Mark Ransom
Veteran Member
If you mean Medium Format MirrorLess, you might want to look at Fuji.
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Mirrorless mania !!
- Thread starter zakaria
- Start date
AviPro
Senior Member
Looks like the new milcs are having an effect on used dslrs
Mark Ransom
Veteran Member
If we look to Fujifilm we can see a company that knows how to invest in its business.
It was out of photography I think it was so bad that I got out of the market and then finally came back to the new system after It got out of the mantle of Nikon and stopped its SuperCCD. Now it is back with a promising system but unfortunately has a problem in its new sensors. The strategy adopted by Fuji is almost reproduced from Pentax. Note the similarities between Fuji Prime lenses and Pentax prime lenses.
Luis Fonseca
Forum Enthusiast
I don't know nothing about sales but they received a lot more requests for K-1 to K-1 mark II convertions than expected therefore the brand isn't yet dead.
Let's see what Ricoh will do in the future. I hope to see a DFA 24-104 f/4 DC WR sooner than later. It puzzles me that Sigma doens't make their 24-105 in K mount.
Regards,
Luis
Mark Ransom
Veteran Member
Doesn't seem likely, Pentax already has a 28-105. A 24-105 would be too close, and with so many unrealized lenses on the roadmap there's not a chance they'd even think about it.
I disagree. A new mount needs a roadmap and commitment to building out lenses rapidly. People don't want to buy into a new mount when someone is just testing the waters. They want to believe that the company is firmly committed. How has Pentax been doing with their K mount lens roadmap? How many lenses per year are they rolling out? If Pentax shows timidity they'll get exactly what Nikon got when they dipped their toe in the water - a whole lot of nothing. Canon mirrorless got some buyers because they're Canon.
It's too late in the game to test the waters. Testing the waters dilutes their ability to sustain their current user base -and isn't incenting enough for people to buy into the new mount.
Were the k01 and Q a try to test the watter?
I still think that the opportunity is equal for all instead of staying in a static position behind .
Canon has about 100 million lenses also Nikon this position pushed a company like Sony and fujifilm to find their own way to compete well with the big companies. The solution was mirrorless cameras. Pentax can re introduce themselves as a mirrorless camera maker. Forget the legacy lenses because no benefit for pentax from these lenses.
Alex Sarbu
Forum Pro
Doing it wrong, they might lose on both counts - not advancing with the mirrorless, and scaring the K-mount user base (because there will be many "concerned citizens" claiming that K-mount was abandoned and we should all panic)
OTOH I don't think they'd need that much, from the beginning. Important is the mount (no EF-M mistake!); but they might even go with an APS-C camera and a few lenses.
Continuing with the K-mount is a must, so they will have to keep a steady flow of K-mount products. Unfortunately, they don't really do this even now, without a (live) mirrorless line...
Alex
I'm not saying Pentax can't jump into mirrorless. I'm simply saying they would have to jump in with both feet. Essentially, commit all lens resources to lenses in the new mount - no K-mount lenses that aren't already out there or ready to release to market.
You still need a adapter so people can use their old lenses and transition to the new. You really do need a dozen lenses or so - no way Pentax is going to be able to crank out that many so you need an adapter so people can use those old lenses while you produce new ones in the new mount. But, you better get 5 lenses or so within 2 years.
My whole point is simply Pentax can't do both - they're too small. They have to choose. Commit to DSLR or commit to mirrorless.
Barry Pearson
Veteran Member
It is safe to say it will be "later", if ever! Mark Ransom has given the most significant reason. See the June 2018 roadmap below.
I'll add more:
24mm to 28mm is already covered:
D FA 15-30mm f/2.8
D FA 24-70mm f/2.8
And some of us simply use the D FA 28-105mm a number of times at the 28mm end, then stitch the results together.
I am in favour of new lenses within the existing 15-450mm range that we have from recent FF lenses. But apart from some apparently interesting wide angle lenses, I would like to see cheaper and lighter variants of the most expensive lenses in this range.
Covering that whole range is very expensive at the moment, (I'm speaking from experience), and this may discourage people from buying into the K-1-series. A cheaper and lighter alternative to the D FA 15-30mm f/2.8 (with better filter support) would probably be welcome.
--
User:Barry Pearson - Wikipedia
Sure, they could lose out if they do it wrong. As for your 2nd point, that's why the adapter is key - like Nikon did. I still believe they will fail if they try to maintain 2 mounts. If they go mirrorless, it should be a new mount with adapter so K-mount lenses were perfectly. Thus, people with old glass are comforted that their lenses will work. But all newly introduced lenses are the new mount.
See, that's my point- they can't even produce K-mount lenses soon enough - no way they're going to produce both K mount and a new mount. That's why, if they do decide to go mirrorless it has to be a full commitment to the new mount plus a commitment to an adapter that allows legacy glass owners to use their old lenses. Or, just stay with DSLR and K-mount. Either direction is a gamble, but uncertainty and trying to do both with such a, apparently, tiny amount of resources is a certain recipe for disaster. Make a decision and stick with it.
Barry Pearson
Veteran Member
That would probably alienate existing customers. And I'm not aware of any evidence that their best strategy would be total commitment.
What are they?
If you list them, perhaps we can examine the list one by one.
If a Pentax mirrorless camera with features that were useful to me were released, I would buy it, and an adapter, and use it initially with my existing lenses.
I don't accept that the only value to potential customers of a mirrorless cameras is a new set of lenses.
For interest, I'm currently running tests recording videos of what is seen though my K-1ii viewfinder when shooting in burst mode. I'm shooting videos with my Lumix LX100 close to the eyepiece, then editing and viewing the results in Premier Pro.
