Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
07-17-2013, 06:42 AM   #31
Pentaxian
Clavius's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: De Klundert
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 4,122
QuoteOriginally posted by monochrome Quote
Please, then, explain the voluntary, direct, unequivocal statement, "Pentax is committed to Q, K-mount and 645."
A fourth mount would not invalidate that statement. Only if they would drop one of those three mounts, the statement would become false.


QuoteOriginally posted by monochrome Quote
Unless you believe a small camera company with 5% of the market in a good month can maintain 4 mounts.
Who would have though a small camera company with 5% of the market can maintain 3 mounts even? Because Hoya wasn't a small camera company at all. And their new boss is even bigger.


QuoteOriginally posted by monochrome Quote
Following your technical logic, Occam's Razor suggests there will never be a FF Pentax (unless Q is about learning mirrorless and leaf-shutter lenses)..
This one, I don't understand, so I can't answer it.


Monochrome, I was just following the money. A brand new mount for their new FF camera would earn them much more profit then marketing a K-mount FF camera targeted at their userbase that has so many K-mount glass already, that they don't require any new lenses.

07-17-2013, 07:01 AM   #32
Senior Moderator
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
Parallax's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: South Dakota
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 15,656
QuoteOriginally posted by monochrome Quote
Occam's Razor suggests there will never be a FF Pentax (unless Q is about learning mirrorless and leaf-shutter lenses)..
I don't believe Occam's Razor is pertinent in any Pentax FF thread. It's entire premise is the fewer assumptions the better. Not much application there for subjects that are nearly pure assumption/speculation.
07-17-2013, 08:09 AM   #33
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
monochrome's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Kirkwood (St. Louis) MO
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 20,602
QuoteOriginally posted by Clavius Quote
A fourth mount would not invalidate that statement. Only if they would drop one of those three mounts, the statement would become false.
I suppose the simpler explanation is that Pentax executives made a statement with the best information they had at the time they made it; second would be they intentionally made a less than perfectly accurate statement to deflect criticism; third would be the statement is true, as far as it goes but leaves out significant information, such as a fourth mount for FF.
QuoteOriginally posted by Clavius Quote
Who would have though a small camera company with 5% of the market can maintain 3 mounts even? Because Hoya wasn't a small camera company at all. And their new boss is even bigger.
Size of the parent is relevant only to the extent one assumes the parent is willing and able to invest in Pentax Camera. Hoya apparently wasn't willing. Perhaps Ricoh doesn't have as many higher-return opportunities as Hoya had, size aside, and we'll see some capital.
QuoteOriginally posted by Clavius Quote
This one, I don't understand, so I can't answer it.
See response to Parallax below.
QuoteOriginally posted by Clavius Quote
Monochrome, I was just following the money. A brand new mount for their new FF camera would earn them much more profit then marketing a K-mount FF camera targeted at their userbase that has so many K-mount glass already, that they don't require any new lenses.
I believe you were projecting the money. No need to obsolete K-mount. Pentax can merely offer new lenses that provide more value than the mythical mountains of lenses held by people like me (many. many of the legacy lenses do not provide as good an image on a high resolution sensor as we would hope). I actually have less money invested in legacy lenses than I have in new-purchase lenses.

QuoteOriginally posted by Parallax Quote
I don't believe Occam's Razor is pertinent in any Pentax FF thread. It's entire premise is the fewer assumptions the better. Not much application there for subjects that are nearly pure assumption/speculation.
I assume the business managers of Ricoh make rational business decisions regarding marginal investment of corporate capital in their owned camera company. Every dollar of capital invested must have potentially a higher return than the NEXT OPPORTUNITY on the list. That is a simple business exercise and assumes only that Ricoh's executives are not ignoramuses.

My personal assessment (admittedly with limited information) is, there are other things Ricoh should do first, that will have a higher expected return, than release a FF camera. Once those other things are done then maybe we'll see FF rise to the top of the list.
07-17-2013, 10:01 AM   #34
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Saint Paul
Posts: 304
Why not Ricoh learn a few lessons from Sony? Sony had good intentions when they bought Minolta.

07-17-2013, 12:46 PM   #35
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Romania
Posts: 9,466
QuoteOriginally posted by Clavius Quote
That's why I think they cannot avoid implementing a new mount for the Pentax FF camera. Maybe that's why it's taking Pentax so long? New mount design?

