[Kunzite]

I have been saying this for 2 years now. The other question is why would you buy into a DSLR mount currently? I really liked the Nikon D750 and it checked off all the the boxes on my requirement list. There was just one issue. Why do I want to buy into a DSLR system right now? Is that the smart thing to do? If I shot sports or wildlife, then I would have a different point of view, but I don't.

A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
Buying a DSLR, why not? Because we should try to be too smart for our own good and look too far in the future? I won't buy an inadequate product out of fear; that wouldn't be smart. I won't pay MILC makers to dethrone a technology which works for me, that would be counterproductive.
Sure, if MILCs works for you and you're ready to start spending large amount of money, by all means. It might be the smart thing for you. I'm happy that both choices are available.

If I shot videos, then I would have a different point of view

[philbaum]

A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
Buying a DSLR, why not? Because we should try to be too smart for our own good and look too far in the future? I won't buy an inadequate product out of fear; that wouldn't be smart. I won't pay MILC makers to dethrone a technology which works for me, that would be counterproductive.
Sure, if MILCs works for you and you're ready to start spending large amount of money, by all means. It might be the smart thing for you. I'm happy that both choices are available.

If I shot videos, then I would have a different point of view

Yep, i'm not addressing what the individual should do. I just sent in my K3 to get it repaired because i plan on having it for a good long time and its a solid performer for me. A manufacturer's outlook is different than a consumer's. If he doesn't sell product, he doesn't have the funds to pay his employees or keep his manufacturing line in operation. I have k-mount lenses and 2 k-mount cameras. the only thing that could cause me to buy is some new capability or benefit that i don't already have with my existing equipment.

But to be successful in predicting future trends, one has to think about the broader population and market information, not one's own desires or preferences. Out Christmas shopping yesterday and i laid my Nex 6 ( a MILC design that is over 2 years old now) down on the counter while i reached for my wallet. The clerk says - "hey nice camera". Thats happened to me a coupla times with the Nex, never happened when i've been carrying my recent Pentax models. Thats a bit of market information. Does that bit of market information affect what you or I do with our cameras - NO. Would a market analyst consider that kind of information in predicting trends - possibly :-)

If a customer comes into the gallery where i display stuff, i pay attention to what they look at and especially which of my pictures stop folks in their tracks. It's all grist for the mental mill. What does it all mean - i don't always know - but being open to new information is the first step to understanding what's going on in your world.
'

[RonHendriks1966]

My hope is that Ricoh/Pentax sees the light. They design a mirrorless D-LX with a new mount and a new line of lenses that have fast quiet AF. Take the best of the Fuji X-T1 and the Sony A7m2 and merge them into a new camera. Launch new versions of the 31mm, 43mm, & 77mm for a new D-LX and I think they will do very well.

To be honest.....I hope not. I think that mirrorless is a good way to go, but for that the K-mount is still a good option to go. The camera can be made thinner then current dslr, since the K-01 is thinner. There can be made a nice kit lens for the FF that uses the inside of the camera. All technics can go inside as with a great EVF.

I don't see a market for a new mount that is stricktley for Ricoh. Maybe if they share this platform with others, for a new FF camera like the m4/3th platform is.

[Winder]

I won't buy an inadequate product out of fear; that wouldn't be smart. I won't pay MILC makers to dethrone a technology which works for me, that would be counterproductive.

Then don't. The point is you are part of a shrinking user base. You are happy and that's great, but not relevant. Nobody is paying MILC makers to dethrone anyone. If MILC makers produce products that are more compelling then people buy them. Its that simple. If DSLR manufactures can bring in technology that is more compelling than what MILC manufacturers are producing, then people will buy DSLRs. What I like or want may or may not be where the market goes. Right now DSLRs are not very compelling to new users. The move up buyer (from P&S) who traditionally had bought a Canon Rebel or Pentax K-x is now buying a MILC or simply sticking with their iPhone.

[philbaum]

One of our club's most accomplished bird shooters, has a full line-up of FF Canon camera and lenses to 600mm. Recently had a chance to see Cuba on one of the approved "people to people" group visits. Since it wasn't a bird shooting visit, he decided to get an Olympus m4/3 camera along with 2 zooms for his trip. Used the Olympus for his walk-around trip of Cuba, came back wtih a lot of wonderful pictures showing the culture and people of Cuba. His presentation about the trip was excellent. Didn't take his Canon out of his luggage even once on the trip. Said it was a mistake to bring it. I'm not repeating anything new, lots of PF members have read or done similar things.

Different horses for different courses.

[Kunzite]

I'm a Pentaxian. I've been told Pentax is dying for how many decades? Now it's the DSLRs themselves, OK...

