[monochrome]

Although they do pull out some surprises sometimes, Ricoh does seem to be a slow-and-steady company not really working for short-term wins or growth spurts. It tests the patience of customers sometimes - like with FF - but it is probably a sustainable way to evolve the company.

I guess Ricoh better hope that any new Pentax FF they make doesn't become a smash hit with reviewers and consumers ...

Why is this so hard to understand?

I'm not saying they don't want an unexpected smash hit - of course they do. They'd do whatever it was they did to deal with 645Z unexpected success.

But they're not going to build a production facility before several smash hits creates solid market share and repeat sales, and then be forced to run it at a loss in the face of declining volume industry-wide the way Canon and Nikon are doing. Jim Malcolm did say in his Photokina interview they let a large dealer go - they just refused to sell to that dealer any more on the terms that dealer demanded. I think I know who that dealer is - I suddenly don't see any Pentax displays in 9 stores in my area that have featured Pentax since 1978. If it is that dealer, they demanded Pentax compete on terms with Canon and Nikon.

Using a higher-margin, lower-volume business model right now is a strategy to control the production requirements, not eliminate demand or stifle sales. In five years, ten years, who knows? Maybe Ricoh Imaging North America will have more than two salesmen.

---

Last edited by monochrome; 10-05-2014 at 07:29 AM.

[zantaphia]

My guess for a Pentax K-mount FF:
Not an upscaled K-3 body, but an substantially downscaled Z, for the controls, the tilt screen and the handling. The outdoor camera. No IBIS, but new FF-lenses with SR. That will enable sales of both a new camera, and new lenses. And connects to the Z hype, while still keeping the K-mount legacy lenses working (albeit no IBIS).

[normhead]

My guess for a Pentax K-mount FF:
Not an upscaled K-3 body, but an substantially downscaled Z, for the controls, the tilt screen and the handling. The outdoor camera. No IBIS, but new FF-lenses with SR. That will enable sales of both a new camera, and new lenses. And connects to the Z hype, while still keeping the K-mount legacy lenses working (albeit no IBIS).

Some interesting thoughts... if they can get the low light performance of the z into it, as well as the other advanced z functions, that you mention...
The interesting point for me is, is it going to be a lower resolution Z, with the tilt screen, a $3200 price tag with great low light performance and a least 36 Mp, or is it going to be a K-3 with a bigger sensor at $2000, and maybe 24 MP.

Based on the expectation of higher mark ups, and the incessant demand for pro quality equipment from forum users, I'm guessing a great low light performing 36MP camera for starts with a 24MP version at a lower price and more average specs in less than an year.

But it's an interesting point of discussion.. big k-3 or small 645z.. or some combination there of.

[monochrome]

But it's an interesting point of discussion.. big k-3 or small 645z.. or some combination there of.

My guess is they release bot types of camera at or near both price points. The question is which comes first.

My bet is a new body design with a lot of 645z inside, hinged LCD, fast, superior IQ (by whatever standard they choose to feature, maybe low light performance). IBIS with the ILIS on the long lenses chipped to shut down IBIS, better AF (they have to spread the AF points out in the larger OVF anyway) and all the standard Pentax DNA points.

I don't have a feel for sensor MP or price point

[kadajawi]

Some interesting thoughts... if they can get the low light performance of the z into it, as well as the other advanced z functions, that you mention...
The interesting point for me is, is it going to be a lower resolution Z, with the tilt screen, a $3200 price tag with great low light performance and a least 36 Mp, or is it going to be a K-3 with a bigger sensor at $2000, and maybe 24 MP.

Based on the expectation of higher mark ups, and the incessant demand for pro quality equipment from forum users, I'm guessing a great low light performing 36MP camera for starts with a 24MP version at a lower price and more average specs in less than an year.

But it's an interesting point of discussion.. big k-3 or small 645z.. or some combination there of.

