Originally posted by Kunzite Pentax should hire the entire software industry, making sure nobody would be left to work for Canon
Sorry, this kind of strategy doesn't make sense to me, even more so after discussion about limited resources and how hard is to hire people
Video go well with electronic viewfinders, and about not at all with reflex ones
Why wouldn't I?
I can think of only 2 reasons (besides not knowing anything about camera design):
- price, i.e. the baseless hope that it would be cheap because Spotmatics can be found for cheap. It's supposed to be used with M42 flea market lenses, of course.
- an excessive amount of fake nostalgia (the author was born way after the Spotmatic era)
This kind of product will have a hard time competing with heavily discounted, 5 years old second hand cameras from the competition while not being really cheaper than current, modern, fully-featured models. It works... if your purpose is to bury Pentax/Ricoh.
If hiring a couple of software developers who might be glad to get the chance to officially work on a camera, with all the resources that are associated with such a gig, bankrupts Pentax/Ricoh, then they might as well give up.
Also, the point wasn't to hurt Canon, that would at most be a side effect (besides Canon does have proper developers for video in house. Keep in mind that Canon is not all too happy about Magic Lantern, they want to sell their more expensive video focused gear instead! Something Pentax doesn't have, so their stills cameras can be as good for video as possible. They can only gain from that).
Video goes well with reflex cameras too, you can always add an external monitor (which ideally also records the video in a higher quality format). Or if you're cheap, you add something that lets you use the monitor as an EVF. Besides, (some) people don't need a camera that is great at stills, but sucks at video, or that is great at video, but sucks at stills. A wedding photographer may want to switch back and forth. An in house photographer may have to do product photos and portraits of the CEO, and then shoot an image video or ad for YouTube or even TV. Only having to do stills OR video is a luxury not everyone has. And if Pentax wants to stay relevant...
The Spotmatic has a way of using a camera that appeals to some, including me. I think it would lead to a more thought out type of photography. Fewer photos, but better ones. It slows down the photographer from a point click next point click next to an approach where he does the settings, adjusts everything, composes properly...
@RonHendriks:
I don't think the savings would be so great. The lack of an EVF would make a reasonable difference, but it would also turn the camera into one that frequently isn't usable, depending on where you are. How about instead dropping the outside monitor, if you must, but keeping an EVF? You can still review shots on the EVF. It would also allow for a thinner body, which due to SR would get thicker.
Does Pentax not use only one processor? Only Canon uses several, as their image processor system seems to be scalable, unlike what Fujitsu offers to Nikon and Pentax. To be honest I'd rather have Pentax use the Canon processor. It seems to be pretty great. Sony has something impressive too.
The PDAF module would have to sit on the sensor anyway in a mirrorless, and those sensors exist. Also, Pentax doesn't have the most sophisticated CDAF system out there, if they had to develop something decent that adds to the cost. No clue if there is a premium to pay for a sensor with PDAF built in.
Not sure how the buffer inside a DSLR is realized, but if it's simply RAM... have you checked the prices of RAM lately?
I'm not sure if lower end cameras are cheap because they are cheaper to make, or because the manufacturer can't charge much for them. Canon for example seems to artificially slow down cameras so they don't hurt the sales of their more expensive (more profitable) models. They keep the entry level gear so that people buy into the brand, buy lenses, and upgrade because they are frustrated that their camera is not fast enough, lacks a couple of features they want, is a bit hard to use for advanced users who want access to everything.
That has, luckily, never been Pentax' approach (with the cameras being as good as they could for the given hardware). And it wouldn't make sense with the FF Pentax.
I bet that if we'll see a FF Pentax, it will cost more than the competitors. Even if the specs are the same.
Why wouldn't someone who is not that rich, not that much into photography etc. buy a FF? Why not an APS-C camera?