[reh321]

18 months later, Sony's kicking some butt with the A7 series, in good part because of the short register distance & IBIS providing buyers with excellent image quality and lots of lens flexibility, included full aperture, OIS and AF for many of them.
Ricoh-Pentax may have missed that boat I suggested they build.

It will be interesting to see how the newly-announced Canon EOS-M3 sells, because it is quite similar to your suggestion, as I understand it.

[kenspo]

Wont happen in near time. Sorry!

[CWRailman]

While some users were wishing and hoping for flip screen and EVF to be added to the Q7, some time ago I suggested Pentax make a small retro looking mirrorless camera similar in size to the Oly E-M5 which had just come out. They could use their existing lenses and call it the MXD-1 and add a number for each new release instead of going the other way which is marketing suicide. (K7, K5, K3 What marketing genius came up with that progression??) Someone shouted such a design could not be done because of the lens mount or this or that and then Fuji came out with the T-10. Fuji's T-1 and T-10 along with the 16mp Oly E-M5 and E-M10 are selling quite well according to the several camera stores I have visited while their Pentax cameras, of which they do not stock many due to lack of sales, require periodic dusting. And with camera sales, as a whole, on the decline it looks like again Pentax has missed the boat.

[mrNewt]

No need to add a new lens mount. Rather than having adapters they could make interchangeable lens mounts. Put differently the flange on the camera itself would not be meant to fit to any lens directly but instead to a flange adapter. The 'default' adapter would be the k-mount adapter.

So to use K-mount lenses you install the K-mount flange, whereas for other mounts you mount a different flange, rather than mounting an adapter onto a k-flange (or to a new type of lens mount)

To use another type of lens the k-Mount flange is removed and replaced with one of the other lens mount.

...

Didn't Ricoh tried that idea and they had a camera with replaceable mount and sensor? Didn't they said they will have HUGE plans for it and dropped it not too long after? A great idea, but I don't think it will catch on very fast...

[bwDraco]

I'd say lenses for the Q system are the answer.

Ricoh should look into building a "Holy Trinity" pro zoom set for Q: something like 3-6mm, 5-15mm, and 15-50mm, with apertures no slower than f/2.0 at any point in the zoom range and preferably f/1.4 constant aperture. Certainly doable with a sensor that small, but the lenses could wind up becoming rather large for the Q bodies. This would make the rather lackluster Q system a lot more attractive for serious users.

—DragonLord

[Lakai]

Ricoh-Pentax may have missed that boat I suggested they build.

Did they miss or just failed and abandoned the idea developing such camera? The closest are the gxr a12 m module and k01

[monochrome]

Recent hints suggest over the medium term Pentax might be making their mirrorless effort in a different format, where there is zero competition.

---

Last edited by monochrome; 10-25-2015 at 03:57 PM.

[kenspo]

Wont happen anytime soon. Sorry!

[RobA_Oz]

18 months later, Sony's kicking some butt with the A7 series, in good part because of the short register distance & IBIS providing buyers with excellent image quality and lots of lens flexibility, included full aperture, OIS and AF for many of them.
Ricoh-Pentax may have missed that boat I suggested they build.

There's more than one boat (technology trend) being built, somewhere in the world. There's also more than one harbour (ie market, especially developing ones). So, you're right, though perceptions of butt-kicking are just as important as real butt-kicking as far as marketing is concerned. Sony's share price has lifted off junk status in the last couple of years, but I'm not convinced that their sensor division isn't subsidising the rest of their imaging product, or at least the bleeding edge part of it.

[Nicolas06]

The problem to me is that this is not THAT easy.

If you make a camera with shorter registration distance you get:
- smaller WA
- bigger teles (you'll never find a DA70 or FA77 nativerly on a short registration distance APSC/FF).

In any case if the camera is smaller it is more limited in terms of ergonomics and handling. In term of features too. Sony latest A7 camera with SR are as heavy as K30/K50/K-S2...

Then if you change the registration distance AND work with contrast AF, you need different lense design. Sigma explained it. You need much smaller/ligher focus group so it can move back and forth very fast, something that contrast AF require. Meaning that you "legacy" K-mount lenses are never going to work that great on the new mirrorless. This is going to be slow.

This would mean that really only the new natives lense will work really well and that you need 5-10 years to get a complete echosystem. That's another issue.

