[Winder]

Pentax simply needs to cater t their existing base, get an FF out when sensor prices commoditize, and get the Q a larger sensor with a lower price.

Pentax's existing base is so small and economically irrelevant that I don't think Pentax can survive by just catering to the existing base. Pentax needs growth, and that means catering to people outside of the existing base.

The OVF and big DSLRs will always have a place in many types of photography, but for commercial, portrait, wedding and many other large segments of the industry EVFs are more than enough. CDAF will eventually be faster and have better tracking than PDAF and it is already more accurate. For still subjects (commercial and portrait work) CDAF is already faster than PDAF. Lag times will fall as technology improves.

The best thing that could happen is for Ricoh to develop a FF MILC with a new mount. The future is going to be a new mount and larger sensors. Ricoh probably should put its own name on it so as to not freak-out the K-mount fanatics. Ricoh is already making modular systems.

I do think the best thing for Pentax to do is to release a FF DSLR in the near future, but in 3 years MILC will be a much bigger market and Pentax had better not be sitting on the sidelines.

Fuji is working pretty fast at refining its technology and filling in the X-mount lens line-up. Another generational improvement in AF and better RAW support from 3rd party and Fuji will probably release a GH2 style camera. A Fuji FF would be a huge seller for the company. Fuji was completely out of the ILC business for 5 years, and it 1 year they have rocketed past Pentax in marketing to professional photographers.

The Sony/Olympus partnership is very interesting. Sony can't make high quality E-mount lenses fast enough to meet demand (not a problem K-mount seems to have) and Olympus is a excellent lens manufacturer. Rumors of a larger format Olympus have been circulating for a while, but if Sony and Olympus reach a deal on the E-mount we could see a larger 4/3 format sensor in an Olympus E-mount body. Moving to a 4/3rds aspect ratio would solve the corner problems that the current E-mount has with 3/2 format FF sensors. A square multi-format sensor would be even better.

The number of professionals shooting with EVIL cameras (as a primary or secondary camera) is going to grow considerably over the next two years.

[IchabodCrane]

I wonder, which is worse: the mirror slap, or holding the typical viewfinderless MILC at arm's lenght?

I don't think those NEX-7 and E-M5 users out there are holding their cameras at arm's length.

The mirror slap couldn't prevent the SLRs from almost obliterating rangefinders; did it suddenly become such a big issue?

The only SLR lenses affected by the mirror clearance are wides. OTOH, the SLRs would be better balanced with larger, longer lenses (IMO with anything that's not a pancake; YMMV)

I'm afraid the competition would not be about quality, but price.

If there are no pro level MILCs, maybe that's because there is no real demand for a pro level MILCs?

Professional users in most fields generally don't demand something that's all new. Technology refinements often come to the professional or high end segment first but totally new technology often comes to the professional segment last. Why is this? Professional users generate income from their tools and so are the least likely to take a risk and new technology always carries a higher risk. That segment is also the least likely to give something up to get something new.

Here's a common example: hybrid automobiles (new tech innovation) appeared in the compact segment first and are only now appearing in the luxury segment. By contrast, touch screens (a refinement) appeared in the luxury segment first and the compact segment last.

[thibs]

I don't have to prove the fact that mirror slapping degrades IQ. If it didn't degrade IQ, then why do DSLRs have a mirror lock up function then?

For the very limited situations where your statement is true (long exposures)?
BTW the issue is such a big deal the mirror lockup is present on all SLRs produced since the 60s, isn't it?

[hangman43]

Pentax's existing base is so small and economically irrelevant that I don't think Pentax can survive by just catering to the existing base. Pentax needs growth, and that means catering to people outside of the existing base.

The OVF and big DSLRs will always have a place in many types of photography, but for commercial, portrait, wedding and many other large segments of the industry EVFs are more than enough. CDAF will eventually be faster and have better tracking than PDAF and it is already more accurate. For still subjects (commercial and portrait work) CDAF is already faster than PDAF. Lag times will fall as technology improves.

The best thing that could happen is for Ricoh to develop a FF MILC with a new mount. The future is going to be a new mount and larger sensors. Ricoh probably should put its own name on it so as to not freak-out the K-mount fanatics. Ricoh is already making modular systems.

I do think the best thing for Pentax to do is to release a FF DSLR in the near future, but in 3 years MILC will be a much bigger market and Pentax had better not be sitting on the sidelines.

