Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
12-19-2015, 08:07 AM   #46
Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Hamilton, Texas
Photos: Albums
Posts: 634
QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
First of all, it is clear that Pentax isn't releasing a mirrorless camera other than the Q any time soon.
I'm glad somebody here has a crystal ball. Mine is missing.


QuoteQuote:
Even more clear is the fact that they aren't abandoning the K mount.
Did anyone seriously suggest this?


QuoteQuote:
...my LBA has abated and I have little desire to go out and buy a bunch of lenses that I could mount on a hypothetical Pentax mirrorless, if it meant that my current K mount lenses would have less functionality due to requiring an adapter to work correctly.
If Pentax did, in fact, make a higher spec (bigger than Q) mirrorless camera, then sensible thing would be to make it a true K-mount camera like the K-01. No adaptors, no special new lenses. They could become the only company selling DSLRs and EVF-based mirrorless cameras in parallel using the exact same lens mount.

12-19-2015, 08:27 AM   #47
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,558
QuoteOriginally posted by Tony Belding Quote
I'm glad somebody here has a crystal ball. Mine is missing.
When asked Pentax always say that Q is their mirorless, kenspoo say that they have no plan for it in the forseeable future neither and it is not announced. Maybe we will get one in 3 years and maybe it will have a great echosystem in 7-8 years but if you need it today rather than just speculating, then you can't count on it.

To me if it is a need that only materialize only if it come in Pentax brand, this is not really a need.


QuoteOriginally posted by Tony Belding Quote
If Pentax did, in fact, make a higher spec (bigger than Q) mirrorless camera, then sensible thing would be to make it a true K-mount camera like the K-01. No adaptors, no special new lenses. They could become the only company selling DSLRs and EVF-based mirrorless cameras in parallel using the exact same lens mount.
Could make sense, but is complex. They tried it, it failed. Basically it will never compete with a small/light/trendy small mirorless like an Olympus Pen just because of form factor imposed by K-mount and poor AF with current K-mount lenses imposed by contrast AF (no PDAF sensor).

They would have to target sensors with bundled phase AF and a great EVF too, it would be very expensive and would have to be at least as good as K3 to sell then. With all the features inside like SR etc it would be quite heavy too. Maybe 600g, a bit like A7-II but with more deph arround the mount.

And of course people here asking for it might find it too expensive, not made to hold a a large tele lense and too expensive to buy as a second lighter camera.

It could work, but that not an easy thing to make, even more so when you just commited yourself to FF and have to invest to rebuild a whole lens line, ensure your existing systems stay competitive and face a declining market.
12-19-2015, 08:28 AM   #48
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Southern Indiana
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 14,963
QuoteOriginally posted by Tony Belding Quote
I'm glad somebody here has a crystal ball. Mine is missing.




Did anyone seriously suggest this?




If Pentax did, in fact, make a higher spec (bigger than Q) mirrorless camera, then sensible thing would be to make it a true K-mount camera like the K-01. No adaptors, no special new lenses. They could become the only company selling DSLRs and EVF-based mirrorless cameras in parallel using the exact same lens mount.
I would be very much fine with a higher specified K-01 with an EVF and PD AF points on the sensor. I have said that many times. But the K-01 was slagged on the forum and at this point, it seems pretty unlikely that Pentax would bring out a sequel after this much time.-- it was released nearly four years ago, now.

Pentax has indicated in numerous interviews that they plan to keep optical viewfinders for their larger sensor cameras. Obviously this could change any time, but I would think it more likely that they would do some type of hybrid viewfinder than that they would abandon the mirror and optical viewfinder entirely.

Sorry if my reply was irritating. I wasn't intending to anger anyone.
12-19-2015, 09:37 AM   #49
Lens Buying Addict
monochrome's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Kirkwood (St. Louis) MO
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 19,497
1. Inside, a K30 is a K-01 with a mirror, a prism and a shutter that only cycles once for each shot rather than twice. Aside from the battery grip and the (poorly-designed) flash hump a K-30 is the same size as a K-01. Substitute an EVF for the prism and top plate size advantage disappears.

2. So long as the register distance of the mount is 45.46mm a Pentax mirrorless won't have any size benefit over a full dSLR. Pentax has said numerous time they are committed to K-mount, so that MILC advantage is questionable, other than for (XS) retrofocus lenses that can extend the rear elements into the empty mirror box. That might rule out telephoto lens size benefit altogether.

3. That leaves an EVF as the only possible benefit of an MILC over a K-mount dSLR. Pentax has stated numerous times they are committed to passive optical viewfinders.