Without great video it won't be pro equipment, and Pentax has a great track record of f*cking up in terms of video. Pentax is in the business of making gear for hobbyists.

[RonHendriks1966]

Pentax is in the business of making gear for hobbyists.

Leaving the video out of it, because it can go different ways with video. Except for the 645Z the whole K-mount setup can be looked at as a hobbyist set. From starting in the photohobby as a newbie (K-500 and kit lenses) to being experienced photographer (K-3 and expensive lenses). There is nothing wrong with that, since there is a market for hobby photographers that is large enough for a healthy photobussiness.

[monochrome]

Without great video it won't be pro equipment, and Pentax has a great track record of f*cking up in terms of video. Pentax is in the business of making gear for hobbyists.

I hope some full-time professional photographers chime in on this post. I don't buy it. I think video is the hobbyist feature and still is what pros do.



(ducking)

[Poit]

Some interesting thoughts... if they can get the low light performance of the z into it, as well as the other advanced z functions, that you mention...
The interesting point for me is, is it going to be a lower resolution Z, with the tilt screen, a $3200 price tag with great low light performance and a least 36 Mp, or is it going to be a K-3 with a bigger sensor at $2000, and maybe 24 MP.

Based on the expectation of higher mark ups, and the incessant demand for pro quality equipment from forum users, I'm guessing a great low light performing 36MP camera for starts with a 24MP version at a lower price and more average specs in less than an year.

But it's an interesting point of discussion.. big k-3 or small 645z.. or some combination there of.

Comments from the only forum user I'm inclined to think has some real insight (Asahi Man) are:

- It's a big K-3
- 24MP (he has said 36MP is too close to 645z)
- Great high ISO performance
- Flippy screen
- Body circa $2,500
- Zoom lenses circa $2,000 - $2,500 (with new SDM)

Who knows if he's correct. He has said that's based on a prototype he saw some time ago, so things could have changed (and Nikon have waded in with the D750). Or maybe he's making bogus suggestions to throw competitors of the scent (probably an overly suspicious thought).

Either way, I think the above makes a lots of sense as a conservative first foray into the FF market, so if I was forced to place a bet it would be on that.

---------- Post added 10-06-14 at 09:43 AM ----------

Without great video it won't be pro equipment, and Pentax has a great track record of f*cking up in terms of video. Pentax is in the business of making gear for hobbyists.

I don't agree that pro equipment needs to have video.

You are quite correct that, in the recent past, Pentax has focused on the enthusiast/hobbyist market because that was where their strength lay, and that reputation is now lingering. However, they are beginning to target the pro market with quality stills cameras.

Numerous accounts from buyers of the 645z indicates that there are many working pros who are after stills quality, and couldn't care less about video. How do you think Hasselblad and Phase One sell any products? Hobbyists?

I make money from photography on a regular basis (call me a part-time pro, semi-pro, hack or whatever) and I have no interest in video, at all, period.

[Winder]

Without great video it won't be pro equipment, and Pentax has a great track record of f*cking up in terms of video. Pentax is in the business of making gear for hobbyists.

Hardly. Serious HD video people aren't using DSLRs very much. Its not that you can't use a 5DIII for professional work, its just that its not the ideal system. I have been using a Contax 645 for almost 10 years now.... no HD video. When we need HD video for a project we hire or recommend a guy that we work with most of the time. It is still a world of specialists. The guy we typically work with is using a Canon C300 (I think). It takes a lot of time to edit all of the still images and put together packages. I can't imagine trying to learn all of the HD video/editing skills and putting that all together.

[kadajawi]

I hope some full-time professional photographers chime in on this post. I don't buy it. I think video is the hobbyist feature and still is what pros do.



(ducking)

Most job offers for full time in house photographers I found that interested me included video. If you don't do video you don't have to apply, and that includes companies that don't even mention they want video too. It is much more cost efficient to have one person who does both, and I can only imagine that in future it will be even harder. Same goes to photojournalists, they are expected to do both. You can also look at interviews with companies like Nikon, Sony and IIRC also Panasonic, they too mention that professional photographers demand video.