Now there the competion. What do you expect your product will bring that other will not and that will drive sales?

- K-mount support remove the size argument and add other issues with existing K-mount lenses.
- Supporting any lenses through manual focus. Not a differentiator, any camera ever made does that as long as the lens cover the image circle and that it comes with longer registration distance... Going short registration distance sure help but that's temporary. If everybody go short registration distance, you get back to initial state pretty quickly.
- An EVF? That's standard feature.

That's not that easy !

To me a K-02 with EVF, phase detect AF and proper design would allow for 400g K-mount camera that would do very well with a collapsible kit zoom, the DA20-40 or the DA/FA ltds. It is far easier to design a small/light standard K-mount body than to create a new mount.

[reh321]

The problem to me is that this is not THAT easy.

If you make a camera with shorter registration distance you get:
- smaller WA
- bigger teles (you'll never find a DA70 or FA77 natively on a short registration distance APSC/FF).

In any case if the camera is smaller it is more limited in terms of ergonomics and handling. In term of features too. Sony latest A7 camera with SR are as heavy as K30/K50/K-S2...

Then if you change the registration distance AND work with contrast AF, you need different lens design. Sigma explained it. You need much smaller/ligher focus group so it can move back and forth very fast, something that contrast AF require. Meaning that you "legacy" K-mount lenses are never going to work that great on the new mirrorless. This is going to be slow.

This would mean that really only the new natives lens will work really well and that you need 5-10 years to get a complete ecosystem. That's another issue.

Now there the competition. What do you expect your product will bring that other will not and that will drive sales?

- K-mount support remove the size argument and add other issues with existing K-mount lenses.
- Supporting any lenses through manual focus. Not a differentiator, any camera ever made does that as long as the lens cover the image circle and that it comes with longer registration distance... Going short registration distance sure help but that's temporary. If everybody go short registration distance, you get back to initial state pretty quickly.
- An EVF? That's standard feature.

That's not that easy !

To me a K-02 with EVF, phase detect AF and proper design would allow for 400g K-mount camera that would do very well with a collapsible kit zoom, the DA20-40 or the DA/FA ltds. It is far easier to design a small/light standard K-mount body than to create a new mount.

Since you didn't quote anyone, I'm not quite sure with whom you are disagreeing. But you can say that you are disagreeing with me.

To me, the term K-02 implies an MILC; is that what you are referring to in the last paragraph?

I believe it is quite possible that we are approaching another tipping point:

(1) when I got my first 35mm camera in 1969, almost every store in the US sold Kodachrome film, which was the only reliably-available color film; some time in the next few years, Kodacolor became the ubiquitous color film. I don't know exactly when it occurred, but it occurred over a fairly short period of time. People like me continued to use Kodachrome as long a Kodak manufactured it, but you had to support color negative in order to succeed.

(2) when I bought my Pentax Super Program in 1984, MF was the norm; when I bought my Canon EOS in 1995 (I didn't like the Pentax AF system) AF was the norm. I don't know exactly when we went from MF as norm to AF as norm, but my sense is that it happened over a fairly short period of time. I suppose you could still sell an MF camera in 1995, but not very many of them. Interestingly enough, I believe that Pentax's drop in market share came roughly during this time period, and I expect that Canon's in-lens AF system may have a lot to do with their becoming the most popular camera system.

(3) again, I'm not real certain about the years, but I believe that the switch from film to digital occurred over a fairly short period of time, maybe 2003-06. You can still sell film cameras, I guess (at least, I still see film for sale in stores), but I'm not sure you can succeed as a camera company if all you make is film cameras.

(4) MILC? This is still a question, but my belief is that we could be reaching a point where MILC dominates over DSLR. We will still see DSLR, especially at sports venues, but it is also quite possible that the proportions could switch in just a few years. This could be very good news for Sony, Olympus, and a few other companies, and very bad for the others. Thus, I feel that a small company like Pentax needs to take advantage of the agility that should come with small size and be ready to release an APS-C or FF MILC in a matter of months.

