[Mareket]

Sensor technology is also reducing the need for those big speed-lights for many people. RAW processors like LR allow me to add fill-light and adjust overall lighting without degrading the quality of the image

Whilst this is true, I think it's going to be a long time before 'digital lighting' can replicate the effects of a good flash set-up. Especially considering the complex nature of the way materials like hair and skin affect and transmit light. I think it's not to long before fill-flash is pointless, but actual lighting for portraits will be a staple of photography for a good while yet.

And again, whilst digital zooming is amazingly handy, I still think there are many people who would like to frame a shot knowing they will be utilising all the light that the sensor is receiving.

It's odd, photography is splitting into photography, where the limitations of the physical world are adhered to and we manipulate the light to get the shot we want, and then there's digital imagery where we can unleash infinite creative potential on an image via photoshop or some such application. Inevitably the latter will be able to replicate most things, but for the near future at least the former is here to stay.

Having said that I'd probably be happy replacing my 16-50 and 50-135 with a 100mm macro and Fuji X100. Maybe pick up a cheap K-5 and stick a fast fifty on it... It is exciting the way technology is progressing right now isn't it?

[ElJamoquio]

I think it's not to long before fill-flash is pointless

I am not very good at flash photography. It was just never really my thing.

That said I have dabbled. 95% of the time I prefer the non-fill-flash photo.

As you said, 'actual' lighting is key, but what I consider fill-flash (we might have different definitions) isn't very pleasing.

[RonHendriks1966]

Does anyone think that a chinese partner in K-mount would help? To broaden the K-mount to have a Chinese manufactuer to make camera's with K-mount. They make the cheap one and Pentax the more expensive one. I still think it is strange that there are no Chinese involved in the brandings in camera's.

So the Chinese brand would have their own naming, just sharing K-mount.

But wouldn't that restrict Pentax sales? They need money to build high-end products...
Besides, I'm not aware of any Chinese manufacturer able to make such complex products (while retaining a high quality, otherwise the plan would backfire). Should Pentax invest lots of money into such a Chinese manufacturer, only to have their sales/income dramatically reduced?

Well there are big parts in the world where lots of people (China, India, South East Azia, South America) live and can't afford modern hi-end camera's. So when more off those can access a K-mount camera, there is a good chance that when they get access to more money they stick with the K-mount and move on to Pentax.

If you listen to actuality and history, then you are quickly convinced that there are very few if not zero chances that such a cooperaton happens any time...

In the past lots off camera makers used the K-mount, so this could also be done in the future.

[Na Horuk]

lol well there is the Chinese Horus Bennu 50mm f1.7 lens, which is not bad. Just, you know, Chinese and super cheap. But its K mount and has good IQ, and metal build. The problem is that even if you manage to get good quality and QC in China, people are still biased against it. Would be interesting, though, if a Japanese company can use Chinese labour well enough to compete against other Japanese and western production.

[Kunzite]

In the past lots off camera makers used the K-mount, so this could also be done in the future.

In the past, cameras weren't nowhere near as complex. Pentax would have to practically design and give away the cameras, with production equipment and personnel training included. In the same time, they would give up to most of the profits from extra sales. Why?
If the cameras would be too cheap and thus low quality, unreliable this could generate other issues. So if you think Pentax should give their cameras to some Chinese company, I don't think it would be a good idea.
Of course, Pentax could externalize the production to some of their cameras - already happening with the compacts, I think; maybe even Q (could anyone check where are they made?). But I fear for extreme quality control issues, if that would be extended to DSLRs. I'm not sure if it would be so much cheaper than Philippines.

[ElJamoquio]

lol well there is the Chinese Horus Bennu 50mm f1.7 lens, which is not bad. Just, you know, Chinese and super cheap. But its K mount and has good IQ, and metal build. The problem is that even if you manage to get good quality and QC in China, people are still biased against it. Would be interesting, though, if a Japanese company can use Chinese labour well enough to compete against other Japanese and western production.

A lot of Nikon stuff is made in China already.
A lot of Pentax stuff is made in Vietnam already.