It would be a shock to the die-hard Pentax fanboy sitting on a giant mountain of "legacy-glass". But those are not making Pentax any profit now, and they wouldn't have made Pentax any profit with a K-mount FF DSLR either.
You really like to push this "new mount" idea, no matter what; and of course, saying "die-hard Pentax fanboy" is an accurate way of describing anyone who disagrees with you... in your mind.
Yet you have no argument at all, supporting the necessity of a new mount; at the same time ignoring counter-arguments. Why are you doing that, I wonder?

By the way, before being sold by Hoya, Pentax Imaging Business made a profit. It is very likely they can do the same under Ricoh (after buyout and restructuring expenses would stop having an effect).

QuoteOriginally posted by Clavius Quote
Who would have though a small camera company with 5% of the market can maintain 3 mounts even? Because Hoya wasn't a small camera company at all. And their new boss is even bigger.
Hoya wasn't a camera company at all, indeed - and neither is Ricoh. Do you think Ricoh would go voluntarily in an Olympus-like situation, with part of the company supporting a money-losing camera division? No chance, profit is expected; thus things like "implementing a new mount for the Pentax FF camera just for the sake of annoying current customers" won't happen.
Which doesn't means a new mount is impossible to appear in the future, but they would find a better way to launch it. Now is not the time, and your method is wrong - too niche.

QuoteOriginally posted by Clavius Quote
Monochrome, I was just following the money. A brand new mount for their new FF camera would earn them much more profit then marketing a K-mount FF camera targeted at their userbase that has so many K-mount glass already, that they don't require any new lenses.
Such is the level of your arguments: blaming the Pentaxians. Tell me, if we have "so many K-mount glass already", why are we still buying new K-mount lenses?
07-18-2013, 04:35 AM   #36
Pentaxian
Clavius's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: De Klundert
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 4,122
QuoteOriginally posted by Kunzite Quote
Yet you have no argument at all, supporting the necessity of a new mount; at the same time ignoring counter-arguments. Why are you doing that, I wonder?
The main argument was to generate profit, remember? Pot meets kettel, so it seems, because you make a true art of only reading the very last post of threads.

I dare to say that a neglegable amount of the existing Pentax userbase is going to buy a new Pentax FF camera and add a completely new lens lineup to go with it. Because the ones that are prepared and able to do exactly that have already switched systems or added a second system. The existing Pentax userbase consists of people that are either: not interested in FF, or can't/won't make the switch because of the cost or hassle of a complete system-switch. Most of them just want to slap their Takumars or three amigos on it, which doesn't generate a single dime of profit for Pentax.

Or do you think Ricoh would go voluntarily in an Olympus-like situation, with part of the company supporting a money-losing camera division? No chance, profit is expected;

Look, I would love to be able to use my existing K-mount glass on a Pentax FF camera too, but we have to be realistic. It just doesn't make a very interesting businesscase for Pentax. If it really did, then it would have happened years ago already. Even under Hoya. And if they do market such a device, then that would be a mighty generous gift towards their existing userbase.
07-18-2013, 05:57 AM   #37
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Aristophanes's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Dartmouth, Nova Scotia
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,924
QuoteOriginally posted by Clavius Quote
A brand new mount for their new FF camera would earn them much more profit then marketing a K-mount FF camera targeted at their userbase that has so many K-mount glass already, that they don't require any new lenses.
That's a classic false assumption and equation.

1) This assumes that old, film era lenses will perform well on a new digital sensor. Even Leica had to redesign all their glass for new digital sensors.

2) Therefore your current customer is your best customer because they can both use older glass when wanted (investment preservation = loyalty points) plus get their new lens business. We know this because even on APS-C people bought new APS-C glass.

3) It also assumes that a new mount will attract new customers. This is unproven and therefore entirely speculative. Ricoh bought the K-mount and Sony the A-mount. They both go up against huge installed legacy base of Canikon DSLR mounts both of which (and Sony) satisfy both APS and FF sizes with the same bayonets respectively. Realistically it is APS-C which requires a new, smaller mount, not FF. This is what Fuji has done with their X-series and Sony the NEX.

4) This assumes a new mount may attract users from other installed bases, especially Canikon. A new FF mount will have no glass save at launch. It will then go up against a huge array of already designed and manufactured new equipment offered by other brands in a comprehensive, market-tested package, with an educated sales force knowledgeable in the product line.

