[EssJayEff]

I am by no means aware of the engineering or financial aspects of what I about to write; I'm just writing conceptually.

First, Mister Obvious: the number one appeal of going mirrorless is getting rid of the mirror. Why? That eliminates internal vibrations caused by mirror slap. And what cameras have the biggest issue with mirror slap? Cameras with the biggest mirrors. That, to me in this thought exercise, is where Pentax should target its mirrorless efforts: the 645 and, to really go out on a limb, a 67 mirrorless . . . and maybe even full frame for those formats. Medium format keeps Ricoh/Pentax in its wheelhouse without having to tackle the likes of Sony, Nikon, and Canon. It's not an open playing field, with Fujifilm, Hasselblad, and Leica already in the mix.

The second main advantage to mirrorless cameras is autofocus, using the image sensor for focusing. While more accurate, this tends to be slower. And slower working methods are the norm when using medium format.

The weak spot, for me, with mirrorless cameras to date has been the EVF—which have been so bad they would make me give up photography if they were my only choice. Just terrible! But these seem to be improving, so if Ricoh can design or acquire a top notch EVF *and* make the camera easy to use tethering for studio situations, then that seems like a potential winner.

I'm sure there are flaws in my description and flies in the ointment, but it seemed worth sharing. I think what Ricoh would learn in developing a mirrorless MF camera could then be brought to a future FF (36 mm × 24 mm) camera.

[Mikesul]

Typical Pentaxian want to use his old mf lenses, don't want to spend money, as a result Ricoh does the same LoL.

Sadly, this is at least partially true.

[Barry Pearson]

And you did not understand that I wanted to highlight how camera companies make customers spend a lot more money than they originally intended. The adapter is a "foot in the door" technique, it's not ethical, it's a rip-off. If customer are aware of being ripped-off and they agree with it, then it fine. However, most customer are like the pavlov dog, they respond to DPR advertising and get ripped-off by buying things they don't need at all.

The adapter would be a way of saving me lots of money if I decide I could benefit from such a camera from Ricoh/Pentax.

It would be an optional purchase that I would want to make.

[monochrome]

I am by no means aware of the engineering or financial aspects of what I about to write; I'm just writing conceptually.

First, Mister Obvious: the number one appeal of going mirrorless is getting rid of the mirror. Why? That eliminates internal vibrations caused by mirror slap. And what cameras have the biggest issue with mirror slap? Cameras with the biggest mirrors. That, to me in this thought exercise, is where Pentax should target its mirrorless efforts: the 645 and, to really go out on a limb, a 67 mirrorless . . . and maybe even full frame for those formats. Medium format keeps Ricoh/Pentax in its wheelhouse without having to tackle the likes of Sony, Nikon, and Canon. It's not an open playing field, with Fujifilm, Hasselblad, and Leica already in the mix.

The second main advantage to mirrorless cameras is autofocus, using the image sensor for focusing. While more accurate, this tends to be slower. And slower working methods are the norm when using medium format.

The weak spot, for me, with mirrorless cameras to date has been the EVF—which have been so bad they would make me give up photography if they were my only choice. Just terrible! But these seem to be improving, so if Ricoh can design or acquire a top notch EVF *and* make the camera easy to use tethering for studio situations, then that seems like a potential winner.

I'm sure there are flaws in my description and flies in the ointment, but it seemed worth sharing. I think what Ricoh would learn in developing a mirrorless MF camera could then be brought to a future FF (36 mm × 24 mm) camera.

First rational post on the subject of a RIcoh / Pentax MILC I have ever read*. 645 is, indeed, a different mount. It just isn’t new.


* Such a.camera would be dismissed on the basis of no modern lenses.

[SteveinSLC]

If one wants pro-level glass with wide, fixed apertures, the lenses are going to be big. Add in an adapter, they are even bigger. And one will want a decent-sized grip to balance all that weight. So unless you're willing to compromise on the lenses, I don't think the size/weight advantages will be huge.

[automorphism]

The second main advantage to mirrorless cameras is autofocus, using the image sensor for focusing. While more accurate, this tends to be slower. And slower working methods are the norm when using medium format.

This was true in the past comparing the best DSLRs with the best mirrorless cameras. However, that gap is narrowing and with advancing technology mirrorless focusing will become pretty much equivalent to the best DSLR focusing systems, like in the Sony A9.

[roberrl]

Lets start off by agreeing that Ricoh/Pentax is a small player in the market, hence limited development resources.
Based on comments in this forum if nowhere else there is a long list of glass needed to match the capabilities of existing bodies.
So the question becomes "what are you going to give up to fund development of an MILC"
My guess is that somebody in Ricoh/Pentax has already done some analysis and concluded "not yet" but they are probably watching Nikon with interest.
Whether we as individual users like it or not there is clearly a market for MILC and Nikon have sort of bet the company on it, they are in for an interesting time.

[StiffLegged]

There, I said it. Going back out to make photographs – did you know Golden Hour is not so late in the evening now?

