[Nicolas06]

For me, for example, I still do not cope with the idea that a camera body is now "disposable", as they become obsolete in just two-three years. I used to believe camera bodies were jewels to be kept as such for ever. OTOH, I have no problem knowing my computer is "jurassic garbage" after 12 to 18 months from original purchase. But that is just because I grew believing such. But not about the camera bodies.

The camera and computer from 2 (or even 5) years ago are still working great. Sometime cheapo laptop are not but destop a good power supply and you have a good margin. The willingness to change is only linked to have something new. This is not a necessity and for now it seems computers and camera don't evolve that much anymore.

[Nicolas06]

Well maybe SLRs are not dying yet, but are they the growth area anymore? To me Pentax should be hitching itself to the mirrorless potential growth market as DSLRs don't have that much market excitement anymore. Pentax should follow Sony with a FF like the A7II with shake reduction. A FF DSLR is chasing a market that Pentax lost to the big 2 years ago.

Digital was a boom, a game changer. Sudenly it became easy and cheap to take photos and many invested into the system. They eventually even brought a enw one to get the latest greatest. And almost all old guy that were with film migrated.

Now we go back to the old volume that where driven by renewval with guys keeping their camera 7 years on average, like before... We should go back then to the same volume as before. Maybe slightly more are the worldwide population is a little biger, but you got the idea !

[redrockcoulee]

I've worked with Ebony cameras for years along with Sinar and Alpa, I consider them to be the Ne plus ultra of large format. They even make view cameras in formats that are extinct in the consumer markets.

Last night I was looking at their Whole Plate film holders and each of them costs the same as did me Seneca Improved WP.

It is the quality of dslr that is eating into new sales; why upgrade when your existing camera is still great. Mirrowless cameras are often bought instead to provide an option to the owner

[disconnekt]

The thing is that if Canon/Nikon went mirrorless -- assuming they choose a different lens mount, they suddenly loose their biggest advantage -- a huge lens portfolio. Sure, they could do the adapter thing, but I just don't buy the idea that most consumers will go for a camera system where there are few native mount choices and most lens options require some type of adapter. It certainly would put them behind Sony and that's saying a lot.

I suppose they could just keep the same mount and lose the mirror -- some decrease in size with that, but the lenses are all the same.

I just don't see Canon and Nikon switching till they absolutely have to. They'll make all the excuses they can, but it really would put them back at square one, with little advantage over the smaller players.

^So true, I think a majority of people aren't willing to wait around 2+ years to rebuy certain lenses that they already have & use regularly, probably longer if the first version isn't up to par quality wise to what they need it for.

And for the adapter, same thing. I don't think most people are going to be willing to lose the AF capabilities of their lenses and work manually if they have to buy an adapter just to use their lenses they already own.

---------- Post added 11-27-14 at 03:00 PM ----------

Like I said though, as of now, DSLR's are going to be around for a while. Mirrorless Cameras is still in it's infancy, will have alot of growing pains the next few years (aka alot of issues in one area or another, (e.g. lenses, OVF)), but in about 3-5 years they will be solved and be at a point where they will rival DSLR's.

[Sliver-Surfer]

Sadly Pentax Dslrs will probably die however. There are no stores that stock them in my town anymore population 400 000.

[MarkJerling]

Sadly Pentax Dslrs will probably die however. There are no stores that stock them in my town anymore population 400 000.

No, that's not new. Pentax is now in a better position financially than they have been since the 1970's. Sadly, they just don't seem to spend enough on marketing.

[JPT]

I think all the SLR makers have a plan to switch their cameras to mirror less designs. The advantages of SLRs to the user keep evaporating with each generation of cameras but a camera like the A7 has so many fewer parts than a D610. It may even be possible to use outside contractors to make MILCs in the near future, further trimming costs and risk. When makers make the switch, they will try to bring along as many of their loyal customers as possible through adapters, brand loyalty and familiar controls, etc. There's risk in doing this and risk in not doing it, but the thought that their cameras may look bulky, overpriced and unattractive will drive them to make a change. The thought of seeking customers their lenses all over again must also look attractive.

