[SunnyG.]

Doing a micro four thirds mount just doesn't make sense for Pentax. It would take them a long time to build a full lens line up for such a new mount and while folks could buy Olympus and Panasonic lenses in the meantime, that doesn't really do anything for Ricoh/Pentax. Beyond which, it really feels like if you are going to do mirrorless with a new mount, you need to make sure that it is full frame compatible. Even if you stick a smaller sensor in the camera, it is nice to know that as the price of full frame sensors comes down, that you can use those in your camera too.

I have a hard time believing that in another five or ten years that the flagship micro four thirds cameras will still be able to sell for close to 2000 dollars. Either way, it doesn't seem like it is in the cards for Ricoh to make such a camera (either mirrorless or smaller mount).

Tbh Pentax doesn't need to make a host of lenses. Because there are a lot of third-party lenses available. All they need to do is make a product with good value for money! Offer something top notch around about 1000$ & all those oly and Panasonic guys will jump ship immediately. I'm sure Pentax can offer something for 1000$ that other manufacturers are charging 2000$.

---------- Post added 08-10-17 at 02:02 PM ----------

The Olympus line has some quality products, for sure. I know someone who is into them and enjoying the smaller size. I was impressed with the small size of one fast zoom lens this friend uses. The equipment is not cheap- on the contrary, on the expensive side. From what I've read, there are some meaningful tradeoffs in photographic capability when going even smaller than APS-C. Whether the Pentax Q system and equipment is yet smaller than the Olympus system is also another matter, along with further tradeoffs, then there is that cost factor.

It would seem when more limitations are imposed due to smaller sensor-size compromises, the convenience factor that is gained, while desirable, puts the system in more direct competition with smart phones, etc. which share those limitations.

Tbh I have heard a lot of people complain about oly's product quickly!

[boriscleto]

Tbh Pentax doesn't need to make a host of lenses. Because there are a lot of third-party lenses available. All they need to do is make a product with good value for money! Offer something top notch around about 1000$ & all those oly and Panasonic guys will jump ship immediately. I'm sure Pentax can offer something for 1000$ that other manufacturers are charging 2000$.

---------- Post added 08-10-17 at 02:02 PM ----------


Tbh I have heard a lot of people complain about oly's product quickly!

And use Olympus or Panasonic lenses. Ricoh is not going to do that. The profit in ILC is in the lenses.

[Rondec]

Tbh Pentax doesn't need to make a host of lenses. Because there are a lot of third-party lenses available. All they need to do is make a product with good value for money! Offer something top notch around about 1000$ & all those oly and Panasonic guys will jump ship immediately. I'm sure Pentax can offer something for 1000$ that other manufacturers are charging 2000$.

---------- Post added 08-10-17 at 02:02 PM ----------


Tbh I have heard a lot of people complain about oly's product quickly!

I don't think you understand how cameras work. The companies make at least as much money on lenses as they do on bodies. Selling a camera body and saying "Go buy Olympus lenses" would mean a significant loss of revenue.

If Pentax has a new mirrorless camera, I would guarantee that the mount will be full frame compatible and not go the micro four thirds route.

[6BQ5]

I don't think you understand how cameras work. The companies make at least as much money on lenses as they do on bodies. Selling a camera body and saying "Go buy Olympus lenses" would mean a significant loss of revenue.

If Pentax has a new mirrorless camera, I would guarantee that the mount will be full frame compatible and not go the micro four thirds route.

There is a Chinese company making their own u4/3 body. Check out the Yi M1.

New kid on the block: YI M1 review: Digital Photography Review

Their costs are probably very low seeing how basic the design is. Ricoh would be extremely lucky to pull something off like that. Add in an EVF and a power house image processing engine and you're right up there with Oly and Panny. Does Ricoh really want to take them on? They already have their hands full taking on Sony, Canon, Nikon, Fuji, Phase One, and ... When you think about who they are competing with already with what they have then you realize it's almost a divine miracle from above that they are still around!

What Ricoh will do next is anyone's guess ... what they will not do is a u4/3 mount.

[SunnyG.]

And use Olympus or Panasonic lenses. Ricoh is not going to do that. The profit in ILC is in the lenses.

See the thing I'm saying is this product first product will be like an advertisement, a promotional offer of sorts. First they need to attract the customers then once they have a considerable chunk of the customer. They can raise the prices and release some lenses. And people will gobble it up. Like ONE plus and Xiaomi did.

---------- Post added 08-12-17 at 12:29 PM ----------

I don't think you understand how cameras work. The companies make at least as much money on lenses as they do on bodies. Selling a camera body and saying "Go buy Olympus lenses" would mean a significant loss of revenue.

If Pentax has a new mirrorless camera, I would guarantee that the mount will be full frame compatible and not go the micro four thirds route.

See my reply to the above comment! You will understand what I'm trying to say. Not that I'm right about it, but it's just a theory.

---------- Post added 08-12-17 at 12:34 PM ----------

There is a Chinese company making their own u4/3 body. Check out the Yi M1.

New kid on the block: YI M1 review: Digital Photography Review

Their costs are probably very low seeing how basic the design is. Ricoh would be extremely lucky to pull something off like that. Add in an EVF and a power house image processing engine and you're right up there with Oly and Panny. Does Ricoh really want to take them on? They already have their hands full taking on Sony, Canon, Nikon, Fuji, Phase One, and ... When you think about who they are competing with already with what they have then you realize it's almost a divine miracle from above that they are still around!

What Ricoh will do next is anyone's guess ... what they will not do is a u4/3 mount.

Pentax looks like a company that is more of a rebel. So what makes you think they won't? They'll have to get into the mirrorless game sooner or later. M4/3 could be a start into the mirrorless game. CMOS out competed the CCD. The same thing Mirrorless is going to do DSLRS. Whether we choose to accept it or not. Mirrorless is getting better day by day.

[6BQ5]

I totally agree with you that mirrorless is the future ... even more, I agree that a mirrorless u4/3 system is the future. However, that is not Ricoh's future for Pentax. They have had plenty of time to make a new mount or switch and they haven't. That wasn't due to mismanagement or chance. Ricoh and Pentax are dedicated to K-mount. There is no budging it. They are so dedicated to it that they released a trio of professional level, full frame, constant f/2.8 zoom lenses for the K-1. That is what makes them a little rebellious as you put it. They are bucking the trend and sticking to an old, ancient mount while the rest of the world is going electronic. Going to u4/3 for them will be surrender and the first step in their disappearance.

Even if they did make a modestly successful u4/3 body then that system will live in a vacuum. There won't be any path forward for those users to upgrade to their bread butter. K-mount users can do that now moving from K-mount film bodies to K-mount APS bodies to the K-1. That mobility is truly awesome and that is what makes Pentax a Pentax.

In the short term I think Ricoh will put out a few more mirror'ed bodies while they ever so slowly develop their mirrorless design ... and it will be K-mount. The K-mount will survive nuclear fall out along with FF Canon, FF Nikon, and u4/3 while APS systems from Fuji, Sony, and others turn to ash. K-mount market share will hover somewhere between 2% - 10% as it is now. They will have two pricing schemes. One will be low for introducing potential users to the mount and the other will be high for positioning it as premium product. u4/3 will have the majority, like 30% - 40% and the other 50% will divided up between Sony, Canon, and Nikon. We may be old, prune, and dead by that time but that time will come.

[wombat2go]

https://app.box.com/s/db2d50c7edecf721ca74

[mikesbike]

Just as there are tradeoffs either way between APS-C and Full Frame, the same is even more true when going to a yet smaller sensor. The main gain in going to smaller sensors is in smaller lenses for midrange and telephoto framing. Wide-angle is a different story. My Pentax DA 12-24mm f/4 is about the size of a FF 18 or 20-35mm f/2.8 lens. The disadvantage in low-light/higher ISO performance might be narrowed as technology advances, but the loss of DOF control is still there.

I recently saw pics taken with my niece's smartphone that were amazingly wide angle, perhaps stitched. They appeared to be of very good quality, but then that is when viewed on a screen of very small dimensions.

I think a lot can be said for the concept of the KP- high quality build and performance, with a compact design along with compact lens designing. And FF is not going away, nor is the DSLR for those wanting an optical VF.

[rawr]

The disadvantage in low-light/higher ISO performance might be narrowed as technology advances, but the loss of DOF control is still there.

Indeed.

The newer top-of-the-line Olympus illustrates the way M4/3 sensors are improving - the DR and noise gap between Micro 4/3 and APS-C is certainly diminishing, or has in fact gone:


from DxOMark.com

Speed of that jump to APS-C levels of sensor performance took me by surprise.

Field of view/crop factor wont ever go away with smaller sensors of course.

Strange though how with a camera like the Oly OM-D E-M1 II and a few Oly f2.8 lenses, you can end up with gear just as heavy and expensive as some FF cam/lens kits.

[6BQ5]

Indeed.

The newer top-of-the-line Olympus illustrates the way M4/3 sensors are improving - the DR and noise gap between Micro 4/3 and APS-C is certainly diminishing, or has in fact gone:

APS sensors should definitely feel squeezed by data like that because the value story starts losing ... it's value. APS sensors can make up for it by offering an insane amount of on-sensor PDAF point like the Sony A6500 (425 points?!) afforded by the extra real estate or a proprietary R-G-B arrangement as promoted by Fuji's X-Trans system. The performance found in the M1 Mk II will trickle down and out soon enough to more mirrorless bodies.

[filmamigo]

The way Pentax developed but then abandoned the four-thirds format prematurely,
missing all the success that (micro) four-thirds has been enjoying in recent years,
is a sad precedent for what now seems to be happening with the Q format.

I never heard that Pentax was involved with the development of 4:3 or the Four Thirds Consortium. Tell me more! Links?

[noblepa]

I never heard that Pentax was involved with the development of 4:3 or the Four Thirds Consortium. Tell me more! Links?

I think he is simply alluding to the fact that 110 film used an image of 13 x 17mm, approximately the same size as 4/3. Pentax had no part in developing the 4/3 digital camera system.

For that matter, Pentax had no more involvement in the development (no pun intended) of the 110 film format than they did of the 35mm format. Kodak was, AFAIK, solely responsible for the 110 film format. It was introduced in 1972 as a follow-on product to their highly successful 126 Instamatic format.

Pentax merely developed their own Auto 110 SLR to use that film format. I remember the ads for the Auto 110. It was marketed to people who wanted a quality camera that they could carry around in a briefcase or purse.

Minolta is the only other camera maker I know of who made a 110 SLR. Were there any others?

[SunnyG.]

I never heard that Pentax was involved with the development of 4:3 or the Four Thirds Consortium. Tell me more! Links?

.not exactly m4/3 but the film equivalent of m4/3. It's called 110mm film. Pentax 110 auto. You'll find info on them in the slr section. Not DSLR section.

---------- Post added 08-15-17 at 01:03 PM ----------

I totally agree with you that mirrorless is the future ... even more, I agree that a mirrorless u4/3 system is the future. However, that is not Ricoh's future for Pentax. They have had plenty of time to make a new mount or switch and they haven't. That wasn't due to mismanagement or chance. Ricoh and Pentax are dedicated to K-mount. There is no budging it. They are so dedicated to it that they released a trio of professional level, full frame, constant f/2.8 zoom lenses for the K-1. That is what makes them a little rebellious as you put it. They are bucking the trend and sticking to an old, ancient mount while the rest of the world is going electronic. Going to u4/3 for them will be surrender and the first step in their disappearance.

Even if they did make a modestly successful u4/3 body then that system will live in a vacuum. There won't be any path forward for those users to upgrade to their bread butter. K-mount users can do that now moving from K-mount film bodies to K-mount APS bodies to the K-1. That mobility is truly awesome and that is what makes Pentax a Pentax.

In the short term I think Ricoh will put out a few more mirror'ed bodies while they ever so slowly develop their mirrorless design ... and it will be K-mount. The K-mount will survive nuclear fall out along with FF Canon, FF Nikon, and u4/3 while APS systems from Fuji, Sony, and others turn to ash. K-mount market share will hover somewhere between 2% - 10% as it is now. They will have two pricing schemes. One will be low for introducing potential users to the mount and the other will be high for positioning it as premium product. u4/3 will have the majority, like 30% - 40% and the other 50% will divided up between Sony, Canon, and Nikon. We may be old, prune, and dead by that time but that time will come.

I don't think it would be a loss. Micro 4/3 would be for completely new customers, not the existing ones. Cuz tbh not many of us are going to get a 4/3 camera. But Pentax with their aggressive pricing and attention to quality and features could attract a whole bunch of new potential customers. A small camera that one can put in their pockets and just go out. Can you imagine the profit Olympus makes by selling a 4/3 at a greater price than our beloved K-1. 2000$ seriously? For a 4/3 camera? Even if Pentax could sell the same thing at 60% of Olympus's asking price they would be making tons money. You know Pentax should develop Mirrorless very fast. I don't want mm favorite brand to disappear. Just hope Pentax can cash in on the failures of EOS M and Nikon 1 series. Cuz Sony and Fuji really over prices their products. But Ofcourse Pentax should make an Adapter to use all our beloved K mount lenses with full autofocus abilities.

[Kunzite]

And use Olympus or Panasonic lenses. Ricoh is not going to do that. The profit in ILC is in the lenses.

