[BarryE]

Suppose Ricoh developed a cut-down version of the K-1. How many extra FF lenses would they sell as a result?

Their analysis may be that anyone who isn't prepared to pay for the K-1 is unlikely to spend much on new lenses. Such people are more likely to use their existing FF lenses, or buy 2nd-hand FF lenses, or buy 3rd-party FF lenses. In which case, why should Ricoh bother developing such a low-revenue camera?

With limited development resources, Ricoh may decide that they should be doing 3 things:
(1) Keep adding capability to the K-1-series, because their competition will keep adding to their FF capability.
(2) Launch new high-value high-cost lenses to encourage people with money to buy those lenses. (New 50mm. New 85mm).
(3) Launch new high-quality but relatively limited alternatives to recent FF lenses, so that people can complete their FF range at a lower cost than the recent high-price FF lenses. (New 70-200 f/4 on the roadmap).

Anyone without enough money for a high-value FF system can be catered by high-image-quality APSC cameras and lenses. Why do such people need FF anyway?

Guess that list is the conventional approach. Personally I'm fully stocked with my FF needs, so I will not be in the market (maybe if a 24mm or 135 comes along ...). I don't buy the analysis of not being prepared to buy a full spec K-1 and your lens argument. If I was looking for a targeted/specialised FF landscape camera with the specs mentioned above, it wouldn't necessarily be the price that bought me into the brand, rather I'd be thinking that I could purchase a camera and lenses to do what I want and not waste cash on extras.

Maybe, its me ? Personally, I drive a Skoda. I like the simplicity and excellent reliability. It's no surprise that the vast majority of taxis in the UK and and ever increasing number of police cars are now Skodas. Car hire firms, I hire regularly, constantly bang on about how Skodas don't let them down. Skoda's approach is exactly where I'm thinking - a simplified, targeted FF Pentax could be surprisingly successful.

[Barry Pearson]

Guess that list is the conventional approach. Personally I'm fully stocked with my FF needs, so I will not be in the market (maybe if a 24mm or 135 comes along ...). I don't buy the analysis of not being prepared to buy a full spec K-1 and your lens argument. If I was looking for a targeted/specialised FF landscape camera with the specs mentioned above, it wouldn't necessarily be the price that bought me into the brand, rather I'd be thinking that I could purchase a camera and lenses to do what I want and not waste cash on extras.

Maybe, its me ? Personally, I drive a Skoda. I like the simplicity and excellent reliability. It's no surprise that the vast majority of taxis in the UK and and ever increasing number of police cars are now Skodas. Car hire firms, I hire regularly, constantly bang on about how Skodas don't let them down. Skoda's approach is exactly where I'm thinking - a simplified, targeted FF Pentax could be surprisingly successful.

My analysis was about "what is in it for Ricoh, in terms of return on any new development investment?"

Not "what is in it for photographers who don't want to spend plenty of money with Ricoh?"

[MJKoski]

Just dump the mirror already. Driving K-lenses with official adapter would be no-less fast what they already are.

[reh321]

My understanding is that the KP focuses faster with the new PLM lens than with the older lens. Perhaps Pentax needs to put more effort into the motor component of new lenses and roll out a series of DFA lenses that would help the K-1 to look better.

[Kunzite]

My analysis was about "what is in it for Ricoh, in terms of return on any new development investment?"

Not "what is in it for photographers who don't want to spend plenty of money with Ricoh?"

My analysis of the latter case is that they'll continue to use their Sonys

[gryphongryph]

While I would certainly welcome continued improvement in this area, Ricoh's core customers aren't ones who crave cutting-edge AF. All those folks are shooting with another brand by now.

Ricoh should continue investment in still image quality while keeping prices lower than the competition, which is where it has a big edge. Once it's feasible to do so, they should acquire some existing AF tech that's better than SAFOX and start using that.

Sorry, but I really do not agree with that, I think if Pentax wants to survive in today’s market they need to have a autofocus that is able to take pictures of ones family or the family’s pet !
Still image today is great from every manufacturer with very little to tell them apart, Pentax makes fantastic robust and good handling cameras, but I find the engine of the camera unfortunately slow, from autofocus to writing to card, Pentax needs to put a turbocharger in the engine bay to make it feel snappier.
The K1 with a much faster autofocus and faster writing to cards, a higher resolution back screen and usb 3.1 plus a door cover for the eye piece ala Nikon 800...would sell faster than RICOH could make them, even if 20-30% more expensive, and i truly believe there would be a market for that

[angerdan]

The K1 with a much faster autofocus and faster writing to cards, a higher resolution back screen and usb 3.1 plus a door cover for the eye piece ala Nikon 800...

"Eyepiece shutter" like many professional DSLR cameras from Nikon (D600, D800) and Canon (1Ds) offer would be a great feature!
USB 3.1 isn't neccessary, 3.0 with 300Mbyte/s would do it for 2018.

