[cfraz]

That *istDS still going strong, eh? It's your hobby, so you can set your satisfaction criteria as you wish.

Thanks for your permission to let me think for myself!

While I admire your enthusiasm for MILCs, I'm a little puzzled at your insistance that Pentax make one for you when there seems to be a half dozen other manufacturers that offer exactly what you want, and that everyone else should adopt your preferences as their own.

Or is there another reason you post the same things (MILCs are superior to any other camera type in every way; Pentax is doomed if they don't make a MILC) over, and over, and over, and over, and over again? Or why, when someone states they have used a MILC as you recommend, but still prefer something else, you imply their personal preference can't possibly be correct by stating they need to try a MILC again, as you did with northcoastgreg?

[cfraz]

That *istDS still going strong, eh? It's your hobby, so you can set your satisfaction criteria as you wish.

That is not a fair, nor humble response. The corollary of being quickly or constantly dissatisfied by technological advances shows more about our unreasonable expectations than it does the extent of our skill and technique.

And wasn't that my point as well? I was just stating a matter of fact - what pleasure you derive from your hobby is up to you and has no relevance to other people that may share your hobby but not necessarily derive pleasure from it in the same way. cfraz was dissatisfied with the picture I was painting about camera upgrades - well, it's not my preference either, but unlike him, I know that my preferences are not necessarily shared by others and that they're not supposed to shape the way that the industry works. [emphasis added]

Thanks for posting this. I've completely misinterpreted both the meaning and intent of your posts, and I apologize for that.

And wasn't that my point as well? I was just stating a matter of fact - what pleasure you derive from your hobby is up to you and has no relevance to other people that may share your hobby but not necessarily derive pleasure from it in the same way. cfraz was dissatisfied with the picture I was painting about camera upgrades - well, it's not my preference either, but unlike him, I know that my preferences are not necessarily shared by others and that they're not supposed to shape the way that the industry works. [emphasis added]

Hmm, I have no interest in convincing anyone that my preferences are suitable for them. Not sure where you got that idea.

[Digitalis]

What Pentax needs to do, is figure out a way to be Pentax.

Given the history of pentax, especially in terms of marketing I don't think that would be a good thing. Certainly pentax needs to find its own way, but the market leaders who have larger R&D departments are always going to lead the markets, and the smaller manufacturers have to keep up.

[Fogel70]

I take your points here. There is mention of K-mount limitations. AF speed and awkward lenses specific lenses. With quality primes like the Ltd series, clearly there will be a significant focus throw on the lenses. Any shorter and it would require a smaller mount. So a smaller mount that is FF compatible on a MILC is suggested then? It seems to me that compromises are being proposed just to address limitations that can be worked around with further technological advances on the existing mount.

No, it's not the diameter of the mount that has to be reduced, it's the distance between sensor and mount that has to be reduced. When removing the mirror, there is no reason for keeping the empty space left. And by reducing the register distance the camera can be made smaller, and it also make it possible to make smaller WA lenses, or making these lenses faster without being extremely big.

A MILC like this will be much better optimized for making small "limited" prime lenses than using a SLR-mount.

[Ash]

I'm aware of the flange distance, but then what of the K-01? Has it utilised any such 'advantage', or was it a waste of an oversized mount on a MILC?

Smaller lenses than the DA Limiteds (FA for FF)? Any practical advantage in that?

[the swede]

Are we thinking Leica here?

But the new mount would require an adapter for the K lenses, and many would still demand a K mount camera.

So, can pentax run two mounts? Both full frame?

One thought, if Pentax goes new mount, why stop at mirror less? Wouldnt it be better for a niche brand like Pentax to do a FF rangefinder instead?
A FF rangefinder that will mount FA lenses with adapter? New smaller high quality lenses

[Digitalis]

Wouldnt it be better for a niche brand like Pentax to do a FF rangefinder instead?

Because rangefinders suck at close focusing, and they require rather precise calibration of the rangefinder mechanism to be accurate at any distance*. And due to the fact that rangefinders are terrible at close focusing it would reduce the marketability of niche products like the AF160FC and the macro lenses pentax has DA35, FA50,D-FA 100mm f/2.8.

*which is critical for fast lenses, perhaps the best rangefinder for using fast lenses ( f/1.2 and faster) is my nearly 60 year old leica M3, because of its high magnification and larger RF patch - and the fact that I know how to fine tune the RF mechanism and keep it within tolerances.

---

Last edited by Digitalis; 12-31-2012 at 07:38 AM.

[Rondec]

I'm aware of the flange distance, but then what of the K-01? Has it utilised any such 'advantage', or was it a waste of an oversized mount on a MILC?

Smaller lenses than the DA Limiteds (FA for FF)? Any practical advantage in that?

I have posted this elsewhere, but to me the big thing would be getting faster lenses that are still fairly small. So many of the DA limiteds are small, but fairly slow (DA 15 is just f4). A shorter registration distance would allow faster wide angles with continued small size.

[Fogel70]

I'm aware of the flange distance, but then what of the K-01? Has it utilised any such 'advantage', or was it a waste of an oversized mount on a MILC?

K-01 use K-mount so it has no real advantage over a K-mount DSLR IMO. The only advantage on K-01 is that Pentax had to sell the very cheap to get rid of them, so you could get a K-mount camera cheap. But Pentax probably did not make much profit on them.

Smaller lenses than the DA Limiteds (FA for FF)? Any practical advantage in that?

I think it would be nice with a DA15/2 no larger than DA15/4, or perhaps a small D-FA20/1.8.

[IchabodCrane]

....
Estimating market trends based on forums is quite unreliable. Basing them on the 4 Pentax users you know, well...
I will remind you that the DSLR market is 4 times larger than the MILC one in units, and 5 time in value.
....

Kunzite, I looked the data the best I could and found that the 2011 estimate for MILC market share is 22% among interchangeable lens cameras. So, let's call that 3.5 to 1. However and most important, that data is from before Nikon and Canon shipped any MILCs (OK, maybe Nikon had a month of sales under their belt, not sure). It's clear the 2012 data will be substantially different.

Separately, you made a comment about MILCs are only sold at fire sale prices. Your own info says it must be otherwise. There is no high price professional MILC being sold. So if 4:1 volume for DSLR equates to 5:1 revenue (supported by high revenue in the pro segment), the non-pro segment of DSLRs are being sold at the same prices as MILCs and that might be generous.

[the swede]

Because rangefinders suck at close focusing, and they require rather precise calibration of the rangefinder mechanism to be accurate at any distance*. And due to the fact that rangefinders are terrible at close focusing it would reduce the marketability of niche products like the AF160FC and the macro lenses pentax has DA35, FA50,D-FA 100mm f/2.8.

*which is critical for fast lenses, perhaps the best rangefinder for using fast lenses ( f/1.2 and faster) is my nearly 60 year old leica M3, because of its high magnification and larger RF patch - and the fact that I know how to fine tune the RF mechanism and keep it within tolerances.

Ahh! Thanks for enlightening me on that.

[Fogel70]

because rangefinders suck at close focusing and they require rather precise calibration of the rangefinder mechanism to be accurate at any distance*. And due to the fact that rangefinders are terrible at close focusing it would reduce the marketability of niche products like the AF160FC and the macro lenses pentax has DA35, FA50,D-FA 100mm f/2.8.

*which is critical for fast lenses, perhaps the best rangefinder for using fast lenses ( f/1.2 and faster) is my nearly 60 year old leica M3, because of its high magnification and larger RF patch.

RF also don't work for UWA lenses as the RF do not cover that wide FOV. So for UWA lense you need an extra VF.
Long focal length do not work well either as the will be a too small part of RF used. And zoom lenses are useless on RF.

But the biggest innovation on latest Leica cameras is the option to use Live-View so it's possible to get around these limitations. But it also show that EVF is probably a better option than RF for most users.

The new Leica M is the first ever M to feature Live View and Live View Focusing. This means that now, for the first time, images can be composed using the actual image produced by the lens – with complete control of depth of field, exposure, precise framing and focusing. Its large, high-resolution 3" monitor allows precise assessment of the subject seen through the lens. This opens up entirely new opportunities for M-Photographers that previously lay far beyond the limitations of rangefinder photography, like macro and telephoto exposures, or using the monitor as a viewfinder.

Live View can be used with both M and R lenses. Indirectly, it also enables owners of R lenses to use the optional Visoflex EVF2 electronic viewfinder. The Leica M can be used with an R-Adapter, R-Lenses and a viewfinder exactly like an SLR, without using the monitor.