4. Q is the Pentax Mirrorless camera.

12-19-2015, 09:53 AM   #50
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 23,781
Just thought I'd stop in to let y'all know I perused the thread. I hate for anyone to think I missed it completely and think they have to alert me to this valuable information in a PM.
12-19-2015, 11:50 AM   #51
Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Hamilton, Texas
Photos: Albums
Posts: 634
QuoteOriginally posted by monochrome Quote
3. That leaves an EVF as the only possible benefit of an MILC over a K-mount dSLR.
YES. That is the advantage. EVFs are awesome. Pentax needs to climb on board the EVF bandwagon.
12-19-2015, 12:00 PM   #52
Pentaxian
audiobomber's Avatar

Join Date: May 2008
Location: Sudbury, Ontario
Photos: Albums
Posts: 6,631
QuoteOriginally posted by GeneV Quote
I really like my A6000, and would love to see Pentax make something similar with a fully functional AF adapter for K mount lenses like the one Sony makes for its DSLR lenses on E mount. I find the A6000 EVF a joy to use with older manual Pentax lenses. You can actually use flash with these lenses in ways not possible on a Pentax body.

FWIW, my All-metal E-mount Sony/Zeiss 16-70/4 OSS is noticeably smaller and lighter than my DA 17-70/4, and it performs better, especially at the long end. This must not be in a range where the short registration distance is a problem. It is also twice the price of the Pentax.
I have an a6000 as well, but it usually stays home in favour of the K-3 due to SR, WR and a much better lens selection. I have some pretty fine lenses for the both systems, but I'd gladly walk away from Sony if Pentax would deliver a similar body to the A6000, preferably with an AF adapter for K-mount lenses.

The Sony Zeiss 16-70mm f4 got a pretty awful review at Photozone, rated 1.5 stars, vs. 3.5 stars for the Pentax 17-70. I believe 1.5 stars is unreasonably harsh, but there's no denying the 16-70 gives up edge and corner sharpness in favour of small size. I still want one, but I'm not willing to pay $1000 for it.

Last edited by audiobomber; 12-19-2015 at 12:15 PM.
12-19-2015, 12:33 PM   #53
Site Supporter
savoche's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 7,727
Every time I look at mirror-less systems I find the same showstopper: battery life.

I could probably live with an EVF and bad ergonomics, but 300 shots to the charge? No way will I bring a dozen batteries when going off the grid for a week or two.

12-19-2015, 01:24 PM   #54
Site Supporter
reh321's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: South Bend, IN, USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,732
QuoteOriginally posted by Nicolas06 Quote
Spending 5 minutes on Pentax website to look at what is available in K-mount doesn't require years of experience.
I'm not sure why this is so important to you - why you keep repeating and repeating it. As I've said before, I'd much rather be in the field than doing PP ... and it turns out that I'd much rather PP than thumb thru the Pentax catalog (i.e., the website). Maybe it would have taken me just five minutes, maybe thirty, but I didn't know that at the time. I'd much rather leave choosing the "strawman" to you because I have much better use for that time however much it is. And I say "strawman" because the big one you started off with wasn't going to happen in a mount for the K-01, and the smaller one we ended up with is entirely manageable for those few minutes that someone actually uses it.

QuoteOriginally posted by Nicolas06 Quote
My point is not to be happy or not. It is just to make people realize that what make a camera system smaller (incl. lenses) is mostly sensor size and that the mirorless marketing promize is not that big of a difference and come with it own issues. A smaller camera has less grip, more limited ergonomics due to the form factor. MIrorless also tend to be more expensive if than their DSLR counterpart if they come bundled with a viewfinder.
And as I've said multiple times, grip is another "strawman". People who use MILCs are quite happy with them, which means they must be quite happy with things such as grip. Most of the time they use smaller lenses, and when they do happen to use a larger lens, they can always go retro and support the lens with their left hand. You should take a good look at the Sony A6000; it sells very well at whatever its current price is, and Sony did not start off with an MILC customer base. The APS-C A6000 is 120mm x 67mm, slightly smaller than the APS-C K-01 at 122mm x 79mm, so there is a genuine possibility that n-generations later a K-02 could have an EVF and still be smaller than the K-01 (the K-mount and SR would make the K-02 thicker than the A6000, but also give it other benefits)