Fuji is working pretty fast at refining its technology and filling in the X-mount lens line-up. Another generational improvement in AF and better RAW support from 3rd party and Fuji will probably release a GH2 style camera. A Fuji FF would be a huge seller for the company. Fuji was completely out of the ILC business for 5 years, and it 1 year they have rocketed past Pentax in marketing to professional photographers.

The Sony/Olympus partnership is very interesting. Sony can't make high quality E-mount lenses fast enough to meet demand (not a problem K-mount seems to have) and Olympus is a excellent lens manufacturer. Rumors of a larger format Olympus have been circulating for a while, but if Sony and Olympus reach a deal on the E-mount we could see a larger 4/3 format sensor in an Olympus E-mount body. Moving to a 4/3rds aspect ratio would solve the corner problems that the current E-mount has with 3/2 format FF sensors. A square multi-format sensor would be even better.

The number of professionals shooting with EVIL cameras (as a primary or secondary camera) is going to grow considerably over the next two years.

Everyone is still ignoring the main problem Pentax could come out with the best camera ever made and they would still struggle as long as the only presence is internet based and they are not in your local store for people to actually handle and see in person they will never sell enough to gain market share. I have heard so many people on other forums say they did not even think about Pentax because they did not have the opportunity to actually try it out in a store. The K-30 has brought a lot of attention to the brand but people are still shying away from it because they are not in stores. I bought into Pentax when I got the K-m because of the price and have stayed with them since with the K-x and the K-5 but most want to at least touch one before they buy it. When is the last time you saw a Pentax commercial on TV I do not remember seeing one in years but I have seen at least a dozen Canon and Nikon in the last 2 days. I do not believe they have to re-invent anything they have products that compete well and are a good value against the competition but the marketing and availability is non existent.There is nothing wrong with the K-mount and there never has been why does everyone insist that it is the product that is the problem?

[Winder]

There is nothing wrong with the K-mount and there never has been why does everyone insist that it is the product that is the problem?

Where did someone say there was something wrong with K-mount?

[Blue]

Where did someone say there was something wrong with K-mount?

Several pages back it was brought up. It has been debated in at least one current, related thread.

[hangman43]

The best thing that could happen is for Ricoh to develop a FF MILC with a new mount. The future is going to be a new mount and larger sensors. Ricoh probably should put its own name on it so as to not freak-out the K-mount fanatics. Ricoh is already making modular systems.

This is a quote from your post

[Kunzite]

I don't think those NEX-7 and E-M5 users out there are holding their cameras at arm's length.

Professional users in most fields generally don't demand something that's all new. Technology refinements often come to the professional or high end segment first but totally new technology often comes to the professional segment last. Why is this? Professional users generate income from their tools and so are the least likely to take a risk and new technology always carries a higher risk. That segment is also the least likely to give something up to get something new.

Most MILC users are, though - because most MILCs sold don't have a viewfinder. But even EVFs, if used, have other disadvantages.

Professional users would gladly adopt new technologies, if they offer a significant advantage; we can take a look at how digital cameras started, it's a perfect example. Yet now the consumers are those driving the MILC movement, and there's no sign this would change.

Pentax's existing base is so small and economically irrelevant that I don't think Pentax can survive by just catering to the existing base. Pentax needs growth, and that means catering to people outside of the existing base.

Pentax should cater to their existing user base, but this doesn't exclude growth. It is a mistake to believe that in order to grow you must abandon everything you have.
And it's actually quite easy to both cater to their existing user base like never before, and achieve a significant growth: put some real effort into the K-mount. We will be happy, nobody would have to leave if they would want more performance or whatever, and the system will be far more attractive for potential new customers.

The OVF and big DSLRs will always have a place in many types of photography, but for commercial, portrait, wedding and many other large segments of the industry EVFs are more than enough. CDAF will eventually be faster and have better tracking than PDAF and it is already more accurate. For still subjects (commercial and portrait work) CDAF is already faster than PDAF. Lag times will fall as technology improves.

If CDAF is so good, why are they putting on sensor PDAF?
OVFs is working well in those situations, why change it? What's wrong with the zero lag, or with the incredibly low battery consumption?

The best thing that could happen is for Ricoh to develop a FF MILC with a new mount. The future is going to be a new mount and larger sensors. Ricoh probably should put its own name on it so as to not freak-out the K-mount fanatics. Ricoh is already making modular systems.

