Pentax is investigating a mirrorless system camera

*falconeye* · 09-16-2009, 04:59 AM

I haven't seen it mentioned in the forum:

"Pentax is investigating the possibility of launching a Micro Four Thirds-style camera, to compete against the likes of Olympus and Panasonic."

from [Pentax mulls Micro Four Thirds-style camera news - Amateur Photographer - news, camera reviews, lens reviews, camera equipment guides, photography courses, competitions, photography forums]

*séamuis* · 09-16-2009, 05:08 AM

so, are we talking a camera with a new mount, or is Pentax looking to use the 4/3 mount?

*falconeye* · 09-16-2009, 05:27 AM

Originally Posted by séamuis

so, are we talking a camera with a new mount, or is Pentax looking to use the 4/3 mount?

From what I read, it says a xxx-style camera which is different from saying a xxx camera. Adding -style to the text means that they are investigating the concept, not the mount.

*séamuis* · 09-16-2009, 06:07 AM

Originally Posted by falconeye

From what I read, it says a xxx-style camera which is different from saying a xxx camera. Adding -style to the text means that they are investigating the concept, not the mount.

I wonder then, if we will see a system similar to the old auto110. a compact separate system with a small set of dedicated lenses and accessories. this would be wise in my opinion, as just releasing a body and one or two lenses, will not separate it enough from the current crop of micro 4/3. the big deal with these cameras for a lot of buyers is the ability to mount just about every lens out there, but obviously this does not go very well for sales of lenses, just bodies. Pentax would need to first develop a nice set of dedicated lenses. if they do, it could be a serious threat to the micro 4/3 scene. sounds interesting, and this actually isnt the first time Pentax has had interest in a mirrorless camera, if I remember correctly they have already had a prototype a number of years ago.

I just hope they make the right decisions, as id hate to see them do something rather dumb, like samsung has with the NX. they really need a whole set, and they need to make it small.

I will be interested to hear any more rumors as time goes on. sounds like a neat concept.

thibs · 09-16-2009, 06:13 AM

Pentax, if they decide to launch such mirrorless camera has to chose:

- go with micro43 (if they let Pentax doing so) and share the mount/lenses and sensors (easiest thing but how can they differentiate?)

- go with Samsung (If Samsung let them) and share the mount/lenses (but is that any advantage than going on alone? Samsung NX flash system isn't even compatible with Pentax system)

- go alone, obviously.

IMO option number 2 is the worst one for reasons I gave.

Caat · 09-16-2009, 06:32 AM

Originally Posted by thibs

Pentax, if they decide to launch such mirrorless camera has to chose:

- go with micro43 (if they let Pentax doing so) and share the mount/lenses and sensors (easiest thing but how can they differentiate?)

- go with Samsung (If Samsung let them) and share the mount/lenses (but is that any advantage than going on alone? Samsung NX flash system isn't even compatible with Pentax system)

- go alone, obviously.

IMO option number 2 is the worst one for reasons I gave.

I would think 2 is better than 1. After all Pentax's flash system would be incompatible with m4/3s as well.

Also an APS-C based micro-mount has inherent noise advantages over a 4/3s sensor (however slight this may or may not be). Additionally Pentax and Samsung already have an existing working relationship.

Going alone would be better if Pentax had money coming out its ears because it could design a new mount to create the best possible compatibility with the K-mount. But it doesn't, so it isn't.

Regardless I am surprised Pentax seems to have changed its tune so publicly about micro-mounts. They had said they had no interest in them. Whilst companies often change their minds about things like this I wouldn't expect them to do so in this manner unless they were seriously looking at.

thibs · 09-16-2009, 06:36 AM

Originally Posted by Caat

I would think 2 is better than 1. After all Pentax's flash system would be incompatible with m4/3s as well.

Sure, but that would mean a line of Pentax APS-C EVIL sharing its mount and sensors with Samsung but not its flash system? Well possible but very weird IMO.

Mats · 09-16-2009, 06:57 AM

Hi,
Why not keep the mount, with reduced sensor to mount distance?
This would mean:
- P can sell an adapter (with motor) for using todays lenses on a mirrorless camera
- New line of lenses with shorter "sensor to mount" distance to be introduced. Lens type recognized electronically by camera.

If a lens designed for a mirrorless system is put on a DSLR with mirror, then just flash an error message on the screen.