However I think that each maker sets the bar at a different height for introduction.
Olympus - Went first because 4/3 mount wasn't doing very well and they had little to lose.
Sony - Their SLR mount was neglected and other parts of their organization make the digital components for MILCs, so they stood to gain on multiple fronts.
Canon - Their bar is quite high because they have a very successful system. I don't think they'll wait forever, though. Also, they have developed the dual pixel AF sensor, which implies a strong interest in mirror less.
Nikon - Basically the same as Canon. In their case, they developed very fast AF for the Nikon 1 system. Their bar is high.
Pentax - K-mount is kind of neglected and we assume they have been starved of resources. However, they have to start a new FF lens series, so it seems like an opportunity to change if they want to.
Sigma - I think they'll just align to what everyone else is doing, because they want to sell lenses to all mounts. They might just discontinue their mount altogether.
Fuji/Panasonic/Samsung - Had no competing system of their own.

So I think in five to ten years time, we'll see the main players standardizing on mounts that look very much like the Sony FE mount.

DSLRs will be overtly retro offering like the Nikon DF.

[Sliver-Surfer]

No, that's not new. Pentax is now in a better position financially than they have been since the 1970's. Sadly, they just don't seem to spend enough on marketing.

even Henry's doesn't keep them in store here anymore..I think pentax will stick around but just not the Pentax dslr

[Mikesul]

Can somebody explain why Pentax needs to be i stores? I do not mean so people will see them and buy. I do not think that is a major source of high end sales anymore. Of course it would be nice to go in and look at them before we buy but most sales of high end products are now mainly online. Pentax DSLRs do not seem intended to be mass market items.

[MarkJerling]

even Henry's doesn't keep them in store here anymore..I think pentax will stick around but just not the Pentax dslr

I see no reason for Pentax to annoy their thousands of loyal customers and stop making DSLRs. What's on shop shelves is largely a result of which companies spend large for shelf space.

[RGlasel]

I see no reason for Pentax to annoy their thousands of loyal customers and stop making DSLRs.

Or, the other way to look at it is if Pentax wants to continue making money selling lenses, they need to sell cameras that can use those lenses, or else the existing customer base will abandon K-mount for other systems in droves, and it is highly unlikely those other systems will be manufactured by Pentax.

[MarkJerling]

Or, the other way to look at it is if Pentax wants to continue making money selling lenses, they need to sell cameras that can use those lenses, or else the existing customer base will abandon K-mount for other systems in droves, and it is highly unlikely those other systems will be manufactured by Pentax.

+1. They need the mount system to sell lenses. Plus, K-mount is a proven and well-liked system.

[Sliver-Surfer]

+1. They need the mount system to sell lenses. Plus, K-mount is a proven and well-liked system.

Minolta md was a well liked system as was Canon fd.

[IchabodCrane]

The thing is that if Canon/Nikon went mirrorless -- assuming they choose a different lens mount, they suddenly loose their biggest advantage -- a huge lens portfolio. Sure, they could do the adapter thing, but I just don't buy the idea that most consumers will go for a camera system where there are few native mount choices and most lens options require some type of adapter. It certainly would put them behind Sony and that's saying a lot.

I suppose they could just keep the same mount and lose the mirror -- some decrease in size with that, but the lenses are all the same.

I just don't see Canon and Nikon switching till they absolutely have to. They'll make all the excuses they can, but it really would put them back at square one, with little advantage over the smaller players.

Canon (especially) and Nikon have a huge advantage in marketing power and name recognition. All kinds of people will buy whatever they make, even MILCs. How else can one explain all of the low end Rebel sales?

[boriscleto]

Minolta md was a well liked system as was Canon fd.

And neither had elecrical contacts, so adding AF wasn't really an option. Canon at least tried to add AF to FD and failed.