I do think the best thing for Pentax to do is to release a FF DSLR in the near future, but in 3 years MILC will be a much bigger market and Pentax had better not be sitting on the sidelines.

The worst thing that could happen is for Pentax to develop a new mount. Maybe, in the future; but for now, their priority must remain the K-mount. It's quite logical, IMO: while the K-mount would bring them money, a new mount would be a black hole, requiring immense investments and many years until it would have a chance to break even.
By the way, how's Olympus? But Sony, Panasonic? Would you like Pentax in the same situation?

I doubt that in 3 years the MILCs would be able to surpass the DSLR market; the current ratio being about 1:4. Amazing, don't you think? DSLRs are nowhere near dying.

By the way, things like "freak-out the K-mount fanatics" won't add strength to your arguments.

The number of professionals shooting with EVIL cameras (as a primary or secondary camera) is going to grow considerably over the next two years.

And I bet that, lacking a professional solution, the number of professionals shooting primarily with MILCs will remain low.

Everyone is still ignoring the main problem Pentax could come out with the best camera ever made and they would still struggle as long as the only presence is internet based and they are not in your local store for people to actually handle and see in person they will never sell enough to gain market share.

In many parts of the world Pentax can be found in brick&mortar stores. I agree, though, there are many problems with their current situation; that's why I don't believe in sudden, formidable efforts with instant success.
It will be almost boring, seeing them gradually solving such problems, launching solid products one after another and gradually gaining strength.

[Ash]

for commercial, portrait, wedding and many other large segments of the industry EVFs are more than enough

Might be so in the future. For now, it doesn't quite compare to the responsiveness of optical systems. I'd dislike being dragged down by a significantly extended shutter lag in situations like weddings when timing is crucial. EVF still has a way to go.

CDAF will eventually be faster and have better tracking than PDAF and it is already more accurate

Not faster yet, and PDAF in the advanced Nikon and Canon cameras and exceedingly faster. CDAF is more reliable than PDAF with current Pentax AF, but PDAF is pretty accurate in those other systems.

The best thing that could happen is for Ricoh to develop a FF MILC with a new mount

I do not see how this would better the company or its user base. Being the legacy brand that it is, I also do not see this happening. Abandoning the support for FA Limiteds would be like building a solid skyscraper just to have it torn down to build a new one with a different shape (but the same purpose) in its place.

Professional users generate income from their tools and so are the least likely to take a risk and new technology always carries a higher risk. That segment is also the least likely to give something up to get something new

The key there is reliability and support. A pro needs a tool not only to perform, but to do the job every time. But in the unfortunate reality that things go wrong with their tools, they want to be able to have their gear sent in for repair and have a reasonable turn around time. Most pros will ensure their gear and have a backup of similar gear to pick up the slack, but downtime for any tool is a possible source of income loss. I recall a number of issues and complaints about Pentax service when it comes to repairs and warranty, and I can say that from a number of other online sources, the grass is not greener on the other side.

[IchabodCrane]

Most MILC users are, though - because most MILCs sold don't have a viewfinder. But even EVFs, if used, have other disadvantages.

Professional users would gladly adopt new technologies, if they offer a significant advantage; we can take a look at how digital cameras started, it's a perfect example. Yet now the consumers are those driving the MILC movement, and there's no sign this would change.


Pentax should cater to their existing user base, but this doesn't exclude growth. It is a mistake to believe that in order to grow you must abandon everything you have.
And it's actually quite easy to both cater to their existing user base like never before, and achieve a significant growth: put some real effort into the K-mount. We will be happy, nobody would have to leave if they would want more performance or whatever, and the system will be far more attractive for potential new customers.



If CDAF is so good, why are they putting on sensor PDAF?
OVFs is working well in those situations, why change it? What's wrong with the zero lag, or with the incredibly low battery consumption?


The worst thing that could happen is for Pentax to develop a new mount. Maybe, in the future; but for now, their priority must remain the K-mount. It's quite logical, IMO: while the K-mount would bring them money, a new mount would be a black hole, requiring immense investments and many years until it would have a chance to break even.
By the way, how's Olympus? But Sony, Panasonic? Would you like Pentax in the same situation?

I doubt that in 3 years the MILCs would be able to surpass the DSLR market; the current ratio being about 1:4. Amazing, don't you think? DSLRs are nowhere near dying.

By the way, things like "freak-out the K-mount fanatics" won't add strength to your arguments.

And I bet that, lacking a professional solution, the number of professionals shooting primarily with MILCs will remain low.


In many parts of the world Pentax can be found in brick&mortar stores. I agree, though, there are many problems with their current situation; that's why I don't believe in sudden, formidable efforts with instant success.
It will be almost boring, seeing them gradually solving such problems, launching solid products one after another and gradually gaining strength.

It's hard to understand your viewpoints, especially when you misrepresent the viewpoints of others. If professional photographers gladly accept new technologies then can you name some that appeared in pro DSLRs before anywhere else? Don't simply say "digital" because that was out for a long time before it became default professional gear.

Next, no one is saying Pentax should discontinue the K-mount. What's being claimed is Pentax isn't likely to become relevant by just continuing to do what they've been doing which is incremental updates to APS-C DSLRs. The market is diversifying and Pentax needs to do so as well.

Nikon demonstrated lately that you can get the benefits of PDAF and CDAF together without dedicated PDAF hardware subsystems. It's an infantile technology and does anyone think it won't be developed with vigor and success? Nikon were smart to first put this on a consumer offering where it can be developed and nurtured while working out the kinks that professionals wouldn't accept. They will get there and be in a position to succeed no matter where the market heads. Will Pentax? I sure hope they have the courage to do so.

[mecrox]

How many people here who think MILCS are nogoodboyos actually own and use one?

They are a bottom-up thing, so what pros think of them today isn't that relevant. The tech in them will flow upmarket over time, through higher-spenders, then enthusiasts, then ...

Some comments here bear little resemblance to the reality - ie excellent results - I get from my MILC (K-01).

[Winder]

This is a quote from your post

Yes... I never said there was anything wrong with it. It will live on for many, many years. DSLRs are not going to completely vanish.

The future however is going to be mirrorless for the vast majority of photo's taken. I still don't like the current generation of EVFs. They are laggy at times, they are often grainy and suffer from poor color or DR, but the same problems existed for digital sensors just a few years back. EVFs will evolve to the point where they are better for many and maybe most applications than the OVF, but not all.

Larger sensors are probably better suited for EVF applications. The larger the sensor the bigger the mirror needs to be, the more problems you have. The larger the prism needs to be. None of this is an issue with EVF technology. What do people use medium format for these days? Commercial work where they are often already working tethered. 4K cameras will allow for HD video cameras to grab high quality sills from HD video that are more than adequate for large prints to cover sporting events. Those will ALL be EVF cameras. The sports photographer with the OVF DSLR might soon be replaced by a guy in a control booth manning a dozen robotic 4K video cameras.

[Ash]

Next, no one is saying Pentax should discontinue the K-mount

No, though suggesting to develop a high end product with a new mount deplores the advancement of the K-mount.
If it can just as easily done with the existing K-mount, then why develop another mount?

Some comments here bear little resemblance to the reality - ie excellent results - I get from my MILCS

The results speak for themselves. But it is still important to address the means in which the results are achieved. If the increased responsiveness of dSLRs enables a photographer to get the job done a little easier, then the technology hasn't helped the photographer any more than previous generations of cameras.

[Winder]

Might be so in the future. For now, it doesn't quite compare to the responsiveness of optical systems. I'd dislike being dragged down by a significantly extended shutter lag in situations like weddings when timing is crucial. EVF still has a way to go.

Epson has already shown EVFs with 2x the resolution and refresh rates of the current EVFs found in today's top of the line mirrorless. You are correct that it is currently not good enough, but Pentax needs to be designing cameras 3 year cycles if they are looking at FF.

Not faster yet, and PDAF in the advanced Nikon and Canon cameras and exceedingly faster. CDAF is more reliable than PDAF with current Pentax AF, but PDAF is pretty accurate in those other systems.

Yes, but when CDAF reaches that point it will be dominate simply because it costs less than half as much. No separate PDAF sensor or array. No, calibration to make sure the AF points are "close" to what is shown on the VF. No shimming of the focus screen. No mirror to design and compensate for (most common mechanical failure). No lenses to calibrate. PDAF is an expensive system that needs its own dedicated sensor and processor. Improvements in sensor technology also benefit CDAF, and as sensors continue to improve so will CDAF.

I do not see how this would better the company or its user base. Being the legacy brand that it is, I also do not see this happening. Abandoning the support for FA Limiteds would be like building a solid skyscraper just to have it torn down to build a new one with a different shape (but the same purpose) in its place.