5) A new FF mirrorless mount is even more problematic because mirrorless = EVF instead OVF. There is substantial evidence that EVF's have not found a solid footing especially amongst pros. EVF is not a mature enough technology to build a new mount structure upon. Again, look at Fuji who put huge $$$ into a hybrid VF because they knew and stated that an EVF-only system was not feasible. The easiest route for Pentax FF mirrorless is the K-01 FF with an external EVF.

6) Camera bodies have 2-5 year production cycles. Glass has up to 20-year production cycles. Therefore the long-term profits are in glass (and flash systems, and other accessories.) The longer you can amortize your sunk costs the better the product line's financial position. One does not make a new mount without a lot of thought and consideration. IMO the Q system is a dead end designed around a too-small sensor for too high a price. So I have little faith Ricoh/Pentax can pull off a new mount effectively.
07-18-2013, 06:01 AM   #38
Pentaxian
Fogel70's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,748
QuoteOriginally posted by Clavius Quote
Most of them just want to slap their Takumars or three amigos on it, which doesn't generate a single dime of profit for Pentax.
This is one of the reason why I don't think Pentax will try to compete on price in FF. A first gen Pentax FF DSLR will probably only be about supporting existing users, and even if Pentax FF is twice as expensive as competition, it will cost even more to switch system for many existing users.

No matter what Pentax do, they will not be able to compete on price in FF, and if they design a whole new system for FF it will cost more in R&D, so they might need to have an even higher margin on that. But a new system without existing users might be difficult to sell with the margins Pentax need to generate profit. And it will take long time before a new line of lenses will generate profit.

07-18-2013, 06:55 AM   #39
Pentaxian
Clavius's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: De Klundert
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 4,122
QuoteOriginally posted by Aristophanes Quote
That's a classic false assumption and equation.

1) This assumes that old, film era lenses will perform well on a new digital sensor. Even Leica had to redesign all their glass for new digital sensors.
Just to clarify: This is not my assumption either, but I do predict that the vast majority of the current FF-demanding Pentax userbase does assume their legacy glass will perform magically on FF. It is the most common reason here on the FF-threads for users to demand FF: using their age old lenses for the format they were intended for.


QuoteOriginally posted by Aristophanes Quote
2) Therefore your current customer is your best customer because they can both use older glass when wanted (investment preservation = loyalty points) plus get their new lens business. We know this because even on APS-C people bought new APS-C glass.
If they are not oblivious to the limits of their legacy glass. If they won't be disgrunted because their $30,- takumars don't produce magic results on FF.


QuoteOriginally posted by Aristophanes Quote
5) A new FF mirrorless mount is even more problematic because mirrorless = EVF instead OVF. There is substantial evidence that EVF's have not found a solid footing especially amongst pros. EVF is not a mature enough technology to build a new mount structure upon. Again, look at Fuji who put huge $$$ into a hybrid VF because they knew and stated that an EVF-only system was not feasible. The easiest route for Pentax FF mirrorless is the K-01 FF with an external EVF.
Just for the record, I didn't mention mirrorless here.

It completely depends on the type of pro. I have my own studio for my product-photography work and some modelling. I also rent it out to other photographers. I see lots of studio photographers that prefer the EVF for various reasons. Maybe half of them, if I had to guess. (The younger half.) Mostly for the superior focus control, clarity, size, etc...

Not to mention all the pro's that use HDSLRs to do video, oh how they hate to use the back LCD.

On the other hand - indeed - pro sports photographers and photojournalists still can't do without an OVF. But would those types of pro's even consider Pentax in the first place, regardless of the type of VF?


QuoteOriginally posted by Aristophanes Quote
6) Camera bodies have 2-5 year production cycles. Glass has up to 20-year production cycles. Therefore the long-term profits are in glass (and flash systems, and other accessories.) The longer you can amortize your sunk costs the better the product line's financial position. One does not make a new mount without a lot of thought and consideration. IMO the Q system is a dead end designed around a too-small sensor for too high a price. So I have little faith Ricoh/Pentax can pull off a new mount effectively.
Funny that you mention the Q, it's the ONLY Pentax gear that I use professionally too. A macro lens with the tiny sensor on the back gives lots of sharpness front to back. I use it to photograph tiny details for the products of a large jewelry chain here. Before that I had to resort to focus stacking, which I find tedious and very time consuming.
07-18-2013, 08:58 AM   #40
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
monochrome's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Kirkwood (St. Louis) MO
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 20,602
Purely speculatively, I think Ricoh wants to compete on price in the K500 / K50 / K5 category, i.e. APSc. I beleive they want to push the blend line between low FF and high APSc (in IQ terms) by pushing the limits of the K5 (and I wouldn't be surprised if there isn't a new K5 any time soon given the 50/500 nomenclature).

