John, I think you are missing something.
I get that. The complication is that the CAMERAS are different technologies. So, now you divide your camera R&D.
Because a new mount is better than trying to use the old mount. You get to re-design it so it works better with the new technology.
I'm not sure I get this right - but Ricoh bought Pentax from Hoya.
I agree. Tamron is not a small company, having IIRC over 4,000 people.
I disagree. A K-mount MILC means giving up on a DSLR's USP - the optical viewfinder - and keeping the disadvantages - bulkier ultra wide-angle lenses.
It results in a worse MILC; why buying it instead of the alternatives?
I still think you have a too simplistic view.
No Alex. Making one MILC do not give up on DSLR. You can still concentrate on DSLR as the main route.
It's not just flange distance. Here's a simple write-up about the Canon mounts.
sure it's problematic. Because they have to build 2 bodies for everyone else that just has to build 1. They have to build a mirrorless body to keep mirrorless happy and a DSLR body to keep the DSLR people happy.
If this MILC from Pentax is as bulky as a DSLR, has a cheap EVF, limited and super specific use cases, not really improved live view and video, how is it much better than sticking a big viewfinder on the back LCD ? (the latter being very very cheap in comparison)
Hmmmmm ... I think you are making faulty assumptions.
Yes, I know, it is more. But you cannot give the full story every time you write something. Then you will not see the forest for all trees. And, that there are more advantages to the modern mounts do not change a thing in the discussion, except strengthening my points.
I do not even know what that means.
No. How could you read that from my post? The Pentax MILC/DSLR solution do not require two of everything. Why should it? It is the Canon/Nikon DSLR/MILC solution that require two of everything as there are two mounts.
This is, of course, right. There is a reason for Nikon and Canon to change mount. The new MILC mounts are simply better. A benefit Pentax would lose in any solution as long as they do not change mount. But, accepting that fact, thy can still make some MILC.
Yes, but Ricoh is not fast. Two years is a blink of an eye for them. My expectation is that we have a new K-1 III, and some more lenses. Everything else is a surprise. Hopefully the K-1 III is something I like and buy.
Well... henricoo already mentioned two (FF and APS-C) and no special reason for them like you're enumerating below.
A while ago I said that IMHO going full-MILC with the K-mount makes no sense, but an one-off, specialized camera might.
Surely AF speed isn't the only prerequisite for sports and wildlife - the OVF is instant, unlike even the fastest EVF.I would think that the tremendous advantage of high speed and precision of AF on the modern mirrorless cameras means that Pentax is out of sport and wildlife segment. In my opinion long fast telephoto lenses would not sell well.I feel that Pentax will continue in their chosen niche market for as long as is financially reasonable.
This will almost certainly mean maintaining a relatively low release rate of new bodies, but each model will be a technological masterpiece with an advanced feature set, justifying it's relatively high price.
IMHO the days of the "intro" or "beginner" DSLR are long since past. They have been replaced by the increasingly capable bridge cameras, which are more than adequate to learn the basics of digital photography and to develop one's "craft".
Having established a list of "wants", be it ultra-wide angle, extreme telephoto, low light, shallow depth-of-field or whatever, then the budding enthusiast can move to a more advanced system, with a range of lenses to suit their needs.
This is where Pentax needs to concentrate it's efforts and again, only in my opinion, an ultra- long zoom, 200-600mm f/5.6 or similar, or a "sports lens", 400mm f/2.8, is long overdue. The wide-angle end of the market seems to be well catered for, but if Pentax don't feel they have the resources to develop a long lens for themselves, surely an established design from a third-party manufacturer could be adapted and adopted by mutual arrangement. Offering a 1.4x or 2x converter bundled with one of these new "super lenses" at a significantly reduced (realistic?) price could also make the total package more attractive
I too "really like" my K-3iii. I've stuck with Pentax simply because I've got a long-established existing range of lenses which (mostly) cover all my needs, but I feel that customers like myself are, inevitably, a dying breed!