It has been 12 years since a new FA Limited was introduced. It has already been half abandoned. Olympus has abandoned its mount twice now and is probably stronger today than it was 10 years ago. Fuji abandoned the its DSLR mount and didn't even make an ILC for 5 years. The new X-mount system is not having any problem selling. If Pentax does it right, a new mount will sell just as well or better than K-mount. Yes, it will piss off legacy users, but that is such a small group 3rd parties like Tamron and Tokina don't even bother to support it..... Sigma only half supports it. Zeiss and Cosina have stopped. M4/3, X-mount, & E-mount all have growing 3rd party support.

[Kunzite]

It's hard to understand your viewpoints, especially when you misrepresent the viewpoints of others. If professional photographers gladly accept new technologies then can you name some that appeared in pro DSLRs before anywhere else? Don't simply say "digital" because that was out for a long time before it became default professional gear.

Next, no one is saying Pentax should discontinue the K-mount. What's being claimed is Pentax isn't likely to become relevant by just continuing to do what they've been doing which is incremental updates to APS-C DSLRs. The market is diversifying and Pentax needs to do so as well.

Nikon demonstrated lately that you can get the benefits of PDAF and CDAF together without dedicated PDAF hardware subsystems. It's an infantile technology and does anyone think it won't be developed with vigor and success? Nikon were smart to first put this on a consumer offering where it can be developed and nurtured while working out the kinks that professionals wouldn't accept. They will get there and be in a position to succeed no matter where the market heads. Will Pentax? I sure hope they have the courage to do so.

Am I really misrepresenting viewpoints?

What you're missing is that there is no single kind of "professional photographers". But, indeed, some of them gladly embraced the immediacy of the still immature digital, and to make this possible cameras like the Kodak DCS420 were born.
I do not understand your requirement, that I should name technologies different from "digital", which appeared in a DSLR before anywhere else. Of course it has to be the "digital", otherwise a DSLR is nothing more than a single lens reflex camera - a mature product. And appearing there first or not is not really relevant (the EVF concept appeared way before this MILC movement).

At the very least, MILC fans are saying that Pentax should put some serious efforts into those silly gadgets. Do you think Pentax would have resources not only to do that, but also to further develop and grow the K-mount? Come on... of course, K-mount would be seriously affected, maybe even phased out (how did Kitazawa-san called it? Cutting the ties with their customers? It would be extremely dangerous to skip some camera & lenses launches because they're busy with MILCs). No, I won't compare a mainstream MILC system with the low cost Q, nor with the low volume 645D.
OTOH, I am definitely against Pentax simply making incremental updates to their APS-C DSLR, but strongly against it; you are misrepresenting my viewpoints. The K-mount can and will grow, and so will the other 2 systems.

What Winder claimed was (and I'm quoting his exact words): "CDAF will eventually be faster and have better tracking than PDAF". Now you are talking about on-sensor PD-AF + CD-AF hybrid systems? You're actually contradicting him, and confirm my words.

How many people here who think MILCS are nogoodboyos actually own and use one?

They are a bottom-up thing, so what pros think of them today isn't that relevant. The tech in them will flow upmarket over time, through higher-spenders, then enthusiasts, then ...

Some comments here bear little resemblance to the reality - ie excellent results - I get from my MILC (K-01).

Why would I own (as in: pay hard earned money for) a MILC if I would think they're "nogoodboyos"? That doesn't mean I'm clueless about them, and I never claimed you can't get good results from one.

Let's leave the talks about Pentax high end MILC cameras for then "the tech in them" would reach that upmarket status, then.

Yes... I never said there was anything wrong with it. It will live on for many, many years. DSLRs are not going to completely vanish.

The future however is going to be mirrorless for the vast majority of photo's taken. I still don't like the current generation of EVFs. They are laggy at times, they are often grainy and suffer from poor color or DR, but the same problems existed for digital sensors just a few years back. EVFs will evolve to the point where they are better for many and maybe most applications than the OVF, but not all.

They won't be pushed into a small niche, either; for the time being they're remaining mainstream. "Are not going to completely vanish"? They're dominating the market, with all those MILC fire sales.

The future is going to be smartphone camera for the vast majority of photos taken. And the next generation of EVFs is much better, but still nowhere near good enough for me.

Olympus has abandoned its mount twice now and is probably stronger today than it was 10 years ago.

Funny, last I heard they had to be saved by Sony... and still, are far from healthy. That's with a very strong medical division, supporting everything else.