At the margins, since it is impossible to compete with Canon's and Nikon's installed base of lenses, and impossible to create a support network for pro sports, action and whatever is left of journo, Ricoh has to find little slivers to dominate.
  • Outdoors with WR everything
  • Special applications with Q and fun little Japan market cameras with Q
  • Pancakes and Limiteds in APSc, plus ergonomics, Menus, EE procuing better IQ from sensors
At the high end, the logical spot if I think about it is versus Nikon, not versus Canon, above the D800 and below the 645. Given a couple fast zooms and a redo of the FA Limiteds, the DFA100WR and something exotic like the A*200 Macro redone, a decent case could be made for Wedding, Studio (with proper tethering and/or external EVF cabled) and Landscape - at two levels: FF K-mount and 645D-II.

Then of course everyone will want all the accessories and the support and the in-store sales and the corporate leasing plans and the brand image advertising (so the clients will hire the camera), and . . . . . .

So it probably isn't going to happen.

Pentax will be very active in the APSc space, the charmingly wierd space (Q, some kind of K-01 successor) and 645. Sooner or later the last FF aspirant will fade away, but Ricoh will make good profits with its "third camera brand."
07-18-2013, 12:36 PM   #41
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Romania
Posts: 9,466
QuoteOriginally posted by Clavius Quote
The main argument was to generate profit, remember? Pot meets kettel, so it seems, because you make a true art of only reading the very last post of threads.
No, it's you who failed to made a compelling argument. Like this:
QuoteOriginally posted by Clavius Quote
I dare to say that a neglegable amount of the existing Pentax userbase is going to buy a new Pentax FF camera and add a completely new lens lineup to go with it. Because the ones that are prepared and able to do exactly that have already switched systems or added a second system. The existing Pentax userbase consists of people that are either: not interested in FF, or can't/won't make the switch because of the cost or hassle of a complete system-switch. Most of them just want to slap their Takumars or three amigos on it, which doesn't generate a single dime of profit for Pentax.
Those are empty suppositions, based on absolutely nothing - no study, not even asking around. Even worse, you're blaming the existing Pentax userbase, you're characterizing us - making silly claims about some Takumars. OTOH, we have some polls here which shows that people are interested in it; you're conveniently ignoring those.
But those suppositions, empty as they are, supports your point of view - thus you're claiming them boldly.

QuoteOriginally posted by Clavius Quote
Look, I would love to be able to use my existing K-mount glass on a Pentax FF camera too, but we have to be realistic. It just doesn't make a very interesting businesscase for Pentax. If it really did, then it would have happened years ago already. Even under Hoya. And if they do market such a device, then that would be a mighty generous gift towards their existing userbase.
And again, you couldn't be bothered to explain why "new mount + niche product" would make a realistic, very interesting business case for Pentax. Because you can't.
As Aristophanes said, you MUST explain how a new mount, with zero users, zero third party support, and only the cameras and lenses initially launched would attract way more customers than the K-mount.

QuoteOriginally posted by Clavius Quote
Just for the record, I didn't mention mirrorless here.
Going mirrorless is the only reason for a new mount (of the same format). Are you saying that intentionally making a new SLR mount, with no advantages over the K-mount, just to screw their current customers is a very interesting business case? Well, if creative suicide can be considered a business case, you might be right.
07-18-2013, 12:45 PM   #42
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Romania
Posts: 9,466
QuoteOriginally posted by monochrome Quote
Pentax will be very active in the APSc space, the charmingly wierd space (Q, some kind of K-01 successor) and 645. Sooner or later the last FF aspirant will fade away, but Ricoh will make good profits with its "third camera brand."
This depends on if Pentax would be able to keep their high-end (and best spending) K-mount customers with APS-C cameras, while their competition will continue with FF. I doubt that.
07-18-2013, 01:00 PM   #43
Veteran Member
jsherman999's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,228
The Segue impetus, followed by the LBA urge

QuoteOriginally posted by Clavius Quote
Just to clarify: This is not my assumption either, but I do predict that the vast majority of the current FF-demanding Pentax userbase does assume their legacy glass will perform magically on FF....



