[theperception2008]

If Ricoh makes Kaf3 an open mount, the aftermarket support will crop up overnight. Google's Android OS is a great example of open source technology that has only furthered Google's dominance in the mobile market. Make it so that lenses are free to use the Kaf3 mount, while cameras are licensed at very affordable rates but in exchange must meet certain specifications such as being WR to specified standards of course. Ricoh makes the top end camera's and top tier lenses with the open market making up for the holes in the lens and camera lineups. Just my .02. :-)

[theperception2008]

P.s. Also Sigma's mount swap option on their newer lenses supports the idea that companies will prosper more if they make their ecosystem more accessible. Apple being the exception in this case.

Just think about the possibilities, Cine companies making K-mount 4k cameras, true no current lens will work well with on board audio recording due to loud focus mechanism(s), but that doesn't preclude the possibility of a silent improved screw drive motor especially if Kaf3 was an open mount. R&D would rise and the advancements would be inevitable.

[Docrwm]

The mount swap only works if the lens already comes in that mount. It's also not a new idea.

Pentax needs to offer a full range of cameras, lenses, and accessories before others will jump into the system. Just dust off some of the old accessories and put them back into production would be a good start.

[Aristophanes]

If Ricoh makes Kaf3 an open mount, the aftermarket support will crop up overnight.

Pentax sells optics. They make cameras to sell lenses. The money is in the glass, not in the consumer electronics a camera is now.

No one will license a mechanical camera system because it is free to make your own mount (e-mount, x-mount). The money is in proprietary, not open or licensed.

That's why Sony and Panasonic and others pair up with optical companies for exclusives.

So an open mount would kill Pentax.

In the longer term mounts will become more proprietary as functions like AF will be chipped to work only with, say, Canon glass.

Cross-mount use has only ever been a tiny fraction of the ILC market in any case.

[jatrax]

So an open mount would kill Pentax.

How closed is k-mount at this time? Has any patents expired?

And Sigma, Tamron, Samyang and others already make lenses for k-mount so it is not 'closed' as in no one can use it. I don't know if they license it from Pentax or not but either they do or it is no longer under patent protection.

I don't think making the mount 'open' as in 'open source' will make any difference. Anyone who wants to make lenses for k-mount already does.

But, one area that the OP's idea might apply to would be an API to the camera itself so that app developers could create tethering or anything else that their creative minds come up with.

[Aristophanes]

How closed is k-mount at this time? Has any patents expired?

And Sigma, Tamron, Samyang and others already make lenses for k-mount so it is not 'closed' as in no one can use it. I don't know if they license it from Pentax or not but either they do or it is no longer under patent protection.

I don't think making the mount 'open' as in 'open source' will make any difference. Anyone who wants to make lenses for k-mount already does.

But, one area that the OP's idea might apply to would be an API to the camera itself so that app developers could create tethering or anything else that their creative minds come up with.

I believe k-mount is a non-defendable mechanism meaning the patent has expired.

Tamron and Sigma reverse engineer.

Canon makes it very hard to reverse engineer. I suspect they will make it harder to preserve optical sales which is the major revenue stream for their sand foundry.

An optical company will keep their API for optical information proprietary in the future I predict because they don't want their sand in front of the commodity camera body. Or they will do limited licensing, such as Fuji with Zeiss (which is really just a form of outsourcing). AF and lens correction in-camera can be chipped tot he lens itself in such a way as to prevent reverse engineering. I believe this is already done in Mamiya/Phase One medium format and with Hasselblad (not sure but I would not be surprised).

An open API for networking to mobile and desktop OS's would be ideal, but an optical company's crown jewels are the working knowledge of its optics.

I was working with Apple on the Pansonic LX5 for Aperture as a beta tester and Panasonic would not release their distortion correction code for that camera. A tiff with Apple or whatever, it was no something that could be reverse engineered without ripping the optics apart and rebuilding the camera using different software. Apple would not do that (cost) so the LX5 had no RAW import for ages until Panasonic relented.

I predict if sales contract in the ILC sector the big guns (Canon and Nikon) will make it much harder to reverse engineer and we will see in the future lenses and mount data based on optical performance made more proprietary, not less. This is how glass grinders keep their product from becoming a commodity in front of someone else's chips.

[ruggiex]

Didn't Sony 'open up' e-mount? Why is it such a big deal to do the same for Pentax?

Sony Global - News Releases - Sony Discloses Basic Specifications of the "E-mount" for Interchangeable Single Lens Cameras without Fee

It says 'basic' information so they probably only disclose enough that 3rd party can make a lens compatible with the system without proprietary information about algorithms they use for advance features.

[6BQ5]

Does anyone think a low priced, slightly less intricate DSLR body priced at $200 would have traction? Or, would that start a slippery slope downhill toward commodity DSLRs like what P&S cameras turned into?

[Aristophanes]

Didn't Sony 'open up' e-mount? Why is it such a big deal to do the same for Pentax?

Sony Global - News Releases - Sony Discloses Basic Specifications of the "E-mount" for Interchangeable Single Lens Cameras without Fee

It says 'basic' information so they probably only disclose enough that 3rd party can make a lens compatible with the system without proprietary information about algorithms they use for advance features.

The major optical and sensor issues deal with optical corrections and perhaps sensor micro lens aberrations. Unless you know precisely what those are from the source and have the code to figure out how their RAW processes them, then you're stuck with hand editing in your desktop program of choice.

