16bit myth

technical expert apparently does not know that well capacity + noise does not warrant anything more than 14 bits to encode the electrons even for high end P1 backs (other than marketing of course)... anything more than 14 bits will be encoding noise and as well you can do w/ dithering in raw conversion/postprocessing...

Pentax DSLRs NOT limited to entry level

The comment in your article... "The K-series DSLRs enjoy their success at the entry-level end of the market" is a bit of a simplification.

The Pentax K-5 has compared very favorably in multiple comparisons to the top of the line "mid-range" APS-C cameras from both Canon and Nikon.

Frankly the main thing that has prevented professional adoption of most of Pentax's top-end DSLRs (recently) has been Hoya's lack of interest and commitment to the camera division and especially to the back-end support that a professional photographer often requires, such as priority repairs, loaner gear and the other components of a professional support network.

Added to that of course is the fact that Hoya had NO MARKETING STRATEGY for Pentax, at least in the U.S.. And they've squandered the good will of countless photographers who have been proudly shooting Pentax for 40 and 50 years or more.

There is a great deal of hope in the Pentax user community that this will be a good thing for the Pentax brand!

Mike Riley
Virginia, USA

Buying Spree

If Ricoh are on a buying spree, why don't they buy the Contax brand and re-brnad the large format cameras as Contax. That would help fix the "image" problem in the professional market.

Marketing is important ;)

Your assumptions are somewhat dated. FWC has increased dramatically - that 16-bit capture is only 65,536 levels.

Somewhat lower than the theoretical and practical maximum capacity of a typical medium format sensor, many modern high resolution DSLRs are approaching it.

I don't disagree that even 10-bits per channel is enough to capture or display apparently smooth gradations for most applications, but the amount of optimisation needed in the pipeline would increase costs dramatically...

Most of these cameras are based around off the shelf processors and whilst improving, are still inefficient - and it's much easier to clean things up later on in the process (it's also easier to make improvements at that stage and apply them later, either via firmware or new raw processing software).

Brevity

Mike: The K-5 is a very good camera, it still competes at the higher end of the "consumer" marketplace however.

There are so many tangents you can disappear down with these things; I think my comment is fair. Technically and critically the K-5 is probably the best offering Pentax has put forward in the DSLR marketplace, it sits very well where its positioned; overall it's not changed their commercial position drastically.

Paul: I'd love to see Contax come back (as would many, I'm sure) but I don't think the Contax users lamented the loss of the brand, but the technology - which really would have very little value now overall.

Pentax 645D bashing

The 14 -16 bit still is Marketing bluff.

Current professional printer are still limited to 8bits per color channel and professional screen ae only starting with 10bit compatibility. The 14/16 bits are only usefull for tonal ajustments and digitalisation noise. The gain of 16bits over 14 is still limited in that context, even if the sensors were noiseless. So this is really a marketing measurbation.

The Pentax has against itself a few things can push pro to other brands:
- Lower pixel count (40Mpx vs up to 80)
- Lower sync speed (for studio works)
- Lower DR (compared to the latest Dalsa sensors)
- No removable back (for technical camera mounting, backup)
- No established support network

But they have a lot of advantages:
- Best in class AF,
- Weather sealing
- Best in class ergonomy
- Size and weight
- Price
- Best in class batterie life
- No removable back (for those who prefer no dust)

Saying that the 14/16 difference is the main reason for pro MF user not to rush to Pentax is not really relevant IMO.

So far pro repports of the 645D are very positive, all legacy 645 film glass are now available (apparently new batches are produced in Vietnam) and the first reports on the 25mm/f4 are very positive.

Pentax is actually known to have a very good processing knwoledge for their APSC line, so I don't think Ricoh has anything to add in value there.

Ricoh has a very strong, if quirky, compact line. While Pentax has a weak compact line and a stronger APSC and MF line.

The only that Pentax is missing at the moment would be a 35mm "FF" camera. But having such would place them by far as the most complete camera maker of the place (neither Canon or Nikon are doing Medium Format or mirrorless)

So what?
Ricoh is a considerably bigger company as a whole, but is smaller in the camera segment. Their dedication to produce quirky and relevant compact cameras shows that they are not buying Pentax just to squize the milk cow.

When Hoya bought Pentax, the first "Hoya" camera was the k-m more than a year after the buyout. So I don't think we will see the vision of Ricoh before the end of 2012. In the mean time we will get a replacement for the K-5 and the K-r, we will see if the Q is anywhere near a sucess (and at which price) We will also more likely see also more lenses for the Q and the 645D.

What will Ricoh do in the future, we don't know (and maybe Ricoh as well don't knwo exactly) A GX-r module with Q-mount? All compacts under Ricoh brand, all higher end under Pentax? An M-mount rangefinder based on K-5 sensor and electronics? A FF camera? (provided they can source a sensor) An APSC compact a la Leica X1/Fuji X100? Or rebrand everything under Ricoh, screw the SLR line with late release of outdated poorly made camera and end the carnage in 5 years time?

The Internet is a great place in the sense that you can go back an read how wrong they were a few year ago. A buyout of a company with such a strong background as Pentax is delicate indeed.

sense or sensors

It costs to produce full-frame sensors, and it costs to produce excellent new lenses and Pentax wanted both but did not have the money or backing from their owners- because if they had it Hoya would not have sold them out.

This mutually advantageous marriage of convenience has been made in a country where at least they know how to make cameras lenses and sensors.

As an englishman I can see little to criticize, so why do so?

If only photography was as evolved as its technologies- now, that IS a valid subject.

Gear cannot be "professional"

Mike Riley is spot on. There is very little limiting about the Pentax K-5 for professional use. However the complete lack of marketing presence (to build mind share) and a pro support network is what really holds the brand back. If Ricoh can invest sufficiently to change that, it would be a significant step forward for the brand.

Is the question headline answered in the article's body?

Is the question headline answered in the article's body?
I don't think so. The very intriguing headline made me read eagerly the article and when I finished it, I just had a feeling of disappointment, because I used my time not for a bold business decision analyze, but a journalistic bla-bla with not much content.

Isn't a little bit too bold to postulate that Pentax Q is "a direct competitor to the GXR", when one has a sensor 1/8th in surface of the other?

GXR & Q - different routes...

The GXR's sensor area depends on the module attached; the majority of sales seem to be focused on the compact packages with P10 or S10.

Very good packages for a compact, admittedly, but crucially available at a lower cost as a complete camera.

If the reason for the GXR is to provide flexibility for compact users, the Q is a very strong competitor, albeit one offering a different route to that solution. The Q's optics may be much better than the GXR compact sensor modules can offer (Ricoh's are good though so I wouldn't want to assume that outright); the Q will almost certainly be cheaper.

The GXR's A12 competition is as much the Sigma DP series, or the Fuji X100, given that the DP costs less (street prices) than the APS modules and the X100 is only slightly more for a completely different class and quality of camera.

To be honest I've always felt the GXR made less sense with the A12 modules at their SRP, they have too many compromises for the price and treating it as an interchangeable lens system the modules are quite bulky - if the M-mount module goes ahead though, it may put a very different spin on the camera's abilities particularly if they do something clever like losing the AA filter, having an electronic coupling for the rangefinder cam (whilst still offering live view, a clever overlaid rangefinder would be lovely) and maybe trying to optimise performance with Voigtländer's lower-cost lenses. Instant access to the 15mm without the "can't see what I'm shooting" of a rangefinder without OVF.