/Mats

thibs · 09-16-2009, 07:14 AM

Originally Posted by Mats

Hi,
Why not keep the mount, with reduced sensor to mount distance?
This would mean:
- P can sell an adapter (with motor) for using todays lenses on a mirrorless camera
- New line of lenses with shorter "sensor to mount" distance to be introduced. Lens type recognized electronically by camera.

If a lens designed for a mirrorless system is put on a DSLR with mirror, then just flash an error message on the screen.

/Mats

Because of mount diameter and mandatory mechanical parts that Kmount has.
However, if possible, that would be VERY good.

yipchunyu · 09-16-2009, 07:16 AM

is it possible to add a very thin len (in an adapter) to shorten the registered distance?

thibs · 09-16-2009, 07:33 AM

Originally Posted by yipchunyu

is it possible to add a very thin len (in an adapter) to shorten the registered distance?

It is. Some mount adapters work that way in fact. But losing quality is a hard decision to make IMO.

**Peter Zack** · 09-16-2009, 07:59 AM

As much as this all sounds interesting, I think it's nuts.

1) Was 110 a success? I suspect it wasn't. Very cool camera but had a small following. A small camera would have an internet and magazine buzz for 3 weeks and then fade away with the newest 24x36 body offered by someone else.
2) how many posts/ reviews/ comments etc on the internet do you see demanding smaller cameras with smaller sensors? Vs 24x36 sensor cameras. Sure the people that want and will actually buy a more expensive 24x36 sensor camera are also a limited number but a far greater number than an entirely new mount comact rangefinder camera. Particularly since they couldn't use their K mount lenses on it.
3) does Pentax have the store front space and the ad budget to even have something like this noticed? Nope. This isn't 1970 when they were competing at the top of the pile and could command shelf space with retailers and had advertising budgets to support the brand/model/concept. Heck there aren't any retailers left now and the magazines are all bias toward Canikon.

For a company with limited resources I think this is completely insane. Interesting but insane. They could develop a camera and a series of lenses for it to try and boost lens sales. This is a finacial weakness (for Pentax) of the backwards compatable K mount. Or they could make the mount 4/3 compatable and only sell bodies. Body only sales are a money looser and not worth the R&D time and expense.

All this while the APSc owners still want holes in the K mount lens line filled, a better flash unit added, more accesories needed for upper end users and a 24x36 body.

If you haven't noticed, we've recently lost quite a few very good shooters from just our forum alone. All of them have opted for a 24x36 camera body. Why? They are getting paid for their work and need better high ISO ablity and low light focus. The K-7 is better at the focus thing but APSc will never compete with 24x36 at high ISO's. I've often considered this myself and keep waiting. Someday I won't wait any longer. I can't risk it or afford to.

johnmflores · 09-16-2009, 08:05 AM

Originally Posted by Mats

Hi,
Why not keep the mount, with reduced sensor to mount distance?
This would mean:
- P can sell an adapter (with motor) for using todays lenses on a mirrorless camera
- New line of lenses with shorter "sensor to mount" distance to be introduced. Lens type recognized electronically by camera.

/Mats

Exactly. A DA40 pancake with an adapter (1cm deep?) would still be smaller than most 40s.

*falconeye* · 09-16-2009, 08:10 AM

Pentax should be able to blow the competition out of the field.

I consider the microFT to be a failure. Not market-wise (it opens a new market segment for expansion and "drives the market"). But technology-wise: it is aimed to bring SLR image quality into the pocket camera market but doesn't. Even the newest E-P1 with all its sacrifices is way too bulky for this.

Pentax has shown that it really can deliver on such promises.

I would expect great things from a mirrorless 22mm sensor camera from Pentax. Something which would make the competion pale to gray.

I append a size comparison Pentax/Olympus for the 22mm class (sizes are correctly scaled!). And this Pentax even is a full pentaprism SLR. Now imagine the removal of the mirror. And no, electronics/sensor doesn't add bulk. Just look at P&S cameras.

Below, I show two images showing just how ridiculously bulky mFT really is. To be fair, I concede that the Pentax 110 system is limited to max. f/2.8 (leaf shutter). But the image quality is excellent enough to make mFT users adapt the lenses ...

Pål Jensen · 09-16-2009, 08:32 AM

Originally Posted by Peter Zack

As much as this all sounds interesting, I think it's nuts.

1) Was 110 a success? I suspect it wasn't. Very cool camera but had a small following. A small camera would have an internet and magazine buzz for 3 weeks and then fade away with the newest 24x36 body offered by someone else..

I think it must have been a sucess in Japan at least. According to the numbers I have, they sold 1,5 million lenses for it.....