[the swede]

well well, as a no-longer Pentax user i really feel that Pentax is the most interesting brand to follow Im more interested now than i was when i used Pentax. I'll keep watching and meantime keep fiddling with the misplaced nikon buttons

[Kunzite]

I read the statements people write here and there are two themes, both of which I believe are wrong if Pentax is to thrive. The first theme is that Pentax needs to out muscle Nikon/Canon in the full frame market. This is clearly wrong. If Pentax just released their version of the D800, priced it within a couple of hundred dollars of the Nikon, there would be a number of current Pentax users who would buy it, but overall, it would have little draw. The second theme is that Pentax needs to emulate Olympus, cut ties to the past, and release a new mount with MILC technology. This, of course, would require blazing a new trail, as current Pentax users would not tend to be drawn to such a camera, particularly if it required a 200 dollar adapter in order to use legacy k mount lenses (and didn't auto focus screw driven lenses). However, it has been said multiple times in this thread that MILCs are the wave of the future and if Pentax doesn't get on that train they will fail.

The reality is that neither plan is very good and they are mutually incompatible. Pentax doesn't have the resources to create a new MILC mount and create the lenses needed for such a mount and at the same time work on a full frame camera and the requisite lenses such a camera would require. 4 to 5 new lenses a year has been their maximum in the past, over all of their different cameras.

What Pentax needs to do, is figure out a way to be Pentax. It is about creating a compelling camera/lens package that will draw people in to the brand. You don't do this by copying other companies, you do it by figuring out how you can be different and stand out. Give people a quality level they don't get from Canon/Nikon. Continue and improve on your history of unsurpassed ergonomics. And then be willing to advertise.

In a sense, the k mount isn't that important, but I would hate to see Pentax just copying others, when their history is so much more than that.

I definitely don't support neither the "out muscle Nikon/Canon", nor "needs to emulate Olympus" themes. I agree both of them would be very costly and risky as well.
I'm in the favor of a gradual, steady growth, step by step, solving issue by issue, launching product after product. It's a long way, and there are no shortcuts.

The K-mount is very important IMO, because they need to keep us, and our money.

Kunzite, I looked the data the best I could and found that the 2011 estimate for MILC market share is 22% among interchangeable lens cameras. So, let's call that 3.5 to 1. However and most important, that data is from before Nikon and Canon shipped any MILCs (OK, maybe Nikon had a month of sales under their belt, not sure). It's clear the 2012 data will be substantially different.

Separately, you made a comment about MILCs are only sold at fire sale prices. Your own info says it must be otherwise. There is no high price professional MILC being sold. So if 4:1 volume for DSLR equates to 5:1 revenue (supported by high revenue in the pro segment), the non-pro segment of DSLRs are being sold at the same prices as MILCs and that might be generous.

I was using the CIPA data for January-October 2012 (latest available); see the October document.
13,755,522 DSLRs were shipped, totaling 546,295,120,000 Yen.
3,043,312 MILCs were shipped, totaling 93,130,958,000 Yen.
So we're talking about 4.52 and 5.86 ratios, respectively. Please check my calculations, you can also use the production figures.
My info shows that a MILC averages 30,602 Yen while a DSLR, 39,715. You can also watch bcnranking top selling cameras; the better selling MILCs are cheaper.

Of course, you can see the recent MILC surge; but is it sustainable? We'll have to see, as more data will be available.

[Winder]

At one point Pentax was supporting 4 different mounts with 2 medium format mounts for the 67 and 645. Not every format needs 300 different lenses to be successful. 135mm needs the most lenses because it is the most versatile format. A camera like an X-Pro 1 only needs 5 lenses to be a mature systems.

If we look at wedding photographers (the largest market segment) you will see that most don't use more than 3 different lenses on any given day. You will see a bunch of Canon 5D shooters with 2 bodies. One with an 85L and one with a 50L or 35L. When using my Contax 645 for an event the 80mm F/2 rarely comes off.

What about portrait photographers.... How many lenses do they need? Less than 5.

Commercial photographers who work in a studio don't need more than 5 lenses.

When talking about making a FF EVIL, we're not talking about make a camera for the typical super-soft-super-slow-super-zoom kit shooter. We are talking about a camera that will fit a specific role for a specific type of photographer. Wedding photographers make up over half of all professional photographers. If you include commercial and portrait photographers you account for 70%+ of the professional industry.

The market for a professional quality FF EVIL with 5 high grade lenses is very strong. Pentax could develop a FF EVIL and release it with a K-mount adapter and 1 new really high quality prime (50mm) and it would sell like crazy and drive sales for K-mount glass like the 31mm and 71mm. We're not talking about a huge system that will consume massive resources. Pentax could build the screw drive motor into the adapter to retain AF capability with older K-mount lenses. The screw drive lenses actually work better with CDAF than SDM does.

Right now however Pentax does not have the CDAF technology to compete with an EVIL system. Pentax really needs to address this if they want to compete.