I guess jobs that are done with medium format cameras, i.e. high end, are still save, because at that sort of budget they'd hire a photographer and a videographer. But there's plenty of space below that kind of job that is still paid. (I am mostly looking for product/interior photography jobs in the furniture sector, and all the jobs in that sector require video/see video as a very big advantage).


Also, medium format cameras can't have proper video functionality, and it would not make too much sense anyway.


And yes, if you're dedicated to video and have a big enough budget you'd probably be shooting/renting Canon's C100, C300 etc., or a Sony F55 or similar, or a RED, BlackMagic Design, ... but for people who need to do both, on a budget, a video DSLR/mirrorless seems to make more sense.

[TaoMaas]

Serious HD video people aren't using DSLRs very much.

That would depend upon what you mean by "serious". Sure...high end ad agencies and production houses don't rely on DSLRs because there are better alternatives that are intended for video only. But there are a lot of smaller production companies who are very much using DSLRs. And some of those who aren't using DSLRs are still using cameras which will take DSLR lenses. Most times, they use Canon...but I sure wish they'd try Pentax.

[Winder]

And yes, if you're dedicated to video and have a big enough budget you'd probably be shooting/renting Canon's C100, C300 etc., or a Sony F55 or similar, or a RED, BlackMagic Design, ... but for people who need to do both, on a budget, a video DSLR/mirrorless seems to make more sense.

Mirrorless, yes. DSLR - No. The GH-4 or the Sony A7s would be good bodies for someone on a budget, but even then you need lenses with step-less apertures and designed for manual focus. You end up needing to invest is different lenses for HD video than for still. By the time you buy all of the accessories needed to make a DSLR a good HD video platform, you would be better off investing in a dedicated system and rent what you need for paying projects until you can buy the right equipment. The K-3 is fine for the Youtube crowd and Ricoh doesn't need to worry too much about HD video at this time.

[kadajawi]

Mirrorless, yes. DSLR - No. The GH-4 or the Sony A7s would be good bodies for someone on a budget, but even then you need lenses with step-less apertures and designed for manual focus. You end up needing to invest is different lenses for HD video than for still. By the time you buy all of the accessories needed to make a DSLR a good HD video platform, you would be better off investing in a dedicated system and rent what you need for paying projects until you can buy the right equipment. The K-3 is fine for the Youtube crowd and Ricoh doesn't need to worry too much about HD video at this time.

The D750 for example takes beautiful video, as long as you don't need 4K video. And many people already have Canon or Nikon lenses. And finally those cameras are more suited for video, but for professional photography you might still prefer a DSLR. And again, there are people who need to do both, so the camera and lenses will have to be good enough for both uses.


I'm not so convinced with renting gear... you won't be as familiar with it, so that's a disadvantage.


At least primes tend to be decent for manual focus, though of course a proper cinema lens will be better.

[Winder]

That would depend upon what you mean by "serious". Sure...high end ad agencies and production houses don't rely on DSLRs because there are better alternatives that are intended for video only. But there are a lot of smaller production companies who are very much using DSLRs. And some of those who aren't using DSLRs are still using cameras which will take DSLR lenses. Most times, they use Canon...but I sure wish they'd try Pentax.

When the 5DII first came out I saw a lot of people using that for HD video, but that appears to have been a phase. The guys who progressed are no longer using DSLRs and the others went back to doing predominately stills. It was something everyone was trying to do for a few years, but I don't see it nearly as much now. The GH-4 seems to be a very popular rig, but that's not a DSLR.

[Paul MaudDib]

Also, medium format cameras can't have proper video functionality, and it would not make too much sense anyway.

The 645Z has 1080p video.

Ready for the "no true scotsman" argument on what "proper video functionality" is.