[Nicolas06]

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: Compare camera dimensions side by side

And theses things are camera bodies, not lenses. Thanks for your intervention osv.

[Nicolas06]

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?

It is a bit more complex than that:
- Basically when you are near to the registration distance the lenses can be very small
- When a focal length is significantly shorter than the registration distance, you need a retrofocus design. The shorter the focal length and the more distance to the registration distance, the bigger it become.
- When a focal length is significantly longer than the registration distance, you need tele design. A naive design would make the lens the size of the focal length minus the registration distance. A tele allows to do better.
- Of course this should be all else being equal... Apperture, image circle.

Sony E registration distance is 18mm. K mount is 45.5...

Example of Sony A7 tele lenses vs K-mount equivalent.
- Sony FE 55mm f/1.8, 70mm long, 281g ... Same length as DA*55 f/1.4 that is 70mm long too but half a stop faster. Still longer than FA77 f/1.8 that has longer focal length and same apperture. 48mm long, 270g.
- Sony FE 90mm macro f/2.8 130mm long, 602g. Much longer/heavier than 100mm macro WR 80mm long, 340g even through the Pentax focal length is longer.

Here the shorter registration distance is not an asset, it is drawback: it make your lenses bigger.

Example of Sony A7 moderate WA:
- Sony 28mm f/2 60mm long 200g vs FA31 f/1.8 69mm long, 345g. The FA31 is a bit widder but the focal length start to show the difference. The longer registration distance add complexity for K-mount.

Then the issue is because Sony A7 is a FF, it need basically longer focal length for the same framing. So while it is good it can have sightly smaller 28mm and that this benefit grows for 24mm and less, you are likely to want something that goes up to 200mm at least and a prime for portraiture is more going to be in the 85mm-135mm range...

Anyway, let's look how Sony FE zooms fare:
Sony 24-70 f/4, 424g, 94.5mm long vs Cannon 24-70 f/4, 600g, 93mm long
Sony 70-200 f/4, 175mm long, 840g vs Canon 70-200 f/4, 172mm long, 705g.

Indeed on the zoom there less difference: they are the same size even through it is interresting to note that is the transtandard is lighter than the Cannon, the 70-200 while being the same size is heavier than the Canon. Strange when you think the A7 familly argument is the size/weight.

One thing is sure through, the short registration distance on Sony FE mount didn't provide the gain it was supported to bring. Only the camera body is smaller, but the lenses tend to be bigger. To me this is because they designed the mount to be for APSC first. For an FF, 18mm is too short, the increased need for short focal length negate all the gains you could have for a few UWA.

[reh321]

It is a bit more complex than that:
- Basically when you are near to the registration distance the lenses can be very small
- When a focal length is significantly shorter than the registration distance, you need a retrofocus design. The shorter the focal length and the more distance to the registration distance, the bigger it become.
- When a focal length is significantly longer than the registration distance, you need tele design. A naive design would make the lens the size of the focal length minus the registration distance. A tele allows to do better.
- Of course this should be all else being equal... Apperture, image circle.

Sony E registration distance is 18mm. K mount is 45.5...

Example of Sony A7 tele lenses vs K-mount equivalent.
- Sony FE 55mm f/1.8, 70mm long, 281g ... Same length as DA*55 f/1.4 that is 70mm long too but half a stop faster. Still longer than FA77 f/1.8 that has longer focal length and same apperture. 48mm long, 270g.
- Sony FE 90mm macro f/2.8 130mm long, 602g. Much longer/heavier than 100mm macro WR 80mm long, 340g even through the Pentax focal length is longer.

Here the shorter registration distance is not an asset, it is drawback: it make your lenses bigger.

Example of Sony A7 moderate WA:
- Sony 28mm f/2 60mm long 200g vs FA31 f/1.8 69mm long, 345g. The FA31 is a bit wider but the focal length start to show the difference. The longer registration distance add complexity for K-mount.

Then the issue is because Sony A7 is a FF, it need basically longer focal length for the same framing. So while it is good it can have sightly smaller 28mm and that this benefit grows for 24mm and less, you are likely to want something that goes up to 200mm at least and a prime for portraiture is more going to be in the 85mm-135mm range...