I have learned a lot in recent days by just asking questions. Until recently, I hadn't realized that focusing on a modern DSLR is partly a matter of faith - the body seems to send instructions to the lens, trusting that the lens will do it correctly; if I understand correctly, that "faith" part is what causes the front/back focusing issues that seem so strange to me (I had always expected that AF would work as I did/do MF - rotate back and forth until the image actually is in focus). My understanding is that the most recent MILC cameras use a hybrid focusing system - use the "traditional" DSLR method to get close, and then use a contrast system to get it right. Ultimately, that sort of system may end up being the preferred method, because it will eliminate all the tuning of lenses that seems to bog people down. In any case, Pentax needs to be prepared to roll out a system that supports hybrid focusing on an MILC body. In order to maintain their K-mount base, they may need to include a full-featured adapter with every camera, but your earlier paragraphs argue for a new shorter-registration distance mount. Your earlier words seem to say that a purely K-mount system will have trouble competing with the focusing speed / accuracy I'm expecting to become the norm in just a short period of time.

[Nicolas06]

Since you didn't quote anyone, I'm not quite sure with whom you are disagreeing. But you can say that you are disagreeing with me.

To me, the term K-02 implies an MILC; is that what you are referring to in the last paragraph?

I believe it is quite possible that we are approaching another tipping point:

(1) when I got my first 35mm camera in 1969, almost every store in the US sold Kodachrome film, which was the only reliably-available color film; some time in the next few years, Kodacolor became the ubiquitous color film. I don't know exactly when it occurred, but it occurred over a fairly short period of time. People like me continued to use Kodachrome as long a Kodak manufactured it, but you had to support color negative in order to succeed.

(2) when I bought my Pentax Super Program in 1984, MF was the norm; when I bought my Canon EOS in 1995 (I didn't like the Pentax AF system) AF was the norm. I don't know exactly when we went from MF as norm to AF as norm, but my sense is that it happened over a fairly short period of time. I suppose you could still sell an MF camera in 1995, but not very many of them. Interestingly enough, I believe that Pentax's drop in market share came roughly during this time period, and I expect that Canon's in-lens AF system may have a lot to do with their becoming the most popular camera system.

(3) again, I'm not real certain about the years, but I believe that the switch from film to digital occurred over a fairly short period of time, maybe 2003-06. You can still sell film cameras, I guess (at least, I still see film for sale in stores), but I'm not sure you can succeed as a camera company if all you make is film cameras.

(4) MILC? This is a question, but my belief is that we could be reaching a point where MILC dominates over DSLR. We will still see DSLR, especially at sports venues, but it is also quite possible that the proportions could switch in just a few years. This could be very good news for Sony, Olympus, and a few other companies, and very bad for the others. Thus, I feel that a small company like Pentax needs to take advantage of the agility that should come with small size and be ready to release an APS-C or FF MILC in a matter of months.

I have learned a lot in recent days by just asking questions. Until recently, I hadn't realized that focusing on a modern DSLR is partly a matter of faith - the body seems to send instructions to the lens, trusting that the lens will do it correctly; if I understand correctly, that "faith" part is what causes the front/back focusing issues that seem so strange to me (I had always expected that AF would work as I did/do MF - rotate back and forth until the image actually is in focus). My understanding is that the most recent MILC cameras use a hybrid focusing system - use the "traditional" DSLR method to get close, and then use a contrast system to get it right. Ultimately, that sort of system may end up being the preferred method, because it will eliminate all the tuning of lenses that seems to bog people down. In any case, Pentax needs to be prepared to roll out a system that supports hybrid focusing on an MILC body. In order to maintain their K-mount base, they may need to include a full-featured adapter with every camera, but your earlier paragraphs argue for a new shorter-registration distance mount. Your earlier words seem to say that a purely K-mount system will have trouble competing with the focusing speed / accuracy I'm expecting to become the norm in just a short period of time.

For now the AF argument and viewfinder argument is still for the DSLR. I agree this could change fast.

But basically fast AF is phase detect AF. Reliable AF is also available in phase detect AF, albait only in advenced lenses where the lense is able to double check it put the focus exactly where it was asked to put it. In fact nothing prevent to put it even in the most basic lenses, but only the newest design used it.

The problem with the contrast AF is that if you fine tune with contrast AF and potentially do a few back an forth move you are asking for lot more stress on the lens and so a smaller/lighter focus group and different motor. Potentially that can compromize your lens design, at least add yet another constraint. New design are more expensive and not necessarily always better.

The question is why anybody would want a MILC? There 2 assets consumer wise: it can be smaller/lighter and you can get arbitrar information in the view finder because it is actually a screen.