[monochrome]

Oh dear. Unblocked for two hours and back he goes.

K-1 is my manual focus camera, with just a few superlative exceptions. I have 40+ manual lenses to use with it and I never expected it to be a tracking beast, so I have no disappointment or complaint. My poor film cameras get little love now.

KP is my AF camera. The DA Limiteds are superb, along with the 28-105. If I turn off almost all the processing functions and simply control my light and settings the autofocus is fast, accurate and tracks well. I conclude a significant detractor from fast Pentax AF.C is the clock cycles required to do all the other things defaulted to Enabled on the INFO screen. I have figured out how to keep up with my son’s 7D.

[reh321]

Sorry, but I really do not agree with that, I think if Pentax wants to survive in today’s market they need to have a autofocus that is able to take pictures of ones family or the family’s pet !

My K-30 passes the test. Unless our younger cat is moving so fast that I cannot follow her, which means no camera can focus on her, the K-30 AF keeps both family and cats in focus. Incidentally, when our daughters were young {and active} I never took an out-of-focus picture {nor do I remember missing a shot because of focus} with my Manual Focus Pentax Super Program

[gryphongryph]

My K-30 passes the test. Unless our younger cat is moving so fast that I cannot follow her, which means no camera can focus on her, the K-30 AF keeps both family and cats in focus. Incidentally, when our daughters were young {and active} I never took an out-of-focus picture {nor do I remember missing a shot because of focus} with my Manual Focus Pentax Super Program

Good for you, I have found that my K3 has a lot of missed shot when I take photos of my brother’s kids, especially when they are running towards me, a friend with a Nikon has a much better hit rate than me and he is a bigger amateur than I am :-)

[reh321]

Good for you, I have found that my K3 has a lot of missed shot when I take photos of my brother’s kids, especially when they are running towards me, a friend with a Nikon has a much better hit rate than me and he is a bigger amateur than I am :-)

Are you two using the same aperture? which Nikon is he using?


Technique, even that done "accidentally", is a factor in AF success, which is why I mentioned my experiences with manual focus.

[gryphongryph]

Are you two using the same aperture? which Nikon is he using?


Technique, even that done "accidentally", is a factor in AF success, which is why I mentioned my experiences with manual focus.

He is using a Nikon 7200 or 7100, not sure on the model number.
I am not talking about manual focusing, what I am talking about is for a normal person with very little experience taking up a camera and getting most of the shots in focus, I am sure he could not do that with a Pentax, I love Pentax, but I feel that they need to do something with their focusing system if they want to compete.
Most people don’t want to be experts, they just want their camera to take pictures that their iPhone can without most pictures being blurry because a child is running too fast!

[reh321]

He is using a Nikon 7200 or 7100, not sure on the model number.
I am not talking about manual focusing, what I am talking about is for a normal person with very little experience taking up a camera and getting most of the shots in focus, I am sure he could not do that with a Pentax, I love Pentax, but I feel that they need to do something with their focusing system if they want to compete.
Most people don’t want to be experts, they just want their camera to take pictures that their iPhone can without most pictures being blurry because a child is running too fast!

You still don't have enough information. The techniques which make manual focus more reliable also make auto focus more reliable - that is why I mention manual focus; I don't know whether he is using them or not, such as doing a good job of guessing where the motion is going and getting settings "right". Getting someone in focus is partly a factor of the aperture, because a deeper DOF makes it easier to "nail" focus. A slower shutter speed might result in motion-blur which can be confused for being out of focus.

And I am quite sure the Pentax engineers are doing their best - I'm sure they aren't "playing with" us - so talking about this isn't going to make them work any harder or any smarter ... I don't see any purpose to furthering this discussion.

[monochrome]

Taking my thumb OFF the AF button actually significantly increases my frame rate on KP (like 2x) and at least triples my keepers.

[Schraubstock]

...image processing is still not good enough to render the full capability of large image sensors. When I take a HDR with the K1, I realize how much information of tone gradation is available...

Sorry, I do not understand your logic. If image processing is not good enough then how can you legitimise the remark when you say you can obtain what you want through in-camera HDR processing. Don't overlook the fact that not everybody wants HDR overcooked images to come out of the box by default.

And then you say:

"In normal shooting mode images are rather flat styled compared to film."



This would only be the case for JPGs and here you call the shots when you set up JPG rendering.

In all cases everything starts with RAW data the Bayer mask (filter) provides and is then developed in-camera or externally and again you call the shots. In film days the negative can be loosely compared with today's RAW and had to be developed. Guess what, film development too depended on the quality of the developing process. Colours finished up flat if you worked with spent chemicals. I remember when pictures came out with grass being more grey than green.


I am not sure but I think as it stands today the sensor itself may not be to blame as much as you think. The Bayer mask may very well be the weak link.

Cheers