QuoteOriginally posted by Nicolas06 Quote
My second point is that such camera already exist with different compromize in sensor size / echosystem / price / etc and that if you are not brand blind you can buy them today. It is much more productive to choose among them than to ask endlessly for some brand that doesn't do it and has clearly stated they don't have plan for that to make one. It make no sense for everybody to make the same thing..
You use the word "ecosystem" (it comes from the word "ecology" rather than from the word "echo") so much that you really ought to learn to spell it correctly. And you may be right ... or wrong. One can make exactly the same argument about full-frame cameras. People here should have the same right to spend their time asking for something in this realm as for anything else, and it is really kind of churlish for you to make this complaint over and over again. If you're tired of hearing these requests, you can always stop reading them

QuoteOriginally posted by Nicolas06 Quote
My third point would be that if you are what you call a semi-pro, for me a guy getting paid on the occasion for a shotting, you'll need the same gear as a pro to get acceptable results. If you sell landscapes that may not be a problem but for portraiture, models, studio, weddings, fashion, sports, wildlife that might be one. Weddings are maybe the most common, easiest activity to be paid for on the occasion and this one require fast tele zoom. You'll not get the same portraits from a Nikon 1 + telezoom kit lens than with a K3 and 50-135. or FA77.
In actual usage, people who have day jobs, but occasionally get paid for photography, use professional level cameras. So-called "semi-pro" (or "prosumer") cameras are aimed at those who enjoy photography as a hobby and want equipment close to that level without all attending costs, including money but perhaps also including size and weight.


NOTE: I tried to end my involvement in this thread by declaring you to be the winner, which was my attempt to say we are going over the same ground over-and-over again, so if having your viewpoint being recognized as being correct is that important to you, you can have that honor. You totally misunderstood, so I chose to respond to your last comments, but now I will again declare your words to be wonderful and I'm going on to more important things
12-19-2015, 02:14 PM   #55
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,558
QuoteOriginally posted by reh321 Quote
I'm not sure why this is so important to you - why you keep repeating and repeating it. As I've said before, I'd much rather be in the field than doing PP ...
Ask yourself then why your are there arguing. When I don't want to be involved anymore in a thread I typically remove the notification so I can safely ignore it. I have done it quite a few time.

Basically when I said that mirorless lenses are not smaller overall or even bigger with a few example I tried to keep fair, you countered with thing like a kit lens vs a 50-135 f/2.8. I just showed it was not fair and that when comparing similar lenses my point was valid. You then responded that basically you claim were not backed, that you didn't take time to pounder it anyway, that it is not even worth the time to respond and so that it didn't count in a way and that you are not interrested to spend time on the internet arguing. That a way to see it... One could wonder why you entered the argument to begin with then?

Honestly I was like you at the begining all for this mirorless thing... By looking more and reading what other said and investigating I saw that there was much more marketing in it than real advences. If I want a significantly smaller camera and significantly smaller lenses I have to compromize on sensor size and basically picture quality. That's a choice. Mirorless with short registration distance shift that a bit in favor of WA and disfavor of tele but that's it. That's how it is.

QuoteOriginally posted by reh321 Quote
And as I've said multiple times, grip is another "strawman". People who use MILCs are quite happy with them, which means they must be quite happy with things such as grip. Most of the time they use smaller lenses, and when they do happen to use a larger lens, they can always go retro and support the lens with their left hand. You should take a good look at the Sony A6000; it sells very well at whatever its current price is, and Sony did not start off with an MILC customer base. The APS-C A6000 is 120mm x 67mm, slightly smaller than the APS-C K-01 at 122mm x 79mm, so there is a genuine possibility that n-generations later a K-02 could have an EVF and still be smaller than the K-01 (the K-mount and SR would make the K-02 thicker than the A6000, but also give it other benefits)
By this argumentation people using what ever they have are happy so DSLR users are happy with their gear. As such there no reason to change anything anyway and people only replace gear when it doesn't work anymore. Mirorless market share will remain 25% for ever and people will continue to buy Olympus, Pana and Sony anyway... That's a vision were nothing ever move and quite an innacurate vision of reality.

QuoteOriginally posted by reh321 Quote
You use the word "ecosystem" (it comes from the word "ecology" rather than from the word "echo") so much that you really ought to learn to spell it correctly. And you may be right ... or wrong. One can make exactly the same argument about full-frame cameras. People here should have the same right to spend their time asking for something in this realm as for anything else, and it is really kind of churlish for you to make this complaint over and over again. If you're tired of hearing these requests, you can always stop reading them

In actual usage, people who have day jobs, but occasionally get paid for photography, use professional level cameras. So-called "semi-pro" (or "prosumer") cameras are aimed at those who enjoy photography as a hobby and want equipment close to that level without all attending costs, including money but perhaps also including size and weight.
For some reason people are willing to pay a lot for FF sensors and associated high end FF lenses were the budget to get equiped is more in the 5000-10000$ range than the typical few hundred the "prosumers" agree to pay for a camera and 1-2 basic lenses. As a manufacturer it make sense to leverage that and get the money people are willing to give you in exchange. FF seel 10 time less, but the average spending per consumer is much higher and the margins are greaters. So while I'am not in the market for an FF I clearly understand the reason why a manufacturer would want to try. I don't see reason right now for mirorless as the market is saturated, there no much money to make and the investment to have all the lenses would be huge and you can't be sure people would massively go for your product instead of the more mature existing solutions in that segment.