Anyway, let's look how Sony FE zooms fare:
Sony 24-70 f/4, 424g, 94.5mm long vs Cannon 24-70 f/4, 600g, 93mm long
Sony 70-200 f/4, 175mm long, 840g vs Canon 70-200 f/4, 172mm long, 705g.

Indeed on the zoom there less difference: they are the same size even through it is interresting to note that is the transtandard is lighter than the Cannon, the 70-200 while being the same size is heavier than the Canon. Strange when you think the A7 familly argument is the size/weight.

One thing is sure through, the short registration distance on Sony FE mount didn't provide the gain it was supported to bring. Only the camera body is smaller, but the lenses tend to be bigger. To me this is because they designed the mount to be for APSC first. For an FF, 18mm is too short, the increased need for short focal length negate all the gains you could have for a few UWA.

Frankly, I'm not that concerned about the size of telephoto lenses; in fact, comparing older lenses to newer lenses, I'm quite pleased with the size of most newer ones.

My ancient Super Tacumar 300mm is roughly 150mm long and weighs roughly 850 grams

My more modern Sigma 70-300mm is roughly 120mm fully retracted (180mm fully extended) and weighs roughly 550 grams

Yesterday i went to Target (an upscale competitor of Walmart) and looked at several different bridge cameras (each has a 1/2.3" sensor).
Of course, I can only guess at where the sensor is, and how the area in front of it is split between "mount" and "lens",
but my guess is that the lenses on those (where the actual length is between 180mm and 300mm) all come in at roughly the same figures,
roughly 60mm for the lens fully retracted (110mm fully extended), and (according to Internet sources) the entire camera weighs around 400g.

I made the measurements primarily because I was curious to know what the dimensions of a 100-300mm Q mount lens would be.
Since the Q-mount family already has lower focal distances covered, we already know that they are manageable.

Presumably, native lenses for a K-02 would be somewhere between K-mount and Q-mount.

[Nicolas06]

Frankly, I'm not that concerned about the size of telephoto lenses; in fact, comparing older lenses to newer lenses, I'm quite pleased with the size of most newer ones.

My ancient Super Tacumar 300mm is roughly 150mm long and weighs roughly 850 grams

My more modern Sigma 70-300mm is roughly 120mm fully retracted (180mm fully extended) and weighs roughly 550 grams

Yesterday i went to Target (an upscale competitor of Walmart) and looked at several different bridge cameras (each has a 1/2.3" sensor).
Of course, I can only guess at where the sensor is, and how the area in front of it is split between "mount" and "lens",
but my guess is that the lenses on those (where the actual length is between 180mm and 300mm) all come in at roughly the same figures,
roughly 60mm for the lens fully retracted (110mm fully extended), and (according to Internet sources) the entire camera weighs around 400g.

I made the measurements primarily because I was curious to know what the dimensions of a 100-300mm Q mount lens would be.
Since the Q-mount family already has lower focal distances covered, we already know that they are manageable.

Presumably, native lenses for a K-02 would be somewhere between K-mount and Q-mount.

If the K02 has an APSC sensor and shorter registration distance, the lenses will look like Fuji lenses. Think that all Fuji lenses are new while many of the Pentax designs are evolution of old design.

Overall Fuji lenses are bigger.

The longer the focal lengh, the worse it become:
- The 56mm f/1.2 from fuji is same size as DA*55 f/1.4
- The 60mm f/2.4 from fuji is as big as a DA*55 while the DA70 f/2.4 is a pancake.
- The 90mm f/2 is 10cm long and 540g while the 100mm f/2.8 from pentax is 80mm long and 340g.

The Fuji zooms tend to be bigger:

Fuji 10-24 f/4 is same size/weight as tamron 10-24 f/3.5-4.5 or Pentax 12-24 f/4
Fuji 55-200 is same size/weight as Pentax 55-300
Fuji 16-55 106mm, 655g is bigger and heavier than Pentax 16-50 98mm, 565g.
Fuji 55-140 175mm, 995g is bigger and heavie than Pentax 50-135, 135mm, 685g

It is only if you go for a WA that Fuji manage to get small large apperture lenses. True. But that doesn't prevent Pentax to provide a set of pancakes to compete like DA21, DA40, FA43 and to keep small lenses like DA15 and FA35 f/2... Apperture is not as great, size is as small.

The reality is that in Pentax you can go out with DA21, DA40, DA70 and in Fuji the longuest focal length for a pancake is 27mm.

A K-02 with K-mount would keep the same lenses. A K-02 with shorter registration distance would get bigger lenses for everything (zooms, tele primes) but get WA with wider appertures. There no way though even for WA to beat DA21 and DA40 or FA43 from a size point of view anyway. Even DA15 and DA35 are still small lenses.

Hey even if we compare bodies. XT1 is 1cm narrower only than existing K01 but 1cm taller. K01 is 560g while Fuji 440g. You really want to change mount for 120g and 1cm narrower body ? Really?

---

Last edited by Nicolas06; 11-02-2015 at 02:07 PM.

[kenspo]

Dont know why you're still talking about this? It won't come any mirrorless FF or similar from Ricoh/Pentax in the near future.

[reh321]

If the K02 has an APSC sensor and shorter registration distance, the lenses will look like Fuji lenses. Think that all Fuji lenses are new while many of the Pentax designs are evolution of old design.
Overall Fuji lenses are bigger.

The longer the focal lengh, the worse it become:
- The 56mm f/1.2 from fuji is same size as DA*55 f/1.4
- The 60mm f/2.4 from fuji is as big as a DA*55 while the DA70 f/2.4 is a pancake.
- The 90mm f/2 is 10cm long and 540g while the 100mm f/2.8 from pentax is 80mm long and 340g.

The Fuji zooms tend to be bigger:

Fuji 10-24 f/4 is same size/weight as tamron 10-24 f/3.5-4.5 or Pentax 12-24 f/4
Fuji 55-200 is same size/weight asPentax 55-300Fuji 16-55 106mm, 655g is bigger and heavier than Pentax 16-50 98mm, 565g.Fuji 55-140 175mm, 995g is bigger and heavier thanPentax 50-135, 135mm, 685g

As I have already commented, I used Pentax SLR from 1979-95, but then switched to Canon because I liked Canon AF lenses much better. During the time 1995-2006 I used one Canon film camera, two Canon digital Rebels, three Canon lenses, one Sigma lens and one Tamron lens. Despite comments here about the build quality of Canon lenses, I never had a lens fail on me, not even the plastic-mount lens kitted with my film camera (I continued to use that lens on occasion after I switched to the Rebels, so I had been using it for over fifteen years when I lost it). I finally came back to Pentax because of quality of Canon bodies - and, in fact, when I got my K-30 last summer, my first thought was that I had been correct in my evaluation of lenses twenty years earlier. Thus, when I saw your comparisons, my first thought was to see what Canon has provided for their EOS-M line. After looking at B&H, I suggest that you should add the following to your comparisons:

Canon EOS-M 55-200 86.5mm, 260g is smaller and much lighter than Pentax 50-135, 135mm, 685g
Canon EF-M 55-200mm f/4.5-6.3 IS STM Lens (Black) 9517B002 B&H

Although I used Kodak film most of the time, I had no issues with FujiFilm as a film company, but I don't consider them to be a leading camera manufacturer. I would hope that Pentax MILC products would look more like Canon than like FujiFilm (and the Q family thus far gives me hope that such a thing will be true)

[Nicolas06]

