johnvanr wrote:
I don’t think Ricoh ever really tried and the move to mirrorless was where their lack of R&D effort forced them to either commit or potentially sink.
.
The Ricoh GXR body and five sensor/lens modules, plus a APS-C Leica M mount unit, was a worthy mirrorless move, and well respected.
Upon the purchase of Pentax this system died; to this day, I consider this pivot a massive strategic mistake.
FrozenInTime wrote:
The Ricoh GXR body and five sensor/lens modules, plus a APS-C Leica M mount unit, was a worthy mirrorless move, and well respected.
Upon the purchase of Pentax this system died; to this day, I consider this pivot a massive strategic mistake.
Most of my Pentax 35mm experience is 20-25 years ago. I was given a bunch of K1000s spotmatics and lenses, and to sell them I had to test them. I thought they were well made and of good quality. Recently, I got back into medium format film and digital and Pentax was an obvious choice Sharing lenses in the 645 system etc. I'm impressed with the 645, 645N, and the 645Z. I even bought a rather sophisticated PC-555 data point and shoot for $11, because I wanted it's case. It has excellent auto focus and auto exposure - a true point and shoot. It would be a loss if they gave up, and I hope there is some new direction they intend to go.
James Markus wrote:
Most of my Pentax 35mm experience is 20-25 years ago. I was given a bunch of K1000s spotmatics and lenses, and to sell them I had to test them. I thought they were well made and of good quality. Recently, I got back into medium format film and digital and Pentax was an obvious choice Sharing lenses in the 645 system etc. I'm impressed with the 645, 645N, and the 645Z. I even bought a rather sophisticated PC-555 data point and shoot for $11, because I wanted it's case. It has excellent auto focus and auto exposure - a true point and shoot. It would be a loss if they gave up, and I hope there is some new direction they intend to go. ...Show more →
I feel Pentax peaked with the MX, PK then LX, PKA; the introduction of AF set 35mm build quality back for many years before the limited lenses appeared; the 645 series remained impressive to the end.
FrozenInTime wrote:
I feel Pentax peaked with the MX, PK then LX, PKA; the introduction of AF set 35mm build quality back for many years before the limited lenses appeared; the 645 series remained impressive to the end.
AF brought about the "streamlined, plastic, modular body look" that ruined the aesthetics of their classic cameras.
If Pentax were to release a full frame, manual focus MX that can be used with its manual focus K mount lenses; and produce it with ZERO video features, it would be a hit!
The "content creator crowd" has plenty of plastic hybrids to choose from, so Pentax needs to be different. Pentax has the technology to create a digital, full frame MX. It would compete with Leica if they did this.
snegron7 wrote:
AF brought about the "streamlined, plastic, modular body look" that ruined the aesthetics of their classic cameras.
If Pentax were to release a full frame, manual focus MX that can be used with its manual focus K mount lenses; and produce it with ZERO video features, it would be a hit!
The "content creator crowd" has plenty of plastic hybrids to choose from, so Pentax needs to be different. Pentax has the technology to create a digital, full frame MX. It would compete with Leica if they did this.
I think the MX is too small to make a full frame DSLR the same size. But K2 / LX / Spotmatic size could work. Likely it would be a bit deeper though because of the rear LCD assembly - more like the digital KP but with a bigger viewfinder.
Not sure it should be manual focus only. The Limited lenses have a strong reputation after all.. but I agree it needs to offer a great manual focus experience and imo they should release a few manual focus Super Takumars with it.
FrozenInTime wrote:
I feel Pentax peaked with the MX, PK then LX, PKA; the introduction of AF set 35mm build quality back for many years before the limited lenses appeared; the 645 series remained impressive to the end.
I feel they peaked w the K2. The MX was too small, you could not see the entire VF as the eye relief was not enough - you had to jam your eye in there and look around, the exposure LEDs were too dim to see in bright light, and the shutter speed dial was way too stiff to turn.
I liked my LX but the electronics go wonky whereas the same year F3 would still be reliable.The electronics were totally fine in my older K2. Plus the black paint on brass was gorgeous!
fjablo wrote:
I think the MX is too small to make a full frame DSLR the same size. But K2 / LX / Spotmatic size could work. Likely it would be a bit deeper though because of the rear LCD assembly - more like the digital KP but with a bigger viewfinder.
Not sure it should be manual focus only. The Limited lenses have a strong reputation after all.. but I agree it needs to offer a great manual focus experience and imo they should release a few manual focus Super Takumars with it.
If the "digital MX" doesn't include video recording features (no secondary cooling system required) or AF features, I'm sure they can squeeze a basic FF sensor into an MX-sized body. Remember that the original film MX still had space for the 35mm film roll plus the film advance mechanism, and it had space for the electronics needed for the metering system.
If Ricoh can fit an APS-C sensor into a GRIII, they can surely fit a FF sensor in a larger MX body.
Desmolicious wrote:
I feel they peaked w the K2. ..
I think they peaked with the LX [1980]. I had a full system. Shot sports and BIF at 2 fps, in the late '90s and early 2k. At one point, I thought about getting a bulk back and motor drive (5 fps), but then digital. The film vs digital cost comparison was a real thing, when you're shooting 30+ rolls a month (on a part-time basis). I still have my K2 [1975] and a SuperProgram [1983].
Let me rephrase that; I also used the MZ-5N and MZ-7, which were very competent. I'd love to get a MZ-S, but I just can't pull the trigger on it, when I have a pair of Canon EOS 7's. The EOS film bodies can shoot both my EOS and Pentax-K lenses (plus Contax, LR, Oly, etc.).
hkrazerx wrote:
How well are the Ricoh GR cameras selling? Maybe they need more capacity for better selling products than the Pentax line.
