[normhead]

Agreed. but the current situation where there is no flagship model for sale is inexcusable. What happens to all the people who would have bought into a flagship but had no options in the stores. That shows a serious lack of planning. The K-3ii production run should have produced enough product to last until the next flagship came out.

How about even a K-3iii with the flippy back screen and accelerator chip, but keeping the sensor, 23 shot buffer and 8 fps? A lot of tech has come out since my K-3 came out. Given that my K-3 is going on 6 years old now, I don't know how much time they have left before their reticence becomes really annoying.

I'm not complaining, but thinking about this makes me nervous given my investment in APS-c glass.

[robiles]

Do you own both cameras and speak iut of experience? I think you might be mistaking about K3 vs KP autofocus*. It is not necessarily faster, but it locks on without micro adjustments and hesitation. Fast paced photography is not my sryle so i cannot judge tracking performance, but minor performance improvement are probable.

* i am also certain that AF is also subject to variation, so not all cameras of the same model are equal

The KP isn't better than the K3 for AF, it's the same. People have said KP AF is better than K30, K50 etc. Someone else bought a KP for wildlife but complained about the loss of detail, sold the KP and purchased the K3II instead.

---------- Post added 03-06-19 at 22:13 ----------

The downside of not releasing camera models often is that the group of camera users who are rather enjoying gear don't have anything to play with. On the other hand, anyone interested in photographs more than collecting gear hardware will not be bothered by the lack of new camera models. Pentaxforum is mostly gear / troubleshooting oriented, so that's normal that activity decreases when there is no new camera or no new lens. But there are other sites that deal exclusively on photography excluding equipment, so that when there is no new camera/lens they don't have a slow down of activity.

---------- Post added 03-06-19 at 22:48 ----------

Even now, given how little popularity the excellent DFA*70-200 gets and excellent DFA*50, I wonder how quiet it would be if Ricoh was releasing a new camera now with outstanding specs. I feel like even if a few guys are excited by new tech, the vast majority of people won't care in general what excellent Pentax product Ricoh can release in the future. That's why Ricoh turned to Tokina for generating income from the DFA*50 design. How much activity is around the GRIII...it's new right? not much activity, people don't care like spoiled kids behave, just take everything for granted.

[Wheatfield]

Maybe I'm wrong, but I think there's a market for cameras in between "just using my cell phone" and $2500 for a body and a lens. Today companies sell literally millions of ILCs a year at the $500-1500 price range. Some of us who've bought them are under 50, we'll have some interest in new cameras we can afford that aren't phones with 1/2.3" sensors for decades. Someone will keep making affordable ILCs.

It's like the compact camera market, which is extinct, right? Cellphones eviscerated them. Except that you can still buy compact, fixed-lens Fujis and Ricoh GRIIIs and Canons and others. The compact, fixed-lens market sold something like 6-8 million units in 2018. We're not going to wake up in 2025 and find that nobody makes an ILC for under $3000.

I don't think there are as many out there as there used to be, and I'm pretty sure sales of them are in freefall, which indicates they may not be around for long.
It's less important that there is a market than that there is a large enough market. I'm not going to predict 2025, but I am fairly certain that if cell phones keep evolving at the rate they have been over the past few years, we might well wake up and find there isn't much to buy for less than $3k.
Of course, if the world economy gets knocked into a recession, which seems to be the goal of one world leader in particular, we might find that $3K is what is required to buy a loaf of bread.

[photoptimist]

I don't know why a "phone shooter" would stop at m43 at this point when APS-C is right there for not much greater physical size and weight as far as camera bodies are concerned.

A phone shooter would stop at M43 to get the most reach and fastest framerate. A 300mm on M43 gets you the same reach as a 400 on APS-C or a 600 on FF. And the M43 cameras have much higher frame rates than the APS-C and FF choices. The newest Olympus does 60 FPS -- 3X faster than the Sony A9.

All the formats have their advantages and are somebody's sweet spot depending on their preferences for tech specs, body size, and lens size.

The biggest upgrade from phone to ILC isn't in the image quality. The real upgrade is in image control by using interchangeable lenses and a body with lots of dedicated dials and buttons. ILCs are also a lot more comfortable to use if you want to take lots of photos day in and day out.

[Rondec]

Micro four thirds has the benefit of having a well developed lens line up. APS-C line ups (except for Fuji) tend to be scatter shot with a lot of the holes filled with full frame lenses, that of course work, but are probably a bit more expensive and bigger than they need to be. This is why it is probably relatively easy for Nikon and Canon to slim down their APS-C lines. That said, the benefit for APS-C traditionally has been the fact that it share the same mount with full frame cameras and so the transition becomes easier. You start with a K70 and move to a K3 II and eventually a K-1.

I guess I think that in the long term all camera brands are going to have to slim down their number of offerings for each given sector. You can't have 6 different full frame MILCs or 4 different APS-C SLRs (not counting the previous generations that still sit unsold on store shelves).

[pres589]

That new Olympus is a technical tour de force but relatively huge and heavy. It's like the Honda NR750 of digital cameras. Agreed on all points plus one you didn't make about phones vs. "real" cameras; real cameras react to control inputs faster.

[Wheatfield]

... or buying in the secondary market.

The second hand market has always existed, if one wants to shoot film these days, then that is pretty much the only market they have for camera bodies.

If and when the K-3II replacement is released, the pricing will give me a decent indication of whether I'm (a) likely to buy it at some point in the next couple of years, or (b) buying used, older gear from now on. I just don't have the appetite to pay $1,500+ for any camera going forward, unless I win the lottery. I could afford to, but I wouldn't be comfortable with it. I suspect I'm not unusual in that respect.

Comfort level doesn't stand up to economic forces very well.

One of the nice things about the camera market is that it seems to have reached a point where quality and performance levels are high enough that even the most basic units are sufficient for most needs. The downside of this is that production cycles will be longer, with feature improvements being more evolutionary than revolutionary, with the consequence that less used cameras will be hitting the market. This might make people who are dependant on product cycles to get their used gear a little less enabled. It will also push up the price of new equipment, as manufacturers still have to pay rent and maintain staff, and this has to be done on lower volume sales.

---------- Post added 06-03-19 at 03:45 PM ----------

The only problem with phones is the availability of tele / supertele lenses with PDAF. I still see a lot of wildlife photographers satisfied with a 7D mounted on an old non-IS 500mm f4. All the new things from the last 5 years doesn't necessarily make a difference.

Cell phones are, however, starting to come out with real zoom lenses and sensors that are larger than a uranium atom. Specialized pursuits such as wildlife photography will always be a market, and will always be supplied. The cost of that gear, whether new or used, may get pretty steep, as it is part of the upscale market that phones can't (yet) partake in.
In order for the good stuff to stay reasonably priced, there has to be a large market of entry level stuff to offset it. That entry level market is definitely getting put upon by the cell phone industry.

---------- Post added 06-03-19 at 03:47 PM ----------

It's quite a long time, I agree... and yet, I suspect my own cycle of updating or upgrading will settle in to something like every five or six years... possibly longer, since with my K-3 and K-3II I don't feel like I'm missing out on much except for slightly better high ISO performance and marginally better AF, which - given my wide-ranging but rather general use cases - aren't critical. I wonder how many folks any manufacturer can rely on going forward to update or upgrade their camera, say, every three years? My guess is, not that many...

I wonder how many folks can rely on their manufacturer of choice still making cameras in the lens mount of their choice in three years.

[BigMackCam]

The second hand market has always existed, if one wants to shoot film these days, then that is pretty much the only market they have for camera bodies.

My point being, though, folks seeking a so-called "pro-sumer" quality interchangeable lens camera won't need to choose between a brand new $1,500 DSLR or mirrorless and a brand new $500 - $1,000 phone. There are smarter choices if they're prepared to by used equipment. If the only brand new choices are those I've mentioned, I suspect a lot of folks - including many that wouldn't have done so previously - might look to the used market.

Comfort level doesn't stand up to economic forces very well.

Sure. But for the manufacturers, a camera that's priced too highly to attract enough buyers is just as problematic as one priced so low that the profit margin doesn't pay off beyond the original investment. Unless we're all going to be much better off in the future (and that doesn't seem likely), a world where serious cameras are much more expensive than today is one where very few people will buy them at all. Goodbye, DSLR and mirrorless, if that's the case. Manufacturers have a delicate balancing act ahead of them... I'm not sure that high price and very low volume is a practical model.

One of the nice things about the camera market is that it seems to have reached a point where quality and performance levels are high enough that even the most basic units are sufficient for most needs.

Definitely... but, I wonder... how many folks here would rather own a "basic" brand new camera - and when I say basic, I'm talking about the low-to-mid-range models - instead of a three or four year old "pro-sumer" model with high-end build quality? That's a genuine question, not a loaded one. Me, I'd rather have a slightly (or even considerably) older model, lightly used, that's built for long shutter life and to take many knocks and the inclement conditions I might (rarely) face. I'd happily compromise on the very latest performance tweaks and incremental improvements in image quality in exchange for something using premium components that's likely to have a longer life and take much greater abuse than my rather careful approach is ever going to throw at it.

The downside of this is that production cycles will be longer, with feature improvements being more evolutionary than revolutionary, with the consequence that less used cameras will be hitting the market. This might make people who are dependant on product cycles to get their used gear a little less enabled. It will also push up the price of new equipment, as manufacturers still have to pay rent and maintain staff, and this has to be done on lower volume sales.

The impact on the secondary market is interesting. Whatever happens in the primary market should ripple down in time, as you point out.

My K-3 still has much life left in it. My K-3II has only had occasional use since new... so, unexpected technical faults or clumsy accidents aside, I'm good for the next few years - even more so, given I share my shooting across a bunch of much older kit too. I can happily get by with what I've got for some considerable time. If pricing of the K-3II replacement is so high that, even with estimated future reductions and occasional discounts, it's beyond what I'm comfortable with, I'll stock-pile another K-3 or K-3II in lightly-used condition. Unlike some folks on these and other forums, the vast majority of my photography doesn't demand any more capability than my existing cameras offer...

I wonder how many folks can rely on their manufacturer of choice still making cameras in the lens mount of their choice in three years.

Indeed. If that's the case, I guess many more of us will turn to the used market...

[bladerunner6]

Micro four thirds has the benefit of having a well developed lens line up. APS-C line ups (except for Fuji) tend to be scatter shot with a lot of the holes filled with full frame lenses, that of course work, but are probably a bit more expensive and bigger than they need to be. This is why it is probably relatively easy for Nikon and Canon to slim down their APS-C lines. That said, the benefit for APS-C traditionally has been the fact that it share the same mount with full frame cameras and so the transition becomes easier. You start with a K70 and move to a K3 II and eventually a K-1.

I guess I think that in the long term all camera brands are going to have to slim down their number of offerings for each given sector. You can't have 6 different full frame MILCs or 4 different APS-C SLRs (not counting the previous generations that still sit unsold on store shelves).

Fuji really doesn’t have that good of a lens lineup.

Among their gaps:

No XX-300 zoom
No 70-200 2.8 zoom
No 17-70 zoom
No fisheye lenses
No superzooms
No primes longer than 200mm
No lenses of any sort longer than 400mm
Only two macro lenses and they are in the very narrow range of 50 and 80mm
Only two stabilized primes
Only nine stabilized zooms
No lenses from Sigma or Tamron and none are to be expected
No legacy native lenses
Limited official capability of the 1.4 teleconverter

Another issue is they have few different focal lengths for the number of lenses they have. When they complete their current roadmap in 2020 they will have nine lenses (nearly 30%) out of 31 are at 16mm/23mm/33(35)mm/56mm. Plus they have four in the kit zoom range and two zooms in the 5X-2XX range. Not a lot of variety at all there.

Plus some of their lenses are really overpriced. Optical Limits in their review described the pricing of the 18-135 as being bizarre.

Do keep in mind that from my list of deficiencies that am very clearly talking about AF lenses and actual focal length, not FF equivalents.

[ThorSanchez]

The KP isn't better than the K3 for AF, it's the same. People have said KP AF is better than K30, K50 etc. Someone else bought a KP for wildlife but complained about the loss of detail, sold the KP and purchased the K3II instead.

---------- Post added 03-06-19 at 22:13 ----------

The downside of not releasing camera models often is that the group of camera users who are rather enjoying gear don't have anything to play with. On the other hand, anyone interested in photographs more than collecting gear hardware will not be bothered by the lack of new camera models. Pentaxforum is mostly gear / troubleshooting oriented, so that's normal that activity decreases when there is no new camera or no new lens. But there are other sites that deal exclusively on photography excluding equipment, so that when there is no new camera/lens they don't have a slow down of activity.

---------- Post added 03-06-19 at 22:48 ----------

Even now, given how little popularity the excellent DFA*70-200 gets and excellent DFA*50, I wonder how quiet it would be if Ricoh was releasing a new camera now with outstanding specs. I feel like even if a few guys are excited by new tech, the vast majority of people won't care in general what excellent Pentax product Ricoh can release in the future. That's why Ricoh turned to Tokina for generating income from the DFA*50 design. How much activity is around the GRIII...it's new right? not much activity, people don't care like spoiled kids behave, just take everything for granted.

Can a camera company exist by selling to 3% of the market, and only releasing an updated camera every five or seven years? I suppose it would be more feasible following Wheatfield's model where everything has gone waaaay upmarket.

---------- Post added 06-04-19 at 07:26 AM ----------

Sure. But for the manufacturers, a camera that's priced too highly to attract enough buyers is just as problematic as one priced so low that the profit margin doesn't pay off beyond the original investment. Unless we're all going to be much better off in the future (and that doesn't seem likely), a world where serious cameras are much more expensive than today is one where very few people will buy them at all. Goodbye, DSLR and mirrorless, if that's the case. Manufacturers have a delicate balancing act ahead of them... I'm not sure that high price and very low volume is a practical model.

Car analogies might be flawed, but... a world where all cameras are either attached to smartphones, or they're Leicas. That's a world where the only car manufacturers are Aston Martin, Ferrari, Bentley, and McLaren. All the people who want a BMW or an Audi or a Cadillac or a Lexus... they're now taking the subway or the bus. Not to mention the Chevy, Ford, and VW buyers. They started hitchhiking years ago. I don't think that's rational. Someone will step up and say "hey, I'll sell you a $50,000 car."

I think the All Leica model can't work. There are only so many brands that can charge $1500 extra for a red dot, and 99.95% of the population isn't going to be happy with a smartphone camera. Some companies are going to see millions of people with $750 or $1500 in their pocket and try to meet their needs and wants, instead of asking them to save up three years to try to get that camera that requires a mortgage. Even if those numbers are not anything close to the market from 2012. Will that be Pentax or Fuji or someone else? Don't know.

[BigMackCam]

Can a camera company exist by selling to 3% of the market, and only releasing an updated camera every five or seven years?

Probably not... but if it releases a new model every couple of years, with each model targeting a different level in its range, that could work. In effect, that's what Ricoh / Pentax has been doing. And since the market on new camera sales is slowing down, lenses are likely to be where the real money is made. Even if folks won't replace their cameras every two or three years, they'll still want more glass...

[ThorSanchez]

Indeed. If that's the case, I guess many more of us will turn to the used market...

Good brainstorming thought exercise: is there any line of consumer goods with a thriving used market but an extinct new market? There has to be something. I guess film cameras are close, but there still are a few companies making new film cameras. I think it almost requires a thing that used to be ubiquitous, has been displaced by a newer technology, but still works with modern infrastructure. Vinyl records... nope, almost every band releases albums on vinyl for the nostalgic crowd. Vacuum-tube based TVs, maybe?

[BigMackCam]

Good brainstorming thought exercise: is there any line of consumer goods with a thriving used market but an extinct new market? There has to be something. I guess film cameras are close, but there still are a few companies making new film cameras. I think it almost requires a thing that used to be ubiquitous, has been displaced by a newer technology, but still works with modern infrastructure. Vinyl records... nope, almost every band releases albums on vinyl for the nostalgic crowd. Vacuum-tube based TVs, maybe?

There are certainly products where the primary market is suffering, while the used market is buoyant.... An obvious example would be cars. Many folks simply can't justify or afford $20k+ for a brand new car, so they buy an older used model instead. Maybe it's a little slower, a little thirstier, maybe it won't handle quite so well, have fewer safety features, fewer creature comforts, less advanced technology, and it won't come with that enticing "new car smell" inside. But it'll do the same job as a newer, more advanced car, and for most purposes it'll be just as effective - at a fraction of the cost. Then again, some folks that can afford the $20k+ new car might still buy a used model if it means they can get better trim or performance levels for the same or less money.

[ThorSanchez]

There are certainly products where the primary market is suffering, while the used market is buoyant.... An obvious example would be cars. Many folks simply can't justify or afford $20k+ for a brand new car, so they buy an older used model instead. Maybe it's a little slower, a little thirstier, maybe it won't handle quite so well, have fewer safety features, fewer creature comforts, less advanced technology, and it won't come with that enticing "new car smell" inside. But it'll do the same job as a newer, more advanced car, and for most purposes it'll be just as effective - at a fraction of the cost. Then again, some folks that can afford the $20k+ new car might still buy a used model if it means they can get better trim or performance levels for the same or less money.

The difference is that there are millions of new cars sold every year. There's a constant supply of new used cars available, so you can just wait a year or two and get the car you want at a 30-50% discount.

If all ILCs go extinct except for a small handful of luxury brands there will be no infusion of cameras into the used market. 3000 used Leicas a year aren't going to feed the demand, unless smartphones really take over essentially all of the current eight million-ish ILCs sold annually today.

[The Squirrel Mafia]

Can a camera company exist by selling to 3% of the market, and only releasing an updated camera every five or seven years? I suppose it would be more feasible following Wheatfield's model where everything has gone waaaay upmarket.

This is very true. Some Pentax users have gotten desperate & have jumped to other brands & not a lot of new users are coming into the Pentax fold. Hopefully Ricoh has something really good up their sleeve. If its some kind of Leica type business model, I can definitely say I'm out. Hopefully its not that.