that's from what Hoya said). Cost cutting, downsizing, lots of such things were done to satisfy those requirements. Did they failed, because the market share decreased? (or, the sales volume didn't increase as much as the others?) No, that was a secondary result of their (Hoya's) strategy. I can't say I liked that strategy, though... the Pentax Ricoh's one is much better )

For Olympus, as I already said they had ambitious plans from the beginning. They never had to go through a disruptive process as a takeover, never had constraints like Hoya put on Pentax; yet after some time they realized they can't meet their plans with the 4/3. So they gave up.
The biggest $$$$ you invest on such plans, the biggest the return must be; that's why you can sell more and fail.

But the best clue on who failed and who didn't: which of them are still making DSLRs?

I never said that you said that they had huge resources...but i recall thread after thread of optimism regarding the Ricoh takeover. That they would go right after Canon and that they were such a huge corporation therefore they would pour vast resources into Pentax.

Of course; I just wanted to clarify my position.
I'm moderately optimistic on this matter, I definitely don't expect miracles. Going after Canon? Let's talk about it 5 years from now. A target like "doubling sales in 2013" is much more realistic.

Pentax have said that they won't make a mirrorless FF body cause mirrorless are primarily bught by causual shooters and not enthusiast which are Pentax market (this is reflected in the mirrorless, P&S and DSLR sales volumes). At least for the time being.

The Pentax FF will be the top of the line APS camera with a larger sensor. The 645D2 will be built around the same design...

The voice of reason!

[ogl]

Pentax have said that they won't make a mirrorless FF body cause mirrorless are primarily bught by causual shooters and not enthusiast which are Pentax market .

Never said...They guess.

[Kunzite]

If Pentax have to guess what Pentax would want to make, we're doomed.

[froeschle]

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-news-rumors/201538-dc-watch-interv...ml#post2129978

[...] However, SLR [...] is for user who requires higher IQ as well as product quality itself. We are pretty sure those users have been seeking for better IQ even if only slightly. For this reason they would like to move forward to the largest sensor size which their lens-mount system accepts. [...]

I fully agree.

[Rondec]

Olympus has failed twice. And now they have locked themselves into a format that will not allow for larger sensors. Once full frame gets down to 1500 dollars, cameras like the OM-D will be a no-go. Not that Olympus can't make it, but who would pay 1000 dollars for such a camera? The same is probably true for APS-C. It will stick around for low end and middle end cameras, but semi pro APS-C is probably going to vanish over time as well.

Olympus is going to end up selling heavily discounted micro fourth thirds cameras against the point and shoot market, another market that is crashing and burning as cell phones squeeze them from below.

I would be surprised if all of the current camera companies make it through this storm. Certainly the weakly capitalized ones like Olympus, may struggle a lot to stay afloat.

[Blue]

No. Hoya and now Ricoh are making DSLR products. Hoya bought out Pentax for their medical division, kept the photo unit in business until they could find a seller and then they passed it on to Ricoh. Pentax is now just a brand used by Ricoh, the same way that Voigtlander is a brand owned by Cosina. Do you understand the difference between a brand and a company?



What? Bringing up Four-Thirds does not help your argument and makes Pentax looks worse than a failure. Let's revisit the history.

Unlike Pentax which had a headstart dating from 1975 with their K mount, Olympus introduced their FT system in 2003. By 2008, when Micro Four Thirds debuted with the Panasonic G1, Olympus was ahead of Pentax in DSLR market share in Japan. They had 3.8% vs Pentax's 1.6%. More than double! And they started from scratch with no existing user base that had a nostalgic investment in their mount.

If FT failed, what can we say about Pentax? That they were an abject failure?

Of important note, at the time of the above statistic, Panasonic's first foray into MFT already gave them 1.4% of that market. A first time entry from an electronic company with no history in photographic business was already getting a market share comparable to that of the historic company that practically launched the SLR market in Japan! Is that something or what?

It was in 2009 that Olympus introduced their first MFT camera, the E-P1 - note that it was Panasonic that kickstarted the system, not Olympus, so the Olympus market share in 2008 was strictly based on their DSLR technology. And in case you wonder if the Olympus lead held only in Japan or it applied internationally as well - well, it did.

Did Olympus fail with FT? They didn't take over the world, but they didn't fail either. They actually built a market from scratch, which is no small feat. And FT made sense at the time it was introduced. Olympus had produced two historical film camera lines: the Pen, which was a half-35mm format, and the OM which was the smallest 35mm SLR system - it was introduced in 1971 and had most likely inspired the Pentax MX (1976) and the M line of lenses with their emphasis on small form. With this history, it was natural for Olympus to look at producing another small system in the digital age. And with technology being what it was in 2003, this took the form of a FT DSLR.

The FT DSLRs did quite well, better than Pentax ones at any rate, but to their credit and in a move that Pentax never did (nor will they ever have a chance of doing now), they introduced a totally new system - MFT - and slowed down their development for their existing DSLR market (last model was E-5 in 2010), to focus on this new one. That took guts and only one other company had the guts to switch directions like this: Canon with their move away from FD, which got them to where they are now. And switching to MFT in 2008-2009 was the smart thing to do. Olympus realized that technology had come together to allow them to build a much better system than FT and they went for it. And it paid for both them and Panasonic.

So, Olympus, which had a larger market share than Pentax, had little hesitation about launching a new mount and restarting their game. And it seems to have worked very well - they have more customers for MFT than they had for FT, which means they have even more customers than Pentax has. To be fair, they also have an advantage that Pentax doesn't - they have designed their FT system from scratch as a digital era mount so when they introduced their MFT mount, they could also easily provide compatibility with their existing line of lenses. Not perfect compatibility in terms of AF performance, but functional compatibility nevertheless. You could even say that having a history like Pentax had is more of a liability than an actual advantage.

So what can we learn from Olympus? We can learn that they succeeded twice (four times if we include their film camera lines) at starting from scratch and building a business. We can also learn that introducing a new mount to replace an old one is not as outrageous an idea as some people make it to be - it worked for Canon and it worked for Olympus as well.

Meanwhile, Pentax had catered to their old declining customer base and that only led to their ultimate dismissal as a company. They were afraid to lose their customers but they lost them anyway. And then they lost themselves too. Sad story, but they deserved it.

Now it's up to Ricoh. And I have hope for Ricoh because they were bold with the GXR. I wasn't particularly interested in it, but putting out a system like that was definitely bold. And what Pentax lacked was the boldness to get out of its comfort zone of making and refining the same old thing. Hearing that Ricoh was kind of letting Pentax control the camera business is a bit scary, but I still have some hope. Once Ricoh shows their cards, I'll know if there is anything that I can look forward to from them or not.

Sony and Pansonic were down graded to Junk status earlier in the Month and Sony bailed out Oly. Pentax is in better shape than those guys at present. Pentax still exists. Hoya and now Ricoh needed them to make Pentax.

[ogl]

Nobody want new mount?

[Clavius]

Nobody want new mount?

Why? So that Pentax can go bankrupt? So that their customers have to replace ALL their gear? They might as wel switch systems instead then.

The only reason for going to a new mount is if SR wouldn't be possible on the existing K-mount.