If they are not oblivious to the limits of their legacy glass. If they won't be disgrunted because their $30,- takumars don't produce magic results on FF.
It sounds like you're implying that all or most 'legacy' glass will not perform well on FF. I don't think this is the case. I think weak lenses are going to have a harder time on aps-c; especialy high-MP aps-c, for the reasons given many times before (magnification, etc.)

I'd love to shoot a S-M-C Takumar 50 f/1.4 on FF. Many FF Canon shooters snap those babies up to shoot on their Canon FF bodies with an elementless adapter.

I'd also love to try the various Pentax 85mms, the M 20 f4, the M/A/F/FA 50 1.4 and 1.7's, the Tak 105, the M 28 2.8, the M 35 3.5, the FA 135, the FA 200, FA 300, the FA 20-35 f4, several others.

Owning these lenses would provide a very strong Segue Impetus to move to FF; development of new glass to cover the gaps and replace these very lenses would kick off the LBA Urge, even among die-hard fans of those old lenses.

(Of course, for that strategy to work, Pentax actually has to deliver a lens roadmap.)

.
07-18-2013, 01:07 PM   #44
Veteran Member
jsherman999's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,228
And the price squeeze

QuoteOriginally posted by Kunzite Quote
This depends on if Pentax would be able to keep their high-end (and best spending) K-mount customers with APS-C cameras, while their competition will continue with FF. I doubt that.
+1

Especially when the lower-end FF models match the upper-end aps-c Pentax's in feature checklists while coming very close, now, in price.

.
07-18-2013, 10:34 PM   #45
Pentaxian
Clavius's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: De Klundert
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 4,122
QuoteOriginally posted by jsherman999 Quote
It sounds like you're implying that all or most 'legacy' glass will not perform well on FF. I don't think this is the case. I think weak lenses are going to have a harder time on aps-c; especialy high-MP aps-c, for the reasons given many times before (magnification, etc.)

I'd love to shoot a S-M-C Takumar 50 f/1.4 on FF. Many FF Canon shooters snap those babies up to shoot on their Canon FF bodies with an elementless adapter.

I'd also love to try the various Pentax 85mms, the M 20 f4, the M/A/F/FA 50 1.4 and 1.7's, the Tak 105, the M 28 2.8, the M 35 3.5, the FA 135, the FA 200, FA 300, the FA 20-35 f4, several others.

Owning these lenses would provide a very strong Segue Impetus to move to FF; development of new glass to cover the gaps and replace these very lenses would kick off the LBA Urge, even among die-hard fans of those old lenses.

(Of course, for that strategy to work, Pentax actually has to deliver a lens roadmap.)

.
You're actually confirming what I've stated. If everybody is so sure the lenses you list will perform OK on FF, then why would anybody upgrade to the new lenses that Pentax would/should develop?

Same goes for the "crippled" K-mount, why did you think they removed the aperture coupler and why do you think they never placed it back? Not even under the countless requests and demands from their loyal customers? Not even whilst the costs to implement it in current cameras is so extremely low. Placing that coupler back will earn them lots of "loyalty points", but there will be less demand and thus, less profit, from new lenses though. No matter how many "loyalty points" are earned by adhering to such demands, no company that is right in their head will shoot themselves in the foot that way. You can't buy anything with loyalty points, share values won't go up because of the loyalty points, and they can't even be quantified.

Last edited by Clavius; 07-18-2013 at 11:42 PM.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
bussines, camera, frame, full-frame, lens, market, pentax, really...is
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
why is a full frame Pentax such a holy grail? adwb Pentax Full Frame 427 07-24-2015 12:32 PM
Full Frame Pentax Were Is It Gord Pentax Full Frame 16 06-30-2013 06:31 PM
So.... Pentax Full Frame is a sure thing? LFLee Photographic Industry and Professionals 25 11-02-2012 12:55 PM
Black & White K-30 is either a really good camera, or I'm becoming a better photographer... Julie Post Your Photos! 14 09-22-2012 10:59 AM
Full Frame lenses and value if a FF camera is introduced olivemike Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 22 01-16-2012 11:20 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:29 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top