[IchabodCrane]

The reason there are no pro MILCs is that such cameras are too small to be used adequately with the type of glass favored by pros. Pros (and wealthy advanced amateurs) gravitate toward the FF f2.8 zooms. Wedding photographers often need to use speedlites powerful enough to bounce off ceilings and walls. Those flashes are big and heavy as well, and can only be used comfortably on a larger camera. Professional photographers are often event photographers. They need to be able to shoot quickly under stressful conditions. The last thing they want is to be fiddling with a miniaturized interface, accidentally pressing wrong buttons and missing shots.

For Pros, compact MILCs can never be adequate replacements for DSLRs, for the simple reason that most professional work requires a larger camera. When a pro buys and uses an MILC, it's not to replace his DSLR, but (more likely) to replace his Canon G series compact.



I don't think anyone's arguing that MILCs only sell at fire sale prices; only that they are more prone to fire sale prices than DSLRs. The Olympus E-PL1 is still selling for $130. The cheapest Olympus P&S that you can buy at Walmart is $139. Olympus, Panasonic, and Sony are bleeding money, at least partly, if not largely, due to their entry level MILCs. And it's these entry level MILCs that inflate MILC numbers in Japanese sales and trigger predictions of the imminent demise of DSLRs. But worldwide, DSLRs, as has been shown in this thread, still dominate. Consider ILC shipments in 2012 (through October):

DSLR shipments Japan: 814k (6%)
DSLR shipments outside Japan: 12.9m (94%)
Mirrorless shipments Japan: 582k (19.1%)
Mirrorless shipments outside Japan: 2.46m (80.9%)

Japan exported 5 times as many DSLRs than MILCs. Does this mean that DSLRs outsold MILCs by a ratio of 5 to 1 outside of Japan? Probably not. The numbers suggest something closer to a 4:1 margin. What accounts for the discrepancy? MILCs shipped in previous years are making up the difference, and those MILCs are precisely the ones likely to be sold at fire sale prices.

I agree, MILC technology hasn't advanced to where it can be viably considered for the professional segment on a broad basis. May not be for years if ever (hate to make statements like that, though). But Pentax doesn't really compete in this segment anyway and I doubt they have the capability to do so at least in the near term. You can't just magically create an AF system that rivals Nikon's. Same for flash.

Regarding the fire sale comments -- of course we will see more close outs and things like that. The model turnover rate is far higher than DSLRs because they are new and evolving rapidly. This probably accounts for manufacturers of MILCs not making good money... they are still trying to "get it right" as they keep revising their offerings. The E-PL1 you cited has been out of production for awhile and so the excess stock is being dumped. Is that any different than the K-5 which can be bought for close to 50% of its original price?

I continue to think Pentax should be serious about this segment and they are primed to do it better than anyone else (so far). Sony doesn't understand ergonomics (how else can one explain the awful controls on the NEX series?) or what photographers want. Panasonic can't get their IQ up to par with the historic camera makers. Olympus does it pretty well but are limited by 4/3 sensor size (like Panny). Look at the K-01... for a half-serious cobbled together product it has ergonomics exceeding anything Sony has done. Think what they could do it they really tried?

By the way, Greg, really liked the article you wrote. Thanks.

[ElJamoquio]

The E-PL1 you cited has been out of production for awhile and so the excess stock is being dumped. Is that any different than the K-5 which can be bought for close to 50% of its original price?

EPL-1: $130 body only
EPL-1 at intro: $600 with kit lens (figure $500? $400?)

So no, conceptually it's no different, but the magnitude of the price drop is much larger with the EPL-1.

[Laurentiu Cristofor]

I tend to think that since Pentax is still present and selling cameras with a consistent market share, it is doing fine with its usual niche market. If your evidence for Pentax's demise is based on 3rd party lens support then Pentax should not have even existed when K-mount was introduced and before there was any 3rd party support for it.

Not having 3rd party support and losing it are two very different things. The latter is indicative of a negative trend.

I do not know about the EM-5 as I haven't handled it yet.

I see.

No. I don't know about worldwide sales, but in Japan, Pentax is right behind Sony with 5 percent of the market. That is higher than it has been in the past (lowest I remember was 4 percent) and despite the fact that Pentax really didn't come out with any new cameras this last year.