QuoteOriginally posted by reh321 Quote
NOTE: I tried to end my involvement in this thread by declaring you to be the winner, which was my attempt to say we are going over the same ground over-and-over again, so if having your viewpoint being recognized as being correct is that important to you, you can have that honor. You totally misunderstood, so I chose to respond to your last comments, but now I will again declare your words to be wonderful and I'm going on to more important things
You can stop when you want, you have free will and I certainly can't force you. Don't try to explain I did something bad to you forcing you to respond or stealing your freetime. Future will tell if we continue our discussion and that last argument was rhetorics or if you did stop.
12-19-2015, 03:00 PM   #56
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 23,781
QuoteQuote:
Ask yourself then why your are there arguing.
At this point I'm asking that about both of you, why are you arguing?
Can I have a brief synopsis, I don't want to do all that reading to catch up.
12-20-2015, 12:02 PM   #57
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,558
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
At this point I'm asking that about both of you, why are you arguing?
Can I have a brief synopsis, I don't want to do all that reading to catch up.
Ahaha... Basically this about mirorless do they are really smaller, the camera body sure but also the lenses ?

Short response:

- WA and UWA tend to be smaller on mirorless due to shorter registration distance but this also make tele and zooms that cover 50mm and up bigger so depending of your use a mirorless is an asset, neutral or counter productive, depend of what you use.

- In photography sensor size does really matter. If you want a small camera with a wide range of framing capabilities, the sensor will have to be small. If you want lot of quality, and subject dof control, the sensor will have to be large and if while the camera can stay small, the lenses will be big, even more so for zooms and large apperture. Other factor like EVF/mirorless level of grip do have an impact but far less than the sensor size. The whole fuss about mirrorless being smaller is overrated.

- Other aspects like the ecosystem of available lenses, accessories and their price are also a factor to take into account and tend to benefit to the older systems that have been here a longer time, have more third party and first manufacturer offering as well as a bigger used market.
12-29-2015, 05:44 PM   #58
Senior Member




Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 153
Excuse me jumping in late here. I notice a lot of folks talking about adapting lenses. This can apparently already be achieved very well via these people:

Pentax K+ Multi-Mount - Adaptist

who are offering a multi mount that lets you mount lenses from Nikon, Olympus, Contax, Konica and 43 onto any Pentax SLR. Looks neat.
12-29-2015, 07:44 PM   #59
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: NJ
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 4,705
QuoteOriginally posted by Tony Belding Quote
I'm glad somebody here has a crystal ball. Mine is missing.
Rondec may or may not have a crystal ball, but either last year or earlier this year a Pentax rep did say that the Q is their mirrorless line.
12-31-2015, 05:05 PM   #60
osv
Pentaxian




Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: So Cal
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,080
QuoteOriginally posted by plooksta Quote
Excuse me jumping in late here. I notice a lot of folks talking about adapting lenses. This can apparently already be achieved very well via these people:

Pentax K+ Multi-Mount - Adaptist

who are offering a multi mount that lets you mount lenses from Nikon, Olympus, Contax, Konica and 43 onto any Pentax SLR. Looks neat.
i wish that option would have been around back when i got my k10d, many moons ago.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
cameras, digital camera, k-5, market, mirrorless, options, pentax, pentex, technology
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Who wants a Pentax "Professional" neck strap? panoguy Pentax Camera and Field Accessories 16 11-07-2013 11:09 AM
Selecting a fast semi-wide prime Homo_erectus Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 10 08-02-2013 08:16 AM
Using the K5 as a semi-pro video camera pentaxmz Pentax K-5 26 05-09-2012 05:52 PM
Pentax is investigating a mirrorless system camera falconeye Pentax News and Rumors 172 04-01-2010 01:03 PM
Professional looking to switch to Pentax K-7. Guidence and suggestions please. King_Boru Pentax DSLR Discussion 21 11-16-2009 01:39 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:29 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top