Interview with Mr. Hiraku Kawauchi, the Product Manager of Pentax Japan.

[markus maurer]

<p>Pentaxforums just sent me this link by mail, thanks!<br>

http://www.pentaxforums.com/news/exclusive-pentax-interview-cp-2012.html</p>

[mugundhan_varadanarayanan]

<p>Interesting interview<br>

It looks like they wanted to come with a camera optimized for video, so they took out the mirror, then they thought people like to use telephoto lenses during video, so made a bigger body for stability<br>

I think we are going to see new zoom (esp. telephoto) lenses made for K-01 where the bulk of the lens extend into the K-01 body so that body + lens is still compact for video shooting<br>

Basically even though K-01 is K-mount compatible, it is best with newer lenses optimized for K-01 and which cannot be used in other lenses....<br>

So target is new users I guess</p>

[audun_sjoeseth1]

<p>I'd like to combine the K-01 with a very compact and very good WA zoom with the K-5 and my Pentax glass.</p>

[stemked]

Thanks for posting the interview Markus. Very interesting'. One of the most frank talks I have ever heard from a

Pentax exec. Personally I really appreciate his candidness. I also like that he isn't spilling the beans about all if

Pentax's secret plans.

 

The only other thing I would have asked is what stratagey is Pentax going to use to make their products better known

and distributed. I'm tired of going to my local camera store and getting an earful of what is wrong with Pentax USA

reps.

[mattluther]

<p>Im not that impressed with the questions that partly went very much into detail. And it seems Pentax doesn't still have a clear understanding about what should be Pentax strengths, except being something else than everybody else. Just filling the gaps other brands may or may not leave will not be very profitable or even easy to do.<br>

It's not all about design. It's also about making choices. Take it from Steve Jobs.</p>

[anirbanbanerjee]

<p>So, the newer lenses specifically for the K-01 cannot be used on the true SLRS.<br>

In that case, I fail to understand why Pentax could not have come up with a more compact MILC bundled with an adapter for the true K-mount SLR lenses and a chunky grip for those who want 'stability'.</p>

[mugundhan_varadanarayanan]

<p>Anirban,<br>

The newer 40mm can be used in normal DSLRs but bigger lenses that protrude deep into the "mirror" box will affect the mirror in normal DSLR<br>

Also most of the other MILCs are not really compact as soon as you put a lens, so if Pentax can come up with newer lenses fast enough esp telephoto zooms like 18-200mm that can protrude into mirror box, then Pentax can claim they have the compact solution<br>

I was reading cnet handson, they say K-01 looks fast enough in CDAF with some legacy lenses, if true, K-01 might turn out worthwhile</p>

[rparmar]

<p>Bottom line is that Pentax will be spending R&D and capital on new lenses for the toy Q system. And tiny lenses to make the over-large K-01 not look quite so bad. Since these won't be compatible with the rest of the APS-C line, the fact they are K-mount is completely irrelevant.</p>

<p>Meanwhile the 645D has only one lens in the pipeline, there are no new DSLRs announced and people are still crying for either a full-frame, a smaller mirrorless, or particular lenses to make the APS-C line complete.</p>

<p>No, I do not understand Pentax one bit. No matter who owns them! The K-5 was remarkable but they don't know how to capitalise on it.</p>

[andrewg_ny]

<blockquote>

<p><em>"Since these won't be compatible with the rest of the APS-C line, the fact they are K-mount is completely irrelevant."</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>For what it's worth, Pentax *could* introduce a full-time MLU (Live View Only) mode for DSLRs to allow some degree of compatibility. Presumeably K-01 is the best-yet LV model, but there's no reason that its capabilities couldn't be duplicated in upcoming DSLRs.</p>

<p>Also, you didn't mention that there are several roadmapped SLR lenses in the pipeline as well (unless the purpose of "particular" was to exclude lenses that don't interest you). It looks to me like Pentax is hedging their bets a bit, giving all their product ranges at least the appearance of activity.</p>

[rparmar]

<p>My use of the word "particular" was to acknowledge that different people have different needs, many of which are not being met. I don't know why you think I am only considering my own requirements. I don't own a 645D, I don't require a full-frame camera, and I don't mind the colour yellow. Apparently, then, I am able to analyse from a perspective other than my own. Perhaps that's outside your expectations, hence the insinuation in your post.</p>

<p>I only consider products that exist, not those that might in some idyllic future come to pass. Because by then all the competition has newer (maybe better) gear as well. Besides, I am more comfortable with predicting the present than predicting the future.</p>

