[jogiba]

NEX-5N with 18-55mm kit lens :


with 16mm F2.8 pancake :

[eddie1960]

I know I might be beating a dead horse here but I wasn't really referring to making a new mount with a new series of lenses. I was referring to a mount that is fully setup to support k mount lenses as its native lens, with a shorter registration distance. A tube is included that has no glass or mirrors or functional parts, it just has the levers and contacts to pass everything through. Its basically a macro tube or a teleconverter minus the glass. The camera is not designed to use a lens mounted directly to the camera as its primary form of use, but rather is designed to be used with the tube and k mount lenses. A limited number of compact lenses (k mount design in very way except the shorter registration distance to allow direct mount to the body) might be an option but I was thinking along the lines of the tube being included with the camera and with regular k mount kit lenses. Such a tube is very much existing technology so there is not much to engineer. That expensive sony adapter appears to be much more than a simple cheap tube that passes contacts and such through.

Of course doing so would open a whole other can of worms. The only purpose for doing so would be to allow adaptation to other brands of lenses, and you would think they would rather push their own glass. They would have to design adapters for other lenses, or leave it up to after market companies, and have every one question why pentax won't make any adapters. Of course, if this camera had been released with such an adapter tube standard and factory installed on every camera, and was sold with a k mount kit lens, and the answer to why the tube was, to allow for future upgrades, would anyone really have an issue with it? You know if they did, it would not take long for aftermarket companies to come up with adapter tubes for every common lens out there. It would leave them open to a compact lens but not necessarily commit them to it (k mount design in every way but a shorter registration distance to be used with out the tube).

I do understand the possible implications and impracticality of this from pentax's point of view, but is it wrong to discuss that it would be cool to have such a camera? I'm not trying to detract from the camera as it is because it does have merits. It will appeal to some and I thing it is a good alternative to the point and shoot crowd that are used to using the lcd. It is defanatlly a top of the line point and shoot (and like others have said, I don't think mirrorless will mean anything to many that buy it).

That doesn't change the fact that with k mount it has compatibility with 25,000,000 lenses, but with such a mount, it would have full compatibility with 25,000,000 lenses and the easy potential for limited compatibility (manual operation at least) with how many canon and minolta and nikon and olympus lenses? Canon already has that advantage (can use k mount and other lenses though not by canons design), so why not level the playing field a bit? I would say native and full support for all k mount lenses and manual capability with other manufactures lenses would trump canons current compatibility? Canon didn't get that compatibility by design (after market companies exploited the ability to make other lenses work with adapters), so why not have a camera that could be similarly exploited while maintaining full native k mount compatibility?

I'm not saying it could realistically happen or that the k-01 is a bad camera without it, but would you like the idea if it did happen?

Aside from the added cost of an adapter unless it comes with every camera and replacements are cheapish it would fail. the sony adapter barely sells the oly brand 4/3 adapters same thing - though they made sense at the beginning

I also think the design would end up being a me too camera entering the market as just another mirrorless and needing a signifigant lens investment to take advantage of the thinner body without the adapter, if the pentax lenses don't work without the adapter then why even design something that is sure to be more problematic (and suffer from worse AF too)

I know a lot of people have trouble getting their heads around this design but if you get away from the enthusaist sites there is some pretty positive responses actually

see

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-k-01-forum/174180-opinions-k-01-outside-bubble.html

[eddie1960]

Show me a link to a survey that shows there are enough people out who have expressed a need for a camera that does that and not much else, and who want it butt ugly, to make this thing take off.

But ugly is relative. Wheat

there have been some positive design reviews as well. As they say beauty is in the eye of the beholder

edit
and at least one canon girl likes it

http://blog.2modern.com/2012/02/new-pentax-k-01-designed-by-marc-newson.html

[ripit]

Aside from the added cost of an adapter unless it comes with every camera and replacements are cheapish it would fail. the sony adapter barely sells the oly brand 4/3 adapters same thing - though they made sense at the beginning

I also think the design would end up being a me too camera entering the market as just another mirrorless and needing a signifigant lens investment to take advantage of the thinner body without the adapter, if the pentax lenses don't work without the adapter then why even design something that is sure to be more problematic (and suffer from worse AF too)

I know a lot of people have trouble getting their heads around this design but if you get away from the enthusaist sites there is some pretty positive responses actually

see

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-k-01-forum/174180-opinions-k-01-outside-bubble.html

Unless the adapter came with the camera, I would think it would be a fail. Having native k-mount support is a bigger selling point than being able to attach adapters for other brands to me at least. Without native k-mount support, like you said, it would require significant lens investment. I would think including the adapter, and marketing it as a camera that uses k-mount lenses as if the adapter were a standard part of the camera, not an accessory would be best. If the camera had an actual k-mount on the body, but set back further, you could also have the same new lenses they have (which is a good idea). Basically take the existing one that extends into the body, extend the housing and rear mount, and have it mount to the shorter flange distance mount. There are lots of easy options for a slim lens there.

