Originally posted by Ash 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.
Originally posted by Ash I do not know about the EM-5 as I haven't handled it yet.
I see.
Originally posted by Rondec 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:
Quote: 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.
Originally posted by cfraz 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.
Originally posted by Winder 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.
Originally posted by RonHendriks1966 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.
Originally posted by ElJamoquio 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.
Originally posted by northcoastgreg 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.