[Clavius]

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.

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.

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.

[Parallax]

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.

[monochrome]

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.

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.

This one, I don't understand, so I can't answer it.

See response to Parallax below.

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.

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.

[TropicalMonkey]

Why not Ricoh learn a few lessons from Sony? Sony had good intentions when they bought Minolta.

[Kunzite]

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).

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.

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?

[Clavius]

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.

[Aristophanes]

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.

[Fogel70]

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.

[Clavius]

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.

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.

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?

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.

[monochrome]

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."

[Kunzite]

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:

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.

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.

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.

[Kunzite]

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.

[jsherman999]

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.)

.

[jsherman999]

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.

.

[Clavius]

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.