Things are most consumers don't really care of the EVF or OVF, they are accustomized to use the back screen anyway and that MILC have been here for quite a few years already. More than 5 years already. Think of m4/3. So yes many wouldn't care to see reflex disapear.

The size is half coming from using an EVF and half because you use shorter registration distance. The mean that focal length near the registration distance in size will be small and the one more away from it will be more complex to design. So WA are now smaller, Teles are bigger. This come very fast: past 50-60mm this prevent you from making small lenses. On the contrary the lenses are bigger.

What finally is the deciding factor? I think that's price on one side and consumers perception on the other side. Price wise DSLR are cheaper. Lenses for establised mount are cheaper.

You simply make a better deal with a cheap DSLR than with a cheap MILC. You can get f/2.8 lenses zoom for 300$, you can get great primes for 100-200$ and if you actually want to do some action/sport shooting (like just take some pictures of your kids) it work better with a DSLR.

Then there the consumer perception that DSLR are serious and MILC is the second body. Because that was pro are doing, because the best camera today are reflex. Sony is trying to attack that with A7R but it will fail until they have a complete system. For now this isn't the case they have only f/4 zoom lenses. That's not what the pros want and buy... But ironically a shorter registration distance on an FF body mean that this 70-200 f/2.8 that is an absolute necessity is going to be HUGE and heavy. Even the 24-70 because it is a zoom an it does up to 70 and cover FF. The issue isn't solved for now.

So yes the market may shift, it may be MILC, but really it could be something else. There this company that claim that with a few sensors on something that look like a smart phone with different prime lenses they can make actually great pictures with some bokeh, with great low light capability, great quality and some zooming. If this is true in 5 years all smartphones cound have that meaning instantly that all compact fixed camera and even all basic MILC camera are going to disapear too.No one is going to buy anything more if their smarphone is going to be great at low light, allow for acceptable zooming and let you some lovery bokeh.

We could ask ourselve too if just replacing the OVF by an EVF and designing some light camera couldn't work? IT worked in the film time. If you are actually replacing your lens line up slowly with lenses that can focus reasonnably efficiantly with CDAF or if you manage to put PDAF in the sensor, then you could simply do that... You could be in better position by keeping the old mount with its whole echosystem.

Things will change, but we don't know when, and will change actually and what is a valid strategy or not.

[Tony Belding]

Or else. . . Pentax could just put some effort into the Q system that they already have. >.<

[reh321]

The size is half coming from using an EVF and half because you use shorter registration distance. The mean that focal length near the registration distance in size will be small and the one more away from it will be more complex to design. So WA are now smaller, Teles are bigger. This come very fast: past 50-60mm this prevent you from making small lenses. On the contrary the lenses are bigger.
...
Then there the consumer perception that DSLR are serious and MILC is the second body. Because that was pro are doing, because the best camera today are reflex. Sony is trying to attack that with A7R but it will fail until they have a complete system. For now this isn't the case they have only f/4 zoom lenses. That's not what the pros want and buy... But ironically a shorter registration distance on an FF body mean that this 70-200 f/2.8 that is an absolute necessity is going to be HUGE and heavy. Even the 24-70 because it is a zoom an it does up to 70 and cover FF.

Are you saying that for a given sensor size, reducing the registration distance increases the size of the lens?

If that is true, then for a given registration distance, does reducing the sensor size decrease the size of the lens?

[osv]

Are you saying that for a given sensor size, reducing the registration distance increases the size of the lens?

not sure what he said, but you'd be wise to do your own research on whatever his claims were

sony rx1rii(w/lens) vs. k3ii(body-only):

Sony Cyber-shot RX1R II is 14% (18.2 mm) narrower and 36% (37.1 mm) shorter than Pentax K-3 II.
Sony Cyber-shot RX1R II is 7% (5.5 mm) thinner than Pentax K-3 II.
Sony Cyber-shot RX1R II [507 g] weights 35% (278 grams) less than Pentax K-3 II [785 g] (*inc. batteries and memory card).

Sony Cyber-shot RX1R II dimensions: 113.3x65.4x72 mm (camera body only, excluding protrusion)
Pentax K-3 II dimensions: 131.5x102.5x77.5 mm (camera body only, excluding protrusion)
- See more at: http://camerasize.com/compare/#638,619