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/general-photography-industry/209916-2012-...les-japan.html

I am not sure how that data shows that Pentax is right behind Sony. Pentax doesn't even make it in the list where they summarize overall positions across SLR and MILC sales:

Canon (28.6%), Nikon (25.0%), Olympus (14.3%), Sony (13.3%), and by the manufacturer, was followed by Panasonic (11.3%).

Yes, if you look just at SLRs, Pentax sales are 4.5% vs Sony's 6.1%, but this ignores the MILC sales where Pentax has 7.1% (mainly from the Q) and Sony has 18.4%.

Also, Olympus and Sony never had such high camera sale percentages when they were just competing in the SLR market. Their sale percentages were in single digits in 2008: Canon and Nikon had ~40% share back then, Sony was at 8.5%, and Olympus at 3.8% - look at how the situation changed in less than 5 years. The numbers are pretty clear, I think.

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

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

Looks like we both misunderstood each other then. If you look back at my posts, none of my arguments are based on what I like. Unfortunately, it looks like many people think that because I predict X, I actually want X to happen. That is not true - I think X will happen regardless of my feelings for it - I may like some parts of X and I may dislike others, but these feelings are not driving my prediction. I also am not asking Pentax or Ricoh to do something "for me" - but I think they need to do something for them. People here seem happy with Pentax surviving as a brand, but Asahi Opt. Co. used to be the leader in SLR manufacture once - they made great contributions to the SLR design, peaked, and then they slowly lost market and became a minor player. Olympus and Sony have more market share today starting with fresh systems - I see no reason why Ricoh/Pentax could not reproduce that success. I don't really care if they keep making SLRs and build shrines to the K mount, but I cannot see them being successful just by doing that.

The Fuji X-mount is now being stocked at my local pro-shop..... Real display space and inventory. They have not stocked Pentax since the K-1000 was being used by students.

Same here. They now have the X100, XPro1, and XE-1 for everyone to see and fiddle with. No Pentax gear at all.

Someone mentioned that Sony didn't make a ff Nex. Well maybe it is the short flangdistance that is the dealbreaker for such a system when it comes to wide-angle lenses.

One big rumor mentioned earlier in this fast growing thread is that Sony is working on a FF MILC, to be perhaps announced late 2013 and ship in 2014. Also, the short flange distance does not seem to raise issues for M mount wide angles. Voigtlander is producing a 12/4.5. Zeiss makes a 15/2.8.

The electrical contacts are placed as outboard as possible (making faster lenses easier) while maintaining ability for WR.

Placement of contacts has nothing to do with faster lenses. However, you do get more dirt over the ones on the mount surface - remember the "my lens aperture shows as --" threads and the advice to "clean up the contacts of the mount"? That is the direct result of the K mount being designed as it is.

The reason there are no pro MILCs is that such cameras are too small to be used adequately with the type of glass favored by pros.

No, the reason is that MILC manufacturers have not been targeting pro photographers yet (except for Fuji's attempt). MILCs were targeted to casual users and their small size was the main selling point - but that is a marketing decision, not a technological restriction. As companies figure out that pros want to use these cameras, you will start seeing faster zooms and larger bodies - like Panasonic did with the GH3. There is marketing and then there is technology.

***

Anyway, I made my points and for those that don't want to go back through a dozen posts and many more pages in this thread (who would?), a summary is available here. Those that want to understand which way the wind blows have plenty of data at their fingertips - Rondec has already provided interesting stats and online searches can bring up those from previous years (like the 2008 one that I mentioned), so it's easy to see what the trends are. If you want to discuss any points I raised, please pm me - I am happy to chat, but I will no longer post on this thread, as I feel I said everything I had to say on the subject.

[ElJamoquio]

Placement of contacts has nothing to do with faster lenses.

The Nikon system restricts the rear element of the lens. With the Pentax system we could have quite a bit more contacts than the nikon mount or the canon mount before interfering with the mirror/light path.

So yes, it does, although everybody's worked around it.

I've never had a lens electrical contact dirty, but if I do get one out in the field I'm glad I'll likely be able to wipe it clean with my shirt.

https://www.google.com/search?q=dirty+contact+canon

Over seven million hits.


The K-mount is superior to the Nikon mount IMO. The mount certainly isn't holding Nikon back.