As far as adapter and cost, the sony cost a fortune, and the olympus cost about 140$ (didn't price shop so maybe thats full retail). The sony is a complicated device with a mirror. The olympus is quite expensive (similar fotodiox ones cost 20-40$ on amazon depending on what mount they are adapting). Assuming the camera has a set back k-mount, all you need for the adapter is basically an autofocus teleconverter minus the glass. It's cheap, old, well developed technology. There is nothing to develop, just a simple design. It has no major complex parts or mirrors or glass, just a screw drive, a lever and some contacts. It Just passes everything through. Not including the adapter with the camera would be a huge mistake as you could not market it as having native k mount support but a replacement would not need to be terribly expensive either.

As far as worse autofocus, I have not heard of any issues with focusing using an auto focus teleconverter (other than that caused by the loss of light but this one would be glassless). Perhaps there are issues I wasn't aware of?

[Rondec]

Unless the adapter came with the camera, I would think it would be a fail. Having native k-mount support is a bigger selling point than being able to attach adapters for other brands to me at least. Without native k-mount support, like you said, it would require significant lens investment. I would think including the adapter, and marketing it as a camera that uses k-mount lenses as if the adapter were a standard part of the camera, not an accessory would be best. If the camera had an actual k-mount on the body, but set back further, you could also have the same new lenses they have (which is a good idea). Basically take the existing one that extends into the body, extend the housing and rear mount, and have it mount to the shorter flange distance mount. There are lots of easy options for a slim lens there.

As far as adapter and cost, the sony cost a fortune, and the olympus cost about 140$ (didn't price shop so maybe thats full retail). The sony is a complicated device with a mirror. The olympus is quite expensive (similar fotodiox ones cost 20-40$ on amazon depending on what mount they are adapting). Assuming the camera has a set back k-mount, all you need for the adapter is basically an autofocus teleconverter minus the glass. It's cheap, old, well developed technology. There is nothing to develop, just a simple design. It has no major complex parts or mirrors or glass, just a screw drive, a lever and some contacts. It Just passes everything through. Not including the adapter with the camera would be a huge mistake as you could not market it as having native k mount support but a replacement would not need to be terribly expensive either.

As far as worse autofocus, I have not heard of any issues with focusing using an auto focus teleconverter (other than that caused by the loss of light but this one would be glassless). Perhaps there are issues I wasn't aware of?

I think the biggest question is if there would be space in the body for a screw drive motor if you would shrink the camera body depth. If you drop the screw drive motor in the body, then either your adapter has to have one in it for auto focus, or you just have an adapter that passes through electronics, but has manual focus only.

[ripit]

I think the biggest question is if there would be space in the body for a screw drive motor if you would shrink the camera body depth. If you drop the screw drive motor in the body, then either your adapter has to have one in it for auto focus, or you just have an adapter that passes through electronics, but has manual focus only.

That is a distinct possibility along with room for anything else large. If you were doing it specifically to achieve the lens capabilities, you could also move the sensor forward a bit if you couldn't move the face back far enough. Obviously removing the screw drive motor would be a bad idea as again, you would loose native k mount support which is a very strong point for this camera. I guess only pentax knows right now if there would have been room to set the face back or not.

[eddie1960]

Unless the adapter came with the camera, I would think it would be a fail. Having native k-mount support is a bigger selling point than being able to attach adapters for other brands to me at least. Without native k-mount support, like you said, it would require significant lens investment. I would think including the adapter, and marketing it as a camera that uses k-mount lenses as if the adapter were a standard part of the camera, not an accessory would be best. If the camera had an actual k-mount on the body, but set back further, you could also have the same new lenses they have (which is a good idea). Basically take the existing one that extends into the body, extend the housing and rear mount, and have it mount to the shorter flange distance mount. There are lots of easy options for a slim lens there.