I think that's why Zeiss is now making AF for Fuji cameras. Who is going to pay $700 for a manual focus, chunky, weighty piece of Zeiss glass than creates aberrations because the camera doesn't process that lens's way of drawing?

[klh]

Back to the original question - I think that cameras like the K500 and K50 are a great bargain for their feature set and would compete well against the market leaders if only they were available to the masses. Pentax needs to get a physical presence for their DSLRs in the big box stores (Best Buy, Target). Right now only real enthusiasts or old photographers (myself included) know about them. And the crazy color options would sell if only people could see them!

Then as people used the entry level stuff, they would grow into the higher models and contract LBA!

[ruggiex]

The major optical and sensor issues deal with optical corrections and perhaps sensor micro lens aberrations. Unless you know precisely what those are from the source and have the code to figure out how their RAW processes them, then you're stuck with hand editing in your desktop program of choice.

I think that's why Zeiss is now making AF for Fuji cameras. Who is going to pay $700 for a manual focus, chunky, weighty piece of Zeiss glass than creates aberrations because the camera doesn't process that lens's way of drawing?

Aren't e-mount Zeiss lenses AF? Seems both Sonnar and Touit are.

[Aristophanes]

Aren't e-mount Zeiss lenses AF? Seems both Sonnar and Touit are.

Yes. Zeiss is operating as an outsource brand, first for Sony (e and a-mount), and now for Fuji (x-mount).

Sony and Zeiss have been working together since the 1990's I believe, because Sony needed video lenses.

Even with the acquisition of Konica Minolta Sony has never really had an optical capacity. Sony outsources. Like Panasonic with Leica.

For Zeiss it's like "Intel inside". And they have to move in this direction (as a direct licensee) because camera systems are increasingly dependent on in-camera software to provide appropriate IQ not to mention AF and maybe even metering.

[ruggiex]

Yes. Zeiss is operating as an outsource brand, first for Sony (e and a-mount), and now for Fuji (x-mount).

Sony and Zeiss have been working together since the 1990's I believe, because Sony needed video lenses.

Even with the acquisition of Konica Minolta Sony has never really had an optical capacity. Sony outsources. Like Panasonic with Leica.

For Zeiss it's like "Intel inside". And they have to move in this direction (as a direct licensee) because camera systems are increasingly dependent on in-camera software to provide appropriate IQ not to mention AF and maybe even metering.

So are you saying that Zeiss and Sony partnership is more deeply intertwined such that Zeiss actually has more information on e-mount than the open/free license would allow to create a proper lens for the e-mount? Therefore, while it's 'open' it's not really so and the whole thing is just PR play to entice 3rd parties to work with Sony. I'm really just trying to understand your point and why it's detrimental to Pentax if they open up the k-mount; it just seems like I'm missing something.

[Aristophanes]

So are you saying that Zeiss and Sony partnership is more deeply intertwined such that Zeiss actually has more information on e-mount than the open/free license would allow to create a proper lens for the e-mount? Therefore, while it's 'open' it's not really so and the whole thing is just PR play to entice 3rd parties to work with Sony. I'm really just trying to understand your point and why it's detrimental to Pentax if they open up the k-mount; it just seems like I'm missing something.

I suspect that Zeiss manual focus glass is a tiny market and Zeiss selling through Sony is 20x larger market.

I suspect that Zeiss and Sony are tech partners and yes, Zeiss has proprietary Sony information to allow lenses to function properly. I bet the same with Fuji's Touit.

Yes, the whole "opene"ness is largely PR. But Sony needs an optical manufacturer and Zeiss needs Sony as a customer (or Fuji).

The k-mount is already "open". But for Pentax to allow third-party lens calibration in-camera (such as distortion and CA control) and other future proprietary inputs would be suicide. Pentax is an optical company and requires you to buy Pentax glass to stay in the black. They are not a camera engineering firm that also happens to spin glass. They make cameras so you can use their glass. Nikon, Olympus, Fuji, and Canon are mostly the same.

Here is what it takes to be an optical manufacturer (Canon):

\

You Tube

You Tube

If your company invests in this, you make glass. Glass is your money. All of this chemistry and industrial processing investment and assembly line knowledge and skill goes to waste if you simply make an electronic camera product and ask anyone else to make glass for it. The glass is the hard part; the camera body (less the mirror and prism which are optical components in their own right) is relatively easy and can be designed and assembled in a generic electronics manufacturing facility.

So no optical company will kill their foundry to sell more generic camera bodies. Optics are your crown jewels.

[northcoastgreg]

If Ricoh makes Kaf3 an open mount, the aftermarket support will crop up overnight.

Given the dismal state of the current market in cameras, that seems unlikely. Even so, an open mount is a bad idea. It increases competition; and in a perfectly competitive market, there are no profits. Just look what's happening with micro-four-thirds. Even though m4/3 consitutes the sweet spot for compact MILCs, allowing for near DSLR quality coupled with a full range of compact lenses, both Olympus and Panasonic are losing heaps of money; and part of the problem is that they are competing within the same mount, and that's leading to fire sales costing these companies millions of dollars. Firms need at least some areas where, either through patents or proprietary formats, they can find shelter competition so they can make sufficient revenue for funding development and paying off debts.