[Kunzite]

Not having 3rd party support and losing it are two very different things. The latter is indicative of a negative trend.

It could also indicate issues with those 3rd party lens makers, or a temporary situation.

Also, Olympus and Sony never had such high camera sale percentages when they were just competing in the SLR market. Their sale percentages were in single digits in 2008: Canon and Nikon had ~40% share back then, Sony was at 8.5%, and Olympus at 3.8% - look at how the situation changed in less than 5 years. The numbers are pretty clear, I think.

Now, the question is: should Pentax give up to a market controlled by Canon and Nikon, to enter a market controlled by Sony, Olympus and Panasonic?
I believe the DSLR market is easier for them, because neither Canon nor Nikon don't have a habit from flooding the market with countless similar models.

Olympus and Sony have more market share today starting with fresh systems - I see no reason why Ricoh/Pentax could not reproduce that success. I don't really care if they keep making SLRs and build shrines to the K mount, but I cannot see them being successful just by doing that.

But you offer no explanation on how they could. How exactly? By making one killer camera? By flooding the market with tons of better and cheaper cameras? What can they do, which would work on the MILC market but not on the DSLR one, and will make them one of the market leaders?

By the way - could you not use remarks like the building shrines one? Maybe it's hard to accept, but it's actually pretty normal for a company to protect their user base (by offering compatibility), and for the customers to expect this from a company. It's not religious service but mutual trust.
Thank you.

One big rumor mentioned earlier in this fast growing thread is that Sony is working on a FF MILC, to be perhaps announced late 2013 and ship in 2014. Also, the short flange distance does not seem to raise issues for M mount wide angles. Voigtlander is producing a 12/4.5. Zeiss makes a 15/2.8.

Actually Leica is using offset microlenses in order to compensate for issues generated by the non-telecentric M lenses.

Placement of contacts has nothing to do with faster lenses. However, you do get more dirt over the ones on the mount surface - remember the "my lens aperture shows as --" threads and the advice to "clean up the contacts of the mount"? That is the direct result of the K mount being designed as it is.

It seems a regular occurrence in the Nikon world. Wait, they don't have contacts on the mount...

No, the reason is that MILC manufacturers have not been targeting pro photographers yet (except for Fuji's attempt). MILCs were targeted to casual users and their small size was the main selling point - but that is a marketing decision, not a technological restriction. As companies figure out that pros want to use these cameras, you will start seeing faster zooms and larger bodies - like Panasonic did with the GH3. There is marketing and then there is technology.

Indeed, there is no technological reason why a MILC wouldn't be as big as a DSLR. But then, what would be the point?

[IchabodCrane]

EPL-1: $130 body only
EPL-1 at intro: $600 with kit lens (figure $500? $400?)

So no, conceptually it's no different, but the magnitude of the price drop is much larger with the EPL-1.

$130 ???

Amazon has it for $312 with kit lens
B&H -- not available
Adorama -- used for $239 with kit lens

[RonHendriks1966]

One big rumor mentioned earlier in this fast growing thread is that Sony is working on a FF MILC, to be perhaps announced late 2013 and ship in 2014. Also, the short flange distance does not seem to raise issues for M mount wide angles. Voigtlander is producing a 12/4.5. Zeiss makes a 15/2.8.

Well the difference in focal flange distance between these sytems is enormous. E-mount uses 18mm and M-mount is 27.8mm wich is over 50 % more.

Flange focal distance - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So we will see if this works out or never will.

[ElJamoquio]

$130 ???

Amazon has it for $312 with kit lens
B&H -- not available
Adorama -- used for $239 with kit lens

Someone said it was for sale somewhere for $130 body only. I didn't double check.

[Fogel70]

Indeed, there is no technological reason why a MILC wouldn't be as big as a DSLR. But then, what would be the point?

Because it seems that pros can only use large cameras.
But generally, a large camera work better with those larger high performance lenses that pros often prefer to use.

Sooner or later some pros will find that the advantages of MILC will help them in their use of cameras. Some pros will probably prefer cameras with EVF as they can use the VF for both video and photography. And that they can use same lenses on a compact pocket camera, a large pro camera, and also on camcorders.