As far as adapter and cost, the sony cost a fortune, and the olympus cost about 140$ (didn't price shop so maybe thats full retail). The sony is a complicated device with a mirror. The olympus is quite expensive (similar fotodiox ones cost 20-40$ on amazon depending on what mount they are adapting). Assuming the camera has a set back k-mount, all you need for the adapter is basically an autofocus teleconverter minus the glass. It's cheap, old, well developed technology. There is nothing to develop, just a simple design. It has no major complex parts or mirrors or glass, just a screw drive, a lever and some contacts. It Just passes everything through. Not including the adapter with the camera would be a huge mistake as you could not market it as having native k mount support but a replacement would not need to be terribly expensive either.

As far as worse autofocus, I have not heard of any issues with focusing using an auto focus teleconverter (other than that caused by the loss of light but this one would be glassless). Perhaps there are issues I wasn't aware of?

basing the worse focus on how the sony performs which has been called sluggish. don't know about the oly since i don't think many people actually use it since the only really good 4/3 lenses are pretty rare in the market

[Paul MaudDib]

Unless the adapter came with the camera, I would think it would be a fail. Having native k-mount support is a bigger selling point than being able to attach adapters for other brands to me at least.
...
As far as adapter and cost, the sony cost a fortune, and the olympus cost about 140$ (didn't price shop so maybe thats full retail). The sony is a complicated device with a mirror. The olympus is quite expensive (similar fotodiox ones cost 20-40$ on amazon depending on what mount they are adapting). Assuming the camera has a set back k-mount, all you need for the adapter is basically an autofocus teleconverter minus the glass. It's cheap, old, well developed technology. There is nothing to develop, just a simple design. It has no major complex parts or mirrors or glass, just a screw drive, a lever and some contacts. It Just passes everything through. Not including the adapter with the camera would be a huge mistake as you could not market it as having native k mount support but a replacement would not need to be terribly expensive either.

As far as worse autofocus, I have not heard of any issues with focusing using an auto focus teleconverter (other than that caused by the loss of light but this one would be glassless). Perhaps there are issues I wasn't aware of?

I guess it depends on how you think of "native". To me, native means the lens stops down and meters properly. That doesn't happen on a NEX, you have to manually stop-down before you shoot or just leave it stopped down all the time. If you could make a thin K-01, with the macro-tube screwdrive+electronic+aperture passthrough adapter, that would be native to me. I agree, you wouldn't have to have a mirror or glass in the adapter. This is a contrast-detect autofocus camera in the first place, why tack a phase-detect AF system on top of it when it results in you losing light?

If Pentax made the K-02 thin with such an adapter, I would buy it in a heartbeat. If they made it with the "feeler" to uncripple mechanical metering, well, I'd get one even if it cost double. I'd easily pay $2500 if you then threw a FF sensor in there. I'm still on the fence about the K-01, but it would be a fun toy with a Samyang 35/1.4 on it.

For that matter, you could probably stick an AF-style helicoid in the adapter, and turn all your manual-focus lenses into AF. There's not much space so the autofocus throw might be pretty short, but it could probably handle infinity to 5ft or so just fine, and if you hand-focused closer with the lens focus the helicoid AF would still be able to find peak focus.

[ripit]

I guess it depends on how you think of "native". To me, native means the lens stops down and meters properly. That doesn't happen on a NEX, you have to manually stop-down before you shoot or just leave it stopped down all the time. If you could make a thin K-01, with the macro-tube screwdrive+electronic+aperture passthrough adapter, that would be native to me. I agree, you wouldn't have to have a mirror or glass in the adapter. This is a contrast-detect autofocus camera in the first place, why tack a phase-detect AF system on top of it when it results in you losing light?

If Pentax made the K-02 thin with such an adapter, I would buy it in a heartbeat. If they made it with the "feeler" to uncripple mechanical metering, well, I'd get one even if it cost double. I'd easily pay $2500 if you then threw a FF sensor in there. I'm still on the fence about the K-01, but it would be a fun toy with a Samyang 35/1.4 on it.

For that matter, you could probably stick an AF-style helicoid in the adapter, and turn all your manual-focus lenses into AF. There's not much space so the autofocus throw might be pretty short, but it could probably handle infinity to 5ft or so just fine, and if you hand-focused closer with the lens focus the helicoid AF would still be able to find peak focus.

My old, cheap quantaray AF teleconverters provide absolute full function with screw drive lenses. Everything functions and the lens stops down and meters properly. Everything is passed through including the contacts. The lens is fully functional in every mode. The only possible exception I can think of is sdm lenses. So far as I know they do not work with all teleconverters but do work with at least 1 (a tamron if I am not mistaken). I am guessing older ones would not have the right contacts for sdm lenses? With the exception of sdm lenses, there is no issue making and adapter that provides absolute full function. With sdm, I'm guessing it could be as simple as some extra contacts.

pentax has made a AF adapter that does just that. It makes your manual focus lenses auto focus. It is a 1.7x teleconverter though. So far as I know, it has a limited focus range, so you have to manual focus the lens somewhere in the range near where you want to shoot and then it auto focuses. It can not focus through the whole range of the lens by itself.
SMC Pentax-F 1.7x AF Adapter Reviews - Pentax K-mount Teleconverters and Adapters - Pentax Lens Reviews & Lens Database
From what I gather, they sold for 200-300$ new (I would seriously considering paying that for one). I have no idea if the glass is a necessary part of it auto focusing or not. This information could be rumors or just wrong, but I have read they will not import them to Europe or America as the glass contains lead. Supposedly dealers in Japan and China can still order them from pentax but with very limited availability (old stock perhaps)? Unfortunately it seems like they are going for more like 600$ trying to get one here from china.

[Laurentiu Cristofor]

My last question is, what are the advantages of the mirrorless design other than being able to make the camera smaller?

There are only two advantages other than size:

- use of EVF - some people may not like it, but it does allow unique capabilities
- a smaller registration distance allows the design of smaller, more compact wide angle lenses

As you may notice, none of these advantages are being offered by the K-01. It does not have an EVF and it does not have a small registration distance mount. The only thing that it has is that it can be called a mirrorless camera. It should have been called the Pentax ME-2.

Sony has a $400 adapter with no SR to use on the NEX with Sony A mount lenses.

LA-EA2 Sony A NEX Camera Mount Adapter, Attach A-mount Lenses to E-mount Camera Body.

However, that adapter makes the NEX into more than a K-01, by providing PDAF. That is why it is expensive as well as large.

Pentax could have provided the same functionality that K-01 provides (CDAF) with a much less expensive (and smaller) adapter.

Ny using the K mount, Pentax is staying with it's reputation for good backwards compatibility. Also, had they changed the flange distance, then they would have had to release a new lens line upon release of the camera.

Well, Pentax is already releasing a new lens line - the XS line. And some of those lenses appear to not be compatible with DSLR cameras.

However, backward compatibility with DSLRs may be moot if Pentax intends to kill DSLRs - after all, their lenses have never promised backward compatibility with older camera bodies - only the new camera bodies are meant to be compatible with any older lenses. How can new DSLRs be compatible with XS lenses - only by not being made anymore.

Here is a picture of a proposed future member of the XS line.



It sounds to me like people would buy a potato if there was a K-5 sensor in it and they would at the same time applaud it as innovative for being edible.

[RioRico]

It sounds to me like people would buy a potato if there was a K-5 sensor in it and they would at the same time applaud it as innovative for being edible.

Q: Do you prefer your cameras fried, baked, boiled, scalloped, or mashed?
A: Yes.

[johnmflores]

1. I still like the design of the K-01!!!

2. Design will always be somewhat limited by functionality. May I remind, that no so many moons ago, "instant cameras" were hot, and we weren't actually ashamed of carrying around these things:

(It's my own camera - Sligthly manipulated with due apologies to Polaroid Land Corp.)

Wait, is that a bayonet mount?

[Paul MaudDib]

It sounds to me like people would buy a potato if there was a K-5 sensor in it and they would at the same time applaud it as innovative for being edible.

I don't see any other potatoes with a shake-reduction sensor.

I basically agree with everything you and ripit said, we're thinking along similar lines.

[johnmflores]

It sounds to me like people would buy a potato if there was a K-5 sensor in it and they would at the same time applaud it as innovative for being edible.

Actually, I would, and take some great candids at State Fairs!

[Rondec]

Actually, I would, and take some great candids at State Fairs!

I think the french fried version would be a big seller south of the Mason Dixon line.