The camera division was up like 5% at their fiscal year-end (March), reportedly based much on the GR sales. They're projecting growth this year, but no specific plans were mentioned.
After a few days of interacting on this thread, and posting on other Pentax-specific forums, I've come to terms that Pentax is no more.
In a nutshell, the two things main things that caused the demise of Pentax were:
1. It's lack of originality. Any inexpensive, entry level Nikon or Canon dslr has a prism with a mirror. Pentax wasted way too much effort trying to catch up/compete with with other dslr manufacturers. Instead of releasing a truly unique image capturing machine (unlike any of the plastic hybrid monstrosities of othe camera manufacturers), Pentax became complacent and content being a "one trick pony" (mirrored dslr in a mirrorless world). Their monochrome camera was cute, but why couldn't they have made it a FF instead of an APS-C? Again, they could've gone with a retro design like the Nikon ZF, but they didn't.
2. It's customer base perpetuated Pentax's shortcomings through their snobbery and stubbornness. Most Pentax fans are still waiting for some new release from Pentax that will be better than a Sony, Canon or Nikon mirrorless camera. They scoff at the idea of Pentax producing a "tribute to a classic" camera. Newsflash; that will never happen.
The joy of using vintage cameras for me is over. It's not the way of Japanese manufacturing development philosophy, beliefs or practices. None of the camera manufacturers in Japan place any value in the history of their brand. As a result, it's not worth being a "loyal fan" of any of them anymore. From now on I'll be looking for the cheapest cameras possible that can produse great AI images. After all, cameras are just disposable tools aren't they? Why waste money then on expensive, disposable tools?
After a few days of interacting on this thread, and posting on other Pentax-specific forums, I've come to terms that Pentax is no more.
In a nutshell, the two main things that caused the demise of Pentax were:
1. It's lack of originality. Any inexpensive, entry level Nikon or Canon dslr has a prism with a mirror. Pentax wasted way too much effort trying to catch up/compete with with other dslr manufacturers. Instead of releasing a truly unique image-capturing machine (unlike any of the plastic hybrid monstrosities of other camera manufacturers), Pentax became complacent and content being a "one trick pony" (mirrored dslr in a mirrorless world). Their monochrome camera was cute, but why couldn't they have made it a FF instead of an APS-C? Again, they could've gone with a retro design like the Nikon ZF, but they didn't.
2. It's customer base perpetuated Pentax's shortcomings through their snobbery and stubbornness. Most Pentax fans are still waiting for some new release from Pentax that will be better than a Sony, Canon or Nikon mirrorless camera. They scoff at the idea of Pentax producing a "tribute to a classic" camera. Newsflash; that will never happen.
The joy of using vintage cameras for me is over. It's not the way of Japanese manufacturing development philosophy, beliefs or practices. None of the camera manufacturers in Japan place any value whatsoever in the history of their brand. As a result, it's not worth being a "loyal fan" of any of them anymore. From now on I'll be looking for the cheapest cameras possible that can produce great AI images. After all, cameras are just disposable tools aren't they? Then why waste money on expensive, disposable tools?
Pentax was never a premium brand that I could recall. Back in the day they were common as entry level. It did not seem they could compete with the Fuji X in APS-C lately. I don't have enough experience with the design and construction to understand you concern, but probably the cost is a factor. Did they not use a good rigid aluminum or magnesium frame under the exterior reinforced resins? I'm not expecting Canon 1 series or single digit Nikon D or Z series quality, but were they not at the mid-grade level?
snegron7 wrote:
None of the camera manufacturers in Japan place any value whatsoever in the history of their brand.
This is just completely incorrect, not sure why you believe this. Nikon especially is deeply proud of the history of the company, and I presume other brands are too.
EB-1 wrote:
Pentax was never a premium brand that I could recall. Back in the day they were common as entry level. It did not seem they could compete with the Fuji X in APS-C lately. I don't have enough experience with the design and construction to understand you concern, but probably the cost is a factor. Did they not use a good rigid aluminum or magnesium frame under the exterior reinforced resins? I'm not expecting Canon 1 series or single digit Nikon D or Z series quality, but were they not at the mid-grade level?
EBH
Pentax was quite a reputable brand in the film days and was the first to introduce many innovations. Many serious photography students started with Pentax because it was not very expensive, was very reliable, and produced great results.
carstenw wrote:
This is just completely incorrect, not sure why you believe this. Nikon especially is deeply proud of the history of the company, and I presume other brands are too.
I completely disagree. Nikon is a 100% forward-thinking company. They are about "innovation", not preservation. Look at how they put almost no thought whatsoever regarding backward compatibility with their Z mount. I felt that pain firsthand when none of my AF-D lenses were able to AF via Nikon's F to Z mount adapter. That was the nail in the coffin that lead me to Canon. Canon's EF to RF mount allowed FULL compatibility with older EF lenses on new RF mount bodies. And don't think Canon created that adapter solely for the benefit of their loyal customers; Canon just didn't have enough RF lenses in their lineup to make their new RF cameras appealing to potential buyers.
As for Sony, they have no history dating back to the film days.
In the end, camera manufacturers exist 100% to make a profit. Some of us naive consumers attatch sentimental value to perceived "iconic" cameras. The moment we accept that cameras were created to be only tools, and detach our artistic emotional bonds with them, the easier it will be to move on and not waste outrageous amounts of money on them.