Sorry .. but with the OVF, Pentax will never be able to achieve the tracking capabilities of R3, A1, Z9 .. or even R6/R5. .. not even talking about how slow the electronics is on K-3 III. Small buffer .. etc...
Best,
M
I doubt that this is true. An OVF is not instantaneous, when you press the shutter, the aperture has to be adjusted first, the mirror has to flip up first, the shutter then has to open again, and so on ... This is not instantaneous, either you have not thought it through properly or you have expressed yourself incorrectly.Surely AF speed isn't the only prerequisite for sports and wildlife - the OVF is instant, unlike even the fastest EVF.I would think that the tremendous advantage of high speed and precision of AF on the modern mirrorless cameras means that Pentax is out of sport and wildlife segment. In my opinion long fast telephoto lenses would not sell well.I feel that Pentax will continue in their chosen niche market for as long as is financially reasonable.
This will almost certainly mean maintaining a relatively low release rate of new bodies, but each model will be a technological masterpiece with an advanced feature set, justifying it's relatively high price.
IMHO the days of the "intro" or "beginner" DSLR are long since past. They have been replaced by the increasingly capable bridge cameras, which are more than adequate to learn the basics of digital photography and to develop one's "craft".
Having established a list of "wants", be it ultra-wide angle, extreme telephoto, low light, shallow depth-of-field or whatever, then the budding enthusiast can move to a more advanced system, with a range of lenses to suit their needs.
This is where Pentax needs to concentrate it's efforts and again, only in my opinion, an ultra- long zoom, 200-600mm f/5.6 or similar, or a "sports lens", 400mm f/2.8, is long overdue. The wide-angle end of the market seems to be well catered for, but if Pentax don't feel they have the resources to develop a long lens for themselves, surely an established design from a third-party manufacturer could be adapted and adopted by mutual arrangement. Offering a 1.4x or 2x converter bundled with one of these new "super lenses" at a significantly reduced (realistic?) price could also make the total package more attractive
I too "really like" my K-3iii. I've stuck with Pentax simply because I've got a long-established existing range of lenses which (mostly) cover all my needs, but I feel that customers like myself are, inevitably, a dying breed!
Sorry .. but with the OVF, Pentax will never be able to achieve the tracking capabilities of R3, A1, Z9 .. or even R6/R5. .. not even talking about how slow the electronics is on K-3 III. Small buffer .. etc...
Best,
M
I don't think so ...
Jozef
Compare the K-3iii in Live View mode with the A/R/Z lines.
It is, particularly since you say:
Again, look at the K-3iii in Live View mode.
Wait, none of that is automatic. A K-mount MILC, without significant R&D, is just a K-3iii stuck in Live View mode and with an EVF replacing the pentaprism viewfinder. Cropped video, contrast detect AF and so on.
In other words you're saying you wouldn't buy it unless it is comparable with the competition (and that should be "future competition", not the current cameras).
I agree with much of what Alex said in response.
Not constantly in. The mirror could be kept down e.g. for fast frame rates, or raised e.g. in low light. The latter is just like it works right now, except with a simpler, single mirror. Ricoh has a patent about that.
Hybrid viewfinder?
you are assuming the only difference regarding the new mount is the physicality of it - that's not true. The new mounts have other differences.
you're missing the part about BODIES. From a business standpoint, Pentax now has to create 2 BODIES - a mirrorless and DSLR. The other manufacturers just create one BODY - a mirrorless. So, R&D funds for BODIES are divided in Pentax.
agreed
it's absolutely their plan - and it's my entire point - a company trying to make both mirrorless AND DSLR in a declining market is very poor business. By focusing on only one technology they don't have to have a mid level DSLR AND mid level MiLC. It isn't just the lenses it's also the bodies and technology of those bodies. Having your entire user base using a single form factor greatly reduces your costs - you're not designing, building, buying parts for 2 completely different form factors. If a company sells 100 units. The total cost of goods will be less if those 100 units are all mirrorless. If 50 are mirrorless and 50 are DSLR it will have cost the company MORE to produce because of the added cost to design, develop, manufacture the DSLR on top of manufacturing the MILC.
