[RonHendriks1966]

There are those new nice camera's like Fuji x100 and Leica X1 that not only make a buzz but also seem to sell. Should Pentax make one of those?

I think base should be the sensor from the K-5 (or a better successor) so the image quality of Pentax'es answer to X1 and x100would be better.

Wich lens should be on it? Or make more then one camera?

[RioRico]

Will this be an actual poll? I vote NO.
Ricoh said they bought Pentax for the ILC capability.
So I don't expect any such beast.

[RonHendriks1966]

Will this be an actual poll? I vote NO.
Ricoh said they bought Pentax for the ILC capability.
So I don't expect any such beast.

Yes you have only limited time to set up the poll, and at first I didn't manage to think about all the options :ugh:

[RioRico]

Ah yes, I jumped in too soon. That comes from watching for NEWEST POSTS.

My idea: The wonks at Ricoh will probably take a very close look at x100 and X1 sales before deciding whether such investment is worthy. My guess is that it's too small a niche. Would it be NICE if Pentax had such a cam? Sure, but it's a complete break with what Pentax has done, i.e. it doesn't play to Pentax's strengths. I think it's a dead idea.

[froeschle]

With the proposed lenses the system would imho be quite bulky and expensive. So, what would be the advantage of such a camera?

A better alternative could then be to just select a PK(AF) lens and a small Pentax DSLR. If absolutely required, use superglue for permanent fixing

[RioRico]

SUPERGLUE +1!!! All those whose fave lens is the 43Ltd can turn their Kr's into supercams!

[johnmflores]

The Pentax GXR obviates the need for a fixed lens APS-C. They essentially have one already. 60s bellbottoms retro aside, I'd much rather have a GXR vs the Fuji.

[elho_cid]

The Pentax GXR obviates the need for a fixed lens APS-C. They essentially have one already. 60s bellbottoms retro aside, I'd much rather have a GXR vs the Fuji.

Me too. Fuji looks sexy and the viewfinder may be gorgeous, but GXR is a better camera for less money.

[RonHendriks1966]

SUPERGLUE +1!!! All those whose fave lens is the 43Ltd can turn their Kr's into supercams!

Yes but with a fixed lens camera the camera has no mirror and much smaller flansdistance making it a much smaller camera then the K-r. Put in the battery of the K-r, but no AA-set and the camera is half the size.

The Pentax GXR obviates the need for a fixed lens APS-C. They essentially have one already. 60s bellbottoms retro aside, I'd much rather have a GXR vs the Fuji.

The GXR is one option.

On expenses, well this can be a very nice exclusive camera or make it into a cheepo multicolour one. For me the choice would be the WR version with a good strong body and an all screen back-side.

No cheepo choices, since there is no money in it to earn.

[Unsinkable II]

I voted for the 31 and the 43. Imagine the 43 on a FF mirrorless body!

[Pentikonian]

Here's my take as a Pentax noob/ dual system user.

No please don't...

Leica is Leica. Fuji has done a great job with it's first attempt at a small form-factor, high image quality, fixed lens, rangefinder-ish camera. And may be offering an inter-changeable lens model in the next version. The X100 was the only other camera besides Pentax I was considering for DX replacement.

I did not eliminate my APS-C camera and lenses just for giggles. I moved that portion of my kit to Pentax because of their smaller form-factor DSLR (K-5) with excellent ergonomics and feel, robust build, weather resistance and small, high-quality primes. If I could have had that with Nikon's DX, I would have stayed there. (Full-frame is another story...) I believe that Ricoh/ Pentax could, with the proper changes to marketing/ advertising and dealer interactions, take some serious business away from the big 2.

Personally, I'd rather Ricoh/ Pentax not spend any R&D money trying to re-invent/ improve someone else's camera just so "we can have one too".

How about spending that money designing and offering additional DA and FA Limited primes? A set that would give users the approximate equivalence of 24, 35, 50, 85, 105, 135, 180, 200, and 300, with macro available in the normal (50-ish), short telephoto (105-ish) and telephoto (200-ish) ranges. Some of these lenses already exist.

How about spending that money designing and implementing a larger, brighter, higher-eyepoint viewfinder with a large viewing window and a proper focusing screen? Size of the K-7/ K-5 camera body is almost perfection... but the viewfinder is small. (Live view - yeah. Well... there are some of us out there who actually like using the viewfinders. )

[TOUGEFC]

It would be a waste of time/monery and R&D if they did.
They need to pump out more decent lenses.

[RonHendriks1966]

How about spending that money designing and offering additional DA and FA Limited primes? A set that would give users the approximate equivalence of 24, 35, 50, 85, 105, 135, 180, 200, and 300, with macro available in the normal (50-ish), short telephoto (105-ish) and telephoto (200-ish) ranges. Some of these lenses already exist.

Well for the lenses there is a thread in the lenssection about R&D spendings, and some new FA and DA Limiteds would be nice.

On the other hand, you design such a camera to make money. It's a camerabody, with some known technics (electronics and sensor) and a lens (of known design just redesigned for a smaller camera) that makes a new and attractive camera to attract a new audience.

Currently the FA 31mm/f1.8 is the lens that appeals to the most (besides the ones that say NO). Looking at the price of that lens and attaching a small camera to it, with smaller flansdistance to get a real compact set, would make it more the pricerange of the Leica X1 with like 1500 euro. With the reputation of that lens, would it appeal to people who own cameragear, but have no Pentax in their bags at the time?

[Pentikonian]

Well for the lenses there is a thread in the lenssection about R&D spendings, and some new FA and DA Limiteds would be nice.

On the other hand, you design such a camera to make money. It's a camerabody, with some known technics (electronics and sensor) and a lens (of known design just redesigned for a smaller camera) that makes a new and attractive camera to attract a new audience.

Currently the FA 31mm/f1.8 is the lens that appeals to the most (besides the ones that say NO). Looking at the price of that lens and attaching a small camera to it, with smaller flansdistance to get a real compact set, would make it more the pricerange of the Leica X1 with like 1500 euro. With the reputation of that lens, would it appeal to people who own cameragear, but have no Pentax in their bags at the time?

Maybe. I'd be worried about spreading things too thin by branching out. I'm already not too sure about the Q and how well it will do. And a "yeah, me too" Fuji/ Leica clone/ imitation? Also, doesn't changing the flange distance change the optical performance of the lens? If so, smaller body may not work well with the 31.

Pentax already has something the others do not have with the K-7/ K-5 and Limited lenses. I see those things as a strength for Pentax. I honestly believe with some changes in marketing, etc... they could pull in more new users and users from other systems - using the K-7/ K-5/ Limited lenses - and gain market share. (There are several recent Nikon to K-5 switchers I've seen just in the last few weeks - other than myself.)

Just some thoughts. I think trying to predict what camera companies are going to do is akin to reading tea leaves or casting bones... but can make for some fun discussion or thought exercises.

[tibbitts]

What does "seem to sell" mean? Do we know these cameras actually profitable?

It seems like Pentax is a small company and has enough trouble building products without quality control problems, so spreading out to additional products might not be the best use of resources.

Paul