I fully agree, the MILC vs. DSLR dispute should be on "what works best for me" terms i.e. technology, and not fear that a market might contract too much (if that's what you meant by "compelling"); but I'm afraid that's an idealized, naive view - how many people do actually know what they're buying?
And indeed, getting new users from people used with the incredibly cumbersome smartphones will be a challenge.

[kooks]

To be honest.....I hope not. I think that mirrorless is a good way to go, but for that the K-mount is still a good option to go. The camera can be made thinner then current dslr, since the K-01 is thinner. There can be made a nice kit lens for the FF that uses the inside of the camera. All technics can go inside as with a great EVF.

I don't see a market for a new mount that is stricktley for Ricoh. Maybe if they share this platform with others, for a new FF camera like the m4/3th platform is.

I on the same way here.. with a new mount Ricoh will start from 0, nothing, nada.. Using Kmount at least they have lots of potencial buyers that already have FF kmount glass that will love to use their lenses right away, also this buyers will love to add some more FF glass to the collection so.. why a new mount??

[philbaum]

I'm not convinced that one has to throw out the k-mount to make a mirrorless FF.
a. Throw out the hump with the pentaprism, put a evf on the left upper corner, put a tilting LCD in place for the monitor. Try to lighten the chasis a little bit by carving out any unnecessary plastic, altho just getting rid of the pentaprism should help with that.

b. Keep all of the functionality of the K3.

c. Put in an option for a silent electronic shutter.

Its done - what's so hard about that. Fully compatible with k-mount.

[Clavius]

I fully agree, the MILC vs. DSLR dispute should be on "what works best for me" terms i.e. technology, and not fear that a market might contract too much (if that's what you meant by "compelling");

Really? And then become stuck with gear for which you paid top dollar. Unsellable because nobody wants it anymore? Yeah, maybe a few cheap Pentaxians that are more then happy to collect the gear for 10% of the original value. No, better to sell it now while it still has some returning value.

We all remember the change to digital. Everybody said that digital would never overtake film. And that film gear will keep its value. People didn't anticipate the market changes, and got stuck with all kinds perfectly good gear.

[mecrox]

I'm not convinced that one has to throw out the k-mount to make a mirrorless FF.
a. Throw out the hump with the pentaprism, put a evf on the left upper corner, put a tilting LCD in place for the monitor. Try to lighten the chasis a little bit by carving out any unnecessary plastic, altho just getting rid of the pentaprism should help with that.

b. Keep all of the functionality of the K3.

c. Put in an option for a silent electronic shutter.

Its done - what's so hard about that. Fully compatible with k-mount.

There's nothing hard about that. But would anyone want this? Maybe today yes, but in three years or so? Sooner or later, Ricoh are going to have to get serious about modern mirrorless mounts, imho. Everything else is a stop-gap, including K-mount FF. Ricoh can't do what Canon and Nikon do because they aren't Canon or Nikon. They have to find another way of doing things or take Pentax apart from the 645 for a last long ride into the sunset if they bet the farm on the K-mount to take them through the next decade, I think. It's 2020 and the Pentax system still has a mechanical aperture lever, hmmm. Short term or long term?

[Kunzite]

Really. The DSLRs aren't going anywhere, but MILC makers would want us to believe that (just to grab more sales ). And if 5 years from now, there will be an EVF with which I'll be happy (a bold claim, as they don't improve this fast), going MILC now means 5 years I'll be using a camera I won't be happy with.

Yes, I remember the change to digital; it can't be used as a reason to push other technologies.

[Clavius]

Yes, I remember the change to digital; it can't be used as a reason to push other technologies.

.....because?

The more I think about it, the more I'm convinced it's the same thing. With the change from film to digital, not everything changed to digital. An analogue part remained in the SLR cameras, being the mirror, focus screen, prism, but also the mechanical coupler. Obviously because it was the best solution at that time. But the change from an analogue VF to a digital one is as unavoidable as the change from film to digital was. No point in investing in any new mirrored gear only to have to sell it later at a tiny fraction of it's value. It only makes sense if you plan to keep and use that gear FOREVER.

But it doesn't even matter at all if you or I, agree or not, with this way of thinking. This way of thinking will accelerate the push of the new technology regardless of wether it's correct or not.

[Paul MaudDib]

For smaller formats then FF, then lens sales numbers are down by 16,5 %! Even more then for FF.

But the decline for FF means that either the FF format isn't growing anymore or that there is no growing need for more lenses.

So for those who where telling that the window was closing..........

The market for FF bodies is still just fine today, as evidenced by the fact that we're seeing new FF products hit the market all the time. And the hidden context you guys are ignoring is that APS-C sales are declining even faster, are likely to continue to decline more quickly because they're less differentiated from smartphone sensors in terms of things like ability to isolate a subject and noise performance, and as a less "premium" product likely have lower profit margins anyway.

Now that said, APS-C sales are much higher than FF to begin with, so a higher rate of sales decline still results in more sales in absolute terms - for a couple years. That said, I think my core point is a true one - the days of this being a "volume" type business is over, smartphones have stolen that market. It's now about selling premium products (read:FF) with higher profit margins that differentiate themselves from smartphones. And if you can make a premium product that's simple and cheap to produce (eg Sony's A7) then that's the ideal case.

For example, see Canon's press release on last quarter. Canon tried the "volume" strategy of selling a barebones APS-C (eg T3) to every soccer mom, and it's not working anymore.

Meanwhile, profits in its imaging systems segment likely dipped from falling digital camera sales. The company sold about 30% fewer compact cameras due to competition from smartphones with better-quality cameras. Weak personal spending in Europe and repercussions from Japan's sales tax hike also contributed to a double-digit drop for interchangeable-lens products, such as SLRs.

The company is focusing more on higher-end items, which have a wider profit margin, and has slashed production costs, but was unable to completely make up for the slow sales.

Canon likely saw 7% profit boost in January-September- Nikkei Asian Review

[Kunzite]

.....because?

The more I think about it, the more I'm convinced it's the same thing. With the change from film to digital, not everything changed to digital. An analogue part remained in the SLR cameras, being the mirror, focus screen, prism, but also the mechanical coupler. Obviously because it was the best solution at that time. But the change from an analogue VF to a digital one is as unavoidable as the change from film to digital was. No point in investing in any new mirrored gear only to have to sell it later at a tiny fraction of it's value. It only makes sense if you plan to keep and use that gear FOREVER.

But it doesn't even matter at all if you or I, agree or not, with this way of thinking. This way of thinking will accelerate the push of the new technology regardless of wether it's correct or not.

Because otherwise, it can be used to promote any new technology.
But we should consider everything on a case by case basis. Digital won because it offers immediacy, and because we transitioned from paper to mostly electronic methods of processing, sharing and displaying images. The viewing system - while crucial when taking pictures - is nowhere near that magnitude; and both technologies have significant advantages. This and market inertia (many won't easily change systems) should keep the DSLRs - at least the mid- and high-end ones - alive for quite a while. As far as I know, I could get by until I'll be too old to take pictures.

I guess pushing of the new technology happens mostly because of two reasons: because it's cheap, and because there are several electronic giants (who understand gadgets, not photographic tools) behind it.

Of course, that's my opinion and I could be wrong. OTOH, Pentax was supposed to die how many decades ago? It made no sense to "invest" in Pentax gear when the brand was (and still is) so doomed

[Clavius]

But we should consider everything on a case by case basis. Digital won because it offers immediacy, and because we transitioned from paper to mostly electronic methods of processing, sharing and displaying images.
The viewing system - while crucial when taking pictures - is nowhere near that magnitude; and both technologies have significant advantages.

That's a matter of opinion. The EVF does continue on that immediacy, by instantly being able to review changes in settings, histograms, reviewing snapped images, etc, right inside the viewfinder. Seems like the same magnitude to me. It's not even a different case. It's like finally putting the fourth wheel on the car. It was a missing piece from the digital revolution.

This and market inertia (many won't easily change systems) should keep the DSLRs - at least the mid- and high-end ones - alive for quite a while. As far as I know, I could get by until I'll be too old to take pictures.

Well I truly hope you'll live a long and healthy picture-taking life. And I hope the DSLR lives on at least as long. But I am convinced the EVF has just as much, maybe even more, justification for existing.

Of course, that's my opinion and I could be wrong.

Opinions can not be wrong or right. Holding back progress or developments because of an opinion is wrong though.

OTOH, Pentax was supposed to die how many decades ago? It made no sense to "invest" in Pentax gear when the brand was (and still is) so doomed

When I chose for Pentax it made 100% perfect sense to invest in them. In 2008 I walked into camera stores here, they were just as present as Canon, Nikon, Olympus and Fuji. With Pentax being the smartest one for users to buy, because they were the only ones providing a tiny kit with AF motor and stabilisation inside the body. Compared to all other brands the lenses were so cheap but high quality! And they all got AF and stabilisation through the camera bodies. Instead of keeping that advantage that way and expanding on it, they decided to get greedy and adjust the prices so it was no longer an advantage for the customer, but for themselves. It didn't doom them, but certainly didn't help them either. Errr, well what I wanted to say is that they weren't always doomed.