[Robot camera]

What Pentax needs is a smaller, lighter camera. If mirrorless is the best way to get the size and weight down (while keeping the APS-C sensor size), then so be it. But they could also make a smaller, lighter dSLR if they wanted to.

The FujiX-Forum has MANY members who came to Fuji mirrorless cameras because they don't want to lug around their big heavy Canon, Pentax or Nikon dSLR kits anymore. Some Fuji-X forum members sold their dSLR gear to pay for their new Fujis - others kept some of their old dSLR kit, but they are now spending their money on Fuji gear.

Other potential benefits of the mirrorless design are: fewer moving parts, quieter operation, no front-focus/back-focus issues, and WYSIWYG electronic viewfinders. The downsides of mirrorless designs are shorter battery life - due to the electronic viewfinders - which also tend to be smaller and fussier to use compared to optical viewfinders. For me, the tradeoff is worth it.

A lot of people mention Pentax as a "niche" player, but I don't see why their niche should not include a travel camera which is somewhat discreet, smallish, and lighter in weight, built around the APS-C sensor. I really don't care if it has a mirror or not.

Back in the film era, Pentax agressively marketed the MX and other "M" series cameras and lenses as smaller, lighter and more compact than the competition, so to me, that was part of their niche, and still should be. <see old MX advertisement, click here>

I couldn't agree more. The design could be optimised for different purposes than the DSLRs. Now, if they promoted it with a 26mm f/2.8 pancake lens...

[Rico]

Ricoh should not do what Canon and Nikon have done creating a whole new mount for mirrorless. The K-01 was a good starting point. When the K-01 was introduced they also introduced the 40mm XS lens. This concept is a much better solution than a new mount as there is no need for an adaptor at all. The added benefit is the XS lenses can be made much smaller exactly what people wanting mirrorless are looking for. They could probably include a ring adaptor with the XS lens where they will work on non mirrorless bodies.

The Sigma Quatro Mirrorless retained the SA mount.

[surfar]

I'm just writing conceptually.

Well thats good but its not reality.

I am by no means aware of the engineering or financial aspects of what I about to write

Yes definitely.

where Pentax should target its mirrorless efforts: the 645 and, to really go out on a limb, a 67 mirrorless

I dont know the Engineering aspects either,however lets look at the Financials.The sensor cost alone of 645 is the same price as the latest version FF Pentax body.Then the component cost of the rest probably adds almost as much.Lens development takes TIME and time is money.RI has released one lens since the release of the K-1.





67...ha ha

The market for your conceptual thinking is extremely small,RI arent silly.They cant and wont

go out on a limb,

RI will continue to produce affordable,well built cameras with a mirror...lets hope the lens delay becomes less of a wait.

[normhead]

I'm so tired of discussing this, so, I'm not going to.
Except to say. to keep my business, Pentax does;t need a mirrorless. And if there's 100,000 or so like me, then in the big picture they don't need a mirrorless.

If a pile of people say they do want to explore mirrorless, that doesn't change my perspective even one iota.

And further to that, I don't want to think about it so much I'm unsubscribing.

[Rico]

Well thats good but its not reality.



Yes definitely.



I dont know the Engineering aspects either,however lets look at the Financials.The sensor cost alone of 645 is the same price as the latest version FF Pentax body.Then the component cost of the rest probably adds almost as much.Lens development takes TIME and time is money.RI has released one lens since the release of the K-1.





67...ha ha

The market for your conceptual thinking is extremely small,RI arent silly.They cant and wont

RI will continue to produce affordable,well built cameras with a mirror...lets hope the lens delay becomes less of a wait.

surfer you are a little tuff on EssJayEff.

The Fujifilm GFX is a quasi Medium Format 6x7 style medium format digital. Leica's S2 is similar. Hasselblad has something the same.

The only Pro push I have ever seen by Ricoh/Pentax at the PhotoPlus show in NYC has been the 645Z system. I can see a mirrorless 67 style camera but keep the 645 mount with the addition of some 645 XS lenses.

[surfar]

Rico,thats your view...I just thought I was factual.

I see many people advise "Pentax" on what they should develop.The facts are if they could they would need the resources and R&D teams of CaNikOny combined to accomplish the pie in the sky suggestions.

Time and again the Ricoh officials have suggested their aim is to keep developing quality mirrored cameras mainly with lenses to suit.

I own and use Pentax mirrored and non mirrored cameras as well as other brands.The smallest company can only do what it can with what it's got.

[Rico]

Rico,thats your view...I just thought I was factual.

I see many people advise "Pentax" on what they should develop.The facts are if they could they would need the resources and R&D teams of CaNikOny combined to accomplish the pie in the sky suggestions.

Time and again the Ricoh officials have suggested their aim is to keep developing quality mirrored cameras mainly with lenses to suit.

I own and use Pentax mirrored and non mirrored cameras as well as other brands.The smallest company can only do what it can with what it's got.

surfar I am just pointing to some facts that support EssJayEff hopes. Pentax might be a small fish compared to Nikon and Canon but Ricoh is one of the largest corporations in Japan and the world.