When I play the results so far back, (without panning so far; panning makes things worse), I wonder how anyone has tolerated the visual disturbance of the flipping-mirror view for so long!
Perhaps because many people don't pan in burst mode. Or because it has been "the least worst option", without an alternative. The latter is changing.
I know some people hate the burst mode view via an EVF. Well, that is improving over time. But the flipping mirror view of an SLR doesn't appear likely to improve significantly in future. And if many others feel the same way, there will be a shift in the marketplace in future.
But for me, that shift won't necessarily involve new lenses. That is a separate matter.
I believe they could have a "mixed economy" of cameras for years.
(Neither of us is able to prove our views!)
Alex Sarbu
Forum Pro
Yet adapters to nothing for those who don't want to go mirrorless (like me). They will not protect the K-mount in any way.
And that means destroying their K-mount user base - that which allows them to survive.
Yes, they might fail if they try to introduce another mount now; but that means there's a single option: don't go mirrorless. Yet.
OTOH I believe they really should solve their speed issue and eventually launch a large sensor mirrorless line.
Alex
Barry Pearson
Veteran Member
One of these cameras with an adapter on it is a Pentax K-mount camera!
(And any person will only need one adapter, however many such cameras they buy, and however many K-mount lenses they have or buy in future).
Every piece of information available tells us they have limited resources. They've said as much (someone even posted a quote to that effect). So, if they have to spend money designing and building lenses for 2 different mounts, it's fairly basic business that they're not going to be able to do both and do both well and rapidly. So, unless they get a doubling of money and resources, they can't do both effectively. This is different than say Sony who can throw gobs of money and resources at such an endeavor as well as absorb losses for several years.
See Barry - that's the thing. Ask the forum what the 3 lenses are and see if you get consensus. You've got people that will only use primes. You've got people that want 2 zoom lenses. You've got people that demand telephoto and others who could care less.
I agree completely. My point is Pentax doesn't have the resources to design and make and distribute lenses for 2 different mounts for a long period of time.
But, as a supplier, why would Pentax want to incur the cost of designing essentially 2 similar lenses in 2 different mounts? From a supplier side, it makes much more sesnse to just supply 1 - especially when you have limited resources (both financial as well as human and manufacturing).
Now, I get that K-mount users might not WANT that. But, let's say for the sake of argument that Pentax doesn't give you a choice. Let's say they commit to the new mount and stop designing new k-mount lenses. Let's say that, their mirrorless offering has better AF than the mirrored offering does. And, let's say that the mirrorless offering has other aspects that the faithful like about Pentax. What, exactly, are the faithful going to do? Jump ship? To where? Especially people like you who don't have an issue with mirrorless. if your k-mount lenses work with the new cameras with adapter that's better than going elsewhere. So, while you might not like it - do you dislike it enough to jump to another brand?
Absolutely. You are absolutely correct, no one can prove anything. BUT, how many lenses and bodies is Pentax releasing now per year? Now, what if they have to divide their resources in half - 1/2 to mirrorless and 1/2 to mirrored. How happy is either user base going to be with 1/2 the new releases that Pentax is giving right now?
Alex Sarbu
Forum Pro
Not exactly; it is a camera adapted to use K-mount lenses.
There are 2 important differences here:
- that we're no longer talking about a K-mount DSLR, and many of us want to stay with DSLRs (some - like me - don't even have an option).
- that K-mount would be relegated to an "legacy" position, it will be the system you're switching from - as opposed to the system you're using.
And it still won't help me in any way.
And sorry, but I think it's a bit naive to think that people would keep buying expensive K-mount lenses to use them adapted.
Last but not least, once you make people change systems there is no guarantee they'd be going for a Pentax MILC. Any strategy based on making your use base change systems is guaranteed to fail. Except if you're Canon in 1987.
Alex
That's what they have to decide. There are 3 basic options (and infinite variants):
1. Stay committed to DSLR and K-mount
2. Fully commit to mirrorless and provide a bridge to use K-mount on mirrorless
3. Try to do both - support serious R&D and rolling out of lenses/bodies in both formats
I simply think option 3 is doomed based on what we see from Pentax - how many bodies and lenses are they rolling out today? What if that gets divided in 1/2? How many people would be happy with that?
Yep, that's option 1. Commitment to DSLR k-mount. Now, this strategy is banking on the notion that 7-10 years from now enough people will hate EVF as much as you do and that EVF can't be improved to a point where whatever medical issue you or others have with it doesn't occur. If that is true, then there will be a market. If it's not true, then they're going to be way too late to the market.
And what gives you the confidence they have the financial and human resources to do both? Or do you think the parent company will double their budget? I agree it would be nice if they did both. But the amount of products they've been bringing to market and the comments others have posted (about them having limited resources) - would suggest it unlikely they could do both successfully.
Their market research has to tell them whether or not they believe DSLR is a viable market 7-10 years from now. If so, I believe the best business strategy given resource constraints is to stay the course with DSLR. If not, they need to start moving the majority of their limited resources to mirrorless so they don't have to play catch-up.
Right. That's why, if a company does this, they don't design new expensive k-mount lenses. They may continue to manufacture but all new design work is done in the new mount, not the old.
Only when there is no compatibility. The Nikon approach seems very promissing. Your existing lenses continue to work but when you buy a new lens it's designed with the new mount. If all the new cameras are mirrorless anyway your next camera isn't going to be K-mount anyway. That's very different than when Canon switched from FD to EF and the old lenses wouldn't work at all.
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum