[zmohie]

I wonder why pentax always does the wrong .they made the smart concept in the mirrorless system and stopped it.
I think mirrorless became a trend in the market. while pentax stopped a very excllent concept/k01/.. the others has projects begining from zero lenses .
I am seeing pentax do the same wrong way when it had taken much time to go with digital era .
pentax can do its mirrorless camera up on the k01. no matter what is the size. k02 with EVF AND A COMFORTABLE grib.
FUJI has about 6 lenses and the new system attracts many day to night.

[Pablom]

Pentax has a nice mirrorless sytem with the Q mount

[zmohie]

sorry I meant APS/C.

[6BQ5]

Pentax has a nice mirrorless sytem with the Q mount

Exactly. Pentax/Ricoh is investing into a small mirrorless system knowing that the the sensor will improve over time as the technology is developed. Today's APS sensors didn't start off being as good as you see them now. They slowly increased their resolution, dynamic range, etc. The same will happen with the 1/1.7 sensor.

Their small APS sized camera is the Ricoh GR.

I love the idea of a successor to the K-01 but the mirrorless APS camera market is starting to get crowded. Fuji and Sony seem to be duking it out. Being realistic, what chance does Ricoh have? Even Nikon and Canon are steering clear from that competition.

[Doundounba]

Maybe Ricoh could purchase Fuji. Then Fuji X-mount becomes Ricoh's new APS-C mirrorless mount, they add Pentax's IBIS to the Fuji mirrorless line and make a "lens turbo" adapter for K-mount with built-in motor for screwdrive lenses. That'd make me a pretty happy camper...

[ruggiex]

To properly take advantage of an APS-C mirrorless system, they are going to need a new mount. That probably won't go too well with a lot of Pentaxians since most of them associate Pentax with K-mount. Maybe it makes more sense to turn Ricoh GR into a mirrorless system while release FF under Pentax name.

[normhead]

I guess we need this because the K-01 isn't good enough? They can't sell me a mirror less because the K-01 does everything I expect a mirror less camera to do, and I've already got one.

[Kayaker-J]

Yes, 6BQ5, but it would appear that Canikon simply does not want to compete with itself/themselves (as yet) in DSLR dominated markets, the EOS-M joke not withstanding. They're not afraid of Fuji or Sony, irrespective of what some over-eager, but ill-informed financial or "lifestyle" journalists might occasionally write. Nikon's back inventory accumulation of DSLR models, for example, has been a rather wisecrack-worthy topic all told, due to their ill-conceived distribution policies (recently modified): Who else but Nikon would call a D90 a current model? And Canikon can't be bothered to produce a proper lens lineup for top-selling EF-S or DX DSLRs as it is. Also consider the principle of inertia at play... not the same thing as being under-capitalized. Ricoh/Pentax is in a very different boat. I think many of us are waiting to see what the plan really is: See Thom Hogan's DSLR blog from a few days ago to read what others worthy of one's attention think of the Pentax lens lineup and its perceivable direction. Ditto Lloyd Chambers (digilloyd.com).

Elsewhere here this morning is more Ricoh patent application news on the subject of lenses. Interesting. I know that I could conceive of an ICL "GR", ESPECIALLY one featuring small 28mm and 40mm "Leica equivalent" prime lenses!

[VisualDarkness]

K-01 concept cameras have no real advantage compared to other APS-C mirrorless.
- K-01 can mount K-lenses, but so can other cameras with adapters.
- K-01 got above average controls but nothing limits other makers to better their controls.
- K-01 can't be made as small as other mirrorless mounts, a serious limitation.

These are the main reasons why K-01 is a bit of a dead end concept, you can improve it but it got limitations that other concepts can work around easily. Q on the other hand can do stuff that the aps-c sections is too limited for and therefore it got a better position to niche itself into a market.

[Kayaker-J]

Maybe Ricoh could purchase Fuji. Then Fuji X-mount becomes Ricoh's new APS-C mirrorless mount, they add Pentax's IBIS to the Fuji mirrorless line and make a "lens turbo" adapter for K-mount with built-in motor for screwdrive lenses. That'd make me a pretty happy camper...

Maybe pork will fall from the sky onto our cookout patios when the wings tire. But as fantasies go, I'd almost go for this one (with qualifications) over a date with one of the X-Factor ladies. That's an attractive lens lineup developing quickly over in Fujiville, particularly in primes. If Ricoh is not going to get behind a major overhaul of lens options, then I'd have to say my eye does wander... though I'm not a fan of the present X-trans sensor strategy.

Still in Fantasyland, but a little more real world (not much) would be to re-lable the X-mount lenses as Ricoh or Pentax, fitted with a new optical path compatible "GR-i" bayonet mount... which I say half facetiously only out of despair that I'd really see a entire new line of short flange-back distance lenses from Pentax/RI in my lifetime. I can hardly imagine why Fuji would want to play ball. ...Or why they'd want to divest themselves of the small camera corner of the business without their whole mirrorless enterprise having become a lame duck in the marketplace, profitability-wise... which would offer no saving graces to Ricoh in practical terms.

[jogiba]

A K-02 with 12mp full frame sensor an OLED EVF and cinema 4K would be a great mirror less camera in low light !

[Kayaker-J]

While we're on the subject of crazy ideas, how about one more? Anyone here for the new Ricoh GR-i [ICL] as an "APS-4/3" system?! Wait, wait... Leverage your way into the m4/3 consortium, offering the carrot to m4/3 lens makers/consortium members that they could sell lenses to many of those proud, new and future, GR-i owners! Capitalization/R&D/engineering issues solved... on the cheap... (sort of).

Think not? Well, wait again. I have it on pretty good authority -- seriously -- that the MINIMUM image circle thrown by lenses from one of the Big Two m4/3 camera makers is around 22.5mm... ranging up to nearly the horizontal format dimension Nikon attempted to implement on their classic film rangefinder cameras! By trimming the APS-C frame just a bit around the sides -- like a lunch break visit to the barber -- you might address any vignetting issues to a very satisfactory degree, given an in-camera processing tweak.

This would in no way preclude Ricoh Imaging from producing their own APS-C coverage lenses in the m4/3 mount, just like Sigma does... and gain the further advantage of, effectively, not competing with themselves. Voila, the fast track to a unique niche in the ~1.5x crop factor marketplace -- with, of course, in-camera cropping to the standard m4/3 format from Ricoh's wonderful new state-of-the-art and exclusive Sony 32mp sensor (!)... just to take care of those smaller [bright] image circle m4/3 lenses and practical telephoto lens needs. Ha! ...And I'm barely even smiling.

[ElJamoquio]

K-01 concept cameras have no real advantage compared to other APS-C mirrorless.
- K-01 can mount K-lenses, but so can other cameras with adapters.
- K-01 got above average controls but nothing limits other makers to better their controls.
- K-01 can't be made as small as other mirrorless mounts, a serious limitation.

These are the main reasons why K-01 is a bit of a dead end concept, you can improve it but it got limitations that other concepts can work around easily. Q on the other hand can do stuff that the aps-c sections is too limited for and therefore it got a better position to niche itself into a market.

K-01 can autofocus k-mount lenses.

Nevertheless the K-01 didn't hit the mark. It was almost as expensive (as intended to sell) as the K-5, it was almost the size of the K-5, it was almost the weight of the K-5. The viewfinder on the K-5 was infinitely better. The ergonomics on the K-5 were extraordinarily better.

Swing-and-a-miss, for most of the market. If they had developed the lenses that poked into the mirror box, or had developed a 'recessed' k-mount that just needed a macro-type adapter for K-mount lenses, it likely would've sold better. If it had been designed as a 'pro-looking' camera, rather than a fisher-price looking camera, it likely would've sold better.

---------- Post added 05-18-14 at 09:25 AM ----------

And Canikon can't be bothered to produce a proper lens lineup for top-selling EF-S or DX DSLRs as it is.

What are they missing?

[VisualDarkness]

K-01 can autofocus k-mount lenses.

- NEX/A can AF Sony/minolta lenses with the official adapter. Can slow AF EF lenses with Metabones. Can use Speedbooster to simulate FF with FF lenses.
- Canon can AF EF lenses with official adapter.
- Fuji X can use Speedboster.

Compared to other systems the "native support" is diminishing as a pro since AF-adapters and Speedbosters are becoming more and more common. Pentax would need to make a shorter mount with an intelligent adapter to get the same level of potential as the other mounts. This is where the mechanical part of the K-mount makes things harder.

[Kayaker-J]

@ElJamoquio...

1. The K-01 isn't really that close to the weight of a K30, let alone a K5. Pentaprisms are heavy.

2. ...Missing only a little, perhaps, if you consider 9 midrange/mid-to-short tele plastic kit zooms from Nikon [assuming you might also consider scavenging something like the 24-85mm zoom from the FX side for your D3300/5300]... and zero DX prime telephotos, a smorgasbord of delights. Pretty much ditto for Canon, minus the same excess of delightfully obsolescent kit zoom options.

Try imagining something like that from Nikon, Canon, Pentax, Minolta, Olympus, or Konica circa 1986... if you're old enough to do so.

No slight intended to family pic and high school sports
snappers, but I can't work with a DX lens lineup like that for what I will modestly term my little artistic efforts... and I won't carry the FX bulk monsters, particularly when they yield impractical and non-traditional fields of view on a crop sensor body. No, I'm not really thrilled by my limited (ahem...) fully-contemporary, prime focal length options from Pentax, either. There's no real secret why we see what we see today from the existing lens lineup. But I can make it work for me in the Pentax system -- in a kit I can carry... and WILL carry -- unlike the case with Nikon (my film cam brand of choice from 1982; along with a '54 Leica M3 -- my Dad's)... where my AI/AI-S lenses are barely part-compatible with the DX system. I'm not a Canon fan, and they've given me no compelling reason at all to opt for any of their EF-S bodies; even though my MF Nikkors could be said to be MORE compatible with a 3ti/4ti/5ti, via adapter, than with a D5300. Ironically enough.

See Fuji X-mount for, in most respects, an APS-C lens system conceived and done right by advanced amateur/prosumer standards... less a proper high performance 18-19mm APS-C prime... and arguably, a compact, fast-focusing 100-105mm equivalent (circa 70mm) telephoto prime lens. Their telephoto end, with respect to zoom lenses, is coming. A downside is the use of a sensor not yet so friendly to adapted wide angle legacy lenses from other makers, notably of the rangefinder variety.

For more on this topic, Thom Hogan on his DSLR Bodies blog -- despite making a good part of his living selling companion manuals for Nikon cameras -- has been an explicitly harsh and persistent critic of exactly this lens strategy (of omission); and I agree with Thom on this one completely. He says it better there than I can say it here, so have a look. This is why I didn't buy a D7100 or D5300, first and foremost, when purchasing my first digital SLR (after a long, long layoff from the craft). Hope this helps.

---------- Post added 05-18-14 at 02:09 PM ----------

@VisualDarkness... Agreed on the attractiveness of the Metabones Speed Booster option. But from what I've seen, Sony's IQ in the latest APS-C iteration is not up to the K3 in the rez department (Alpha 6000); nor is there IBIS... both of which are significant negatives from my perspective; though surely not from that of others. I could be swayed: a camera without a strong EVF [option] is not what I really want at my age, considering my lens and subject preferences.