<p>"Hedging bets" equates to "spreading resources too thin" for a company with small market share. I'd like to know the logic of dropping the 645D into a market where having a complete and robust system is almost a requirement for success, while at the same time supporting a toy camera (the Q) with multiple lenses in a market that only wants the next cool thing. Sounds completely backwards to me. And this interview only confirms that Pentax (still) don't have a clue.</p>

<p>Like Anirban Banerjee said, "I fail to understand why Pentax could not have come up with a more compact MILC bundled with an adapter for the true K-mount SLR lenses and a chunky grip for those who want 'stability'." Given that they are going to be producing glass only compatible with the K-01, there is absolutely nothing to be lost in doing this for a smaller system.</p>

<p>But I guess we'll leave versatile and forward-thinking systems to Olympus, Fuji and others. Not being a brand slave, I am happy with that.</p>

[laur1]

<blockquote>

<p>It looks like they wanted to come with a camera optimized for video, so they took out the mirror, then they thought people like to use telephoto lenses during video, so made a bigger body for stability</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's a good rationalization, but not a good reason :)<br>

<br /></p>

<blockquote>

<p>Also most of the other MILCs are not really compact as soon as you put a lens</p>

</blockquote>

<p>They are *more* compact though.<br>

<br /></p>

<blockquote>

<p>And tiny lenses to make the over-large K-01 not look quite so bad. Since these won't be compatible with the rest of the APS-C line, the fact they are K-mount is completely irrelevant.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The irony of this aspect is delicious.</p>

[donnie_strickland]

<p>"We are going to focus on what others are not making."</p>

<p>Hmmm...</p>

[mountainvisions]

<p>Am I the only moron (and I say that as kindly as I can) that feels like Pentax/Ricoh wasting a ton of a money on R&D and an entirely new lens roadmap is a recipe for us all the be shooting Nikon or Canon sooner than later?<br>

<br />Remember a company called Minolta? They made really nice cameras but they kept making poor business decisions and then they didn't exist.</p>

<p>If Pentax is going to go full frame, they need to have the greatest execution ever and they need to do it at a price point that they can sell. Or they can try the Leica boutique style business model and see if that works. But either way, they either need to do it cheaply or make the cameras so classy that they can skip the volume sales.</p>

[waltflanagan]

<blockquote>

<p>Remember a company called Minolta? They made really nice cameras but they kept making poor business decisions and then they didn't exist.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Minolta as a company may not exist but many of the employees and products live on under different company names. Konica bought Minolta in 2003 and then sold the camera division to Sony in 2006. Sony's Alpha DSLRs can still use Minolta lenses so I don't think Minolta fans should be that upset. Pentax has been bought and sold in the last few years just as many times and the product lines are still going.</p>

[william_koehler1]

<p>A few of the answers with respect to the K-01 did not make sense to me:</p>

<p>1. "An optical viewfinder will be quite meaningless as all of the K-mount lenses can be used."</p>

<p>I understand that an optical viewfinder won't go on the K-01, but what that has to do with the lenses escapes me. It has to do with the lack of a mirror box.</p>

<p>2. "As you could see (in the K-01), an electric interface for an EVF is not present."</p>

<p>Actually, an electric interface for an EVF is very definitly present. It is called the HDMI port. Unless he is telling us it isn't live while on preview/record but only during playback.</p>

[donnie_strickland]

<p>1. Since there is no mirror box, an optical viewfinder would indeed be meaningless since there would be no practical way to change the view for every K-mount lens which could possibly be used; i.e., no optical VF could cover the range from fisheye to 600mm.</p>

<p>2. I understood him to mean "an electric interface [<strong>on the flash shoe</strong>] for an EVF is not present." At the time, they were discussing the use of the flash shoe for purposes besides triggering the flash.</p>

[steven_moseley1]

<p>It seems to me that Pentax are in grave danger of following Minolta.</p>

<p>The Q system is a joke that no one wants, ditto the ridiculous K-01. They seem to have no idea at all of what market they want to compete in. They cannot compete in the full frame arena, Sony who have FAR more money to throw at full frame have already learned that it is an expensive mistake to take that route.<br>

It seems to me that the most sensible route is to grow a top notch APS-C system and combine that with some 'retro' APS-C DSLR's. I still cannot work out why no one has released a metal bodied simple DSLR in the style of Pentax MX/LX, Nikon FM etc.</p>

<p>Steve.M.</p>