Yep.
Most of the time, people are confounding their interests with the companies'. We want quality products, and we want to pay for them the lowest possible - for free, if possible. So, having access to an established lenses and cameras line? That's great, right?
Indeed, a Ricoh Imaging-made m4/3 camera would already have a full array of lenses, with no real gap anywhere. Indeed, those lenses would not be Ricoh Imaging-made. Just competing directly with Olympus and Panasonic cameras is difficult; but when you're pushing your customers to buy other brands' products (lenses)? Both cameras and lenses, it would be so easy for potential customers to simply go with a cheaper, non-Ricoh alternative - any time they wish, as it's part of the same system. Product by product, Ricoh would have to be more compelling in both features and price - even compared to older, discounted similar products from the competition.

Crawling up in the mirrorless market with m4/3, i.e. building an m4/3 user base capable of sustaining Ricoh Imaging, might be much more difficult than going with their own, built-from-scratch system.

By the way, IIRC Olympus' Imaging division just recently started making a profit.

---------- Post added 15-08-17 at 11:47 PM ----------

I don't think it would be a loss. Micro 4/3 would be for completely new customers, not the existing ones. Cuz tbh not many of us are going to get a 4/3 camera. But Pentax with their aggressive pricing and attention to quality and features could attract a whole bunch of new potential customers. A small camera that one can put in their pockets and just go out. Can you imagine the profit Olympus makes by selling a 4/3 at a greater price than our beloved K-1. 2000$ seriously? For a 4/3 camera? Even if Pentax could sell the same thing at 60% of Olympus's asking price they would be making tons money. You know Pentax should develop Mirrorless very fast. I don't want mm favorite brand to disappear. Just hope Pentax can cash in on the failures of EOS M and Nikon 1 series. Cuz Sony and Fuji really over prices their products. But Ofcourse Pentax should make an Adapter to use all our beloved K mount lenses with full autofocus abilities.

An adapter to facilitate Pentaxians moving to Olympus... which brand you said you don't want to disappear?

---------- Post added 15-08-17 at 11:57 PM ----------

.not exactly m4/3 but the film equivalent of m4/3. It's called 110mm film. Pentax 110 auto. You'll find info on them in the slr section. Not DSLR section

There is a huge difference between the 110 film (a Kodak designation, by the way) and the four thirds system. Even though the frame size is similar, four thirds designed as a purely digital system, and as such it defines not just the sensor size, but also the SLR mount and lens' characteristics.

Pentax never participated in the development of four thirds.

[SunnyG.]

Yep.
Most of the time, people are confounding their interests with the companies'. We want quality products, and we want to pay for them the lowest possible - for free, if possible. So, having access to an established lenses and cameras line? That's great, right?
Indeed, a Ricoh Imaging-made m4/3 camera would already have a full array of lenses, with no real gap anywhere. Indeed, those lenses would not be Ricoh Imaging-made. Just competing directly with Olympus and Panasonic cameras is difficult; but when you're pushing your customers to buy other brands' products (lenses)? Both cameras and lenses, it would be so easy for potential customers to simply go with a cheaper, non-Ricoh alternative - any time they wish, as it's part of the same system. Product by product, Ricoh would have to be more compelling in both features and price - even compared to older, discounted similar products from the competition.

Crawling up in the mirrorless market with m4/3, i.e. building an m4/3 user base capable of sustaining Ricoh Imaging, might be much more difficult than going with their own, built-from-scratch system.

By the way, IIRC Olympus' Imaging division just recently started making a profit.

---------- Post added 15-08-17 at 11:47 PM ----------


An adapter to facilitate Pentaxians moving to Olympus... which brand you said you don't want to disappear?

---------- Post added 15-08-17 at 11:57 PM ----------


There is a huge difference between the 110 film (a Kodak designation, by the way) and the four thirds system. Even though the frame size is similar, four thirds designed as a purely digital system, and as such it defines not just the sensor size, but also the SLR mount and lens' characteristics.

Pentax never participated in the development of four thirds.

It seems you didn't understand. I said an Adapter to mount k mount lenses to a Pentax M4/3 body (if they ever made it.) You're confused. Ofcourse there's a huge difference that's film and this is digital. I said equivalent not equal. There's a difference, you know? Oh and what do you suggest keep making DSLRS until the market dies and the brand disappear. You know even if they make APS-C and FF Mirrorless they're gonna have to compete with Fuji, Sony and maybe a resurgent Canon and Nikon. Maybe that would be easier than competing with Olympus and Panasonic?