As I have already commented, I used Pentax SLR from 1979-95, but then switched to Canon because I liked Canon AF lenses much better. During the time 1995-2006 I used one Canon film camera, two Canon digital Rebels, three Canon lenses, one Sigma lens and one Tamron lens. Despite comments here about the build quality of Canon lenses, I never had a lens fail on me, not even the plastic-mount lens kitted with my film camera (I continued to use that lens on occasion after I switched to the Rebels, so I had been using it for over fifteen years when I lost it). I finally came back to Pentax because of quality of Canon bodies - and, in fact, when I got my K-30 last summer, my first thought was that I had been correct in my evaluation of lenses twenty years earlier. Thus, when I saw your comparisons, my first thought was to see what Canon has provided for their EOS-M line. After looking at B&H, I suggest that you should add the following to your comparisons:

Canon EOS-M 55-200 86.5mm, 260g is smaller and much lighter than Pentax 50-135, 135mm, 685g
Canon EF-M 55-200mm f/4.5-6.3 IS STM Lens (Black) 9517B002 B&H

Although I used Kodak film most of the time, I had no issues with FujiFilm as a film company, but I don't consider them to be a leading camera manufacturer. I would hope that Pentax MILC products would look more like Canon than like FujiFilm (and the Q family thus far gives me hope that such a thing will be true)

The Canon 55-200 f/3.5-6.3 86.5mm, 260g is to be compared to the Pentax 50-200 f/4-5.6 79mm, 260g, not a constant f/2.8 zoom.

It seems you have no idea what you speak of, really.

[reh321]

The Canon 55-200 f/3.5-6.3 86.5mm, 260g is to be compared to the Pentax 50-200 f/4-5.6 79mm, 260g, not a constant f/2.8 zoom.

It seems you have no idea what you speak of, really.

I am fully aware of what I am talking about.

You may "need", or insist on, a constant f/2.8 zoom, but I'm certain that most lenses sold are not of that type,
because there is no need for a constant wide-aperture f-stop zoom on any camera for general purpose use.
I have always stipulated that people shooting sports will be the last ones to consider MILC,
so using lenses of that sort for a comparison is what we call a "strawman"

If Pentax were to build an APS-C MILC, this is what would be available for it;
it would be just fine for most of us, and telephoto zoom would not doooom a Pentax MILC.

Building an APS-C MILC is entirely reasonable, and wanting it is entirely reasonable.

Pentax may have other uses for their limited resources right now, but that is an entirely different discussion.

[GeneV]

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.

[Nicolas06]

I am fully aware of what I am talking about.

You may "need", or insist on, a constant f/2.8 zoom, but I'm certain that most lenses sold are not of that type,
because there is no need for a constant wide-aperture f-stop zoom on any camera for general purpose use.
I have always stipulated that people shooting sports will be the last ones to consider MILC,
so using lenses of that sort for a comparison is what we call a "strawman"

If Pentax were to build an APS-C MILC, this is what would be available for it;
it would be just fine for most of us, and telephoto zoom would not doooom a Pentax MILC.

Building an APS-C MILC is entirely reasonable, and wanting it is entirely reasonable.

Pentax may have other uses for their limited resources right now, but that is an entirely different discussion.

So if the standard f/2.8 zoom lens is not necessary (they are also used for weddings, portraiture, events and anything lowlight) and slower alternative exist for both system why did you have to compare the huge f/2.8 zoom from DSLR and the small slow lens from mirroless.

You can't say this comparison made any sense... And once you compare to equivalent lenses, the mirrorless one are no smaller. The huge size difference gain of mirorless apply to large apperture wide angle only (try to find something smaller than a DA21...). You still didn't provide a single convincing example of how mirroless tele lenses (from same sensor size) are significantly smaller... whatever the max apperture.

Sure a m4/3 Olympus Pen + colapsible kit lens is much smaller than a K-S1 even with colapsible kit lens. This come at the cost of a smaller sensor and being very limited for both camera in what you can shoot. No much subject separation, no possibility to shoot anything a bit far away or even with a truely wide angle of view.

Sure it is possible to add other lenses to the Pen and keep a smaller system than with a DSLR but this is because the sensor is smaller not because this is a mirroless design.

[reh321]

This thread has more lives than Lazarus!!

So if the standard f/2.8 zoom lens is not necessary (they are also used for weddings, portraiture, events and anything lowlight) and slower alternative exist for both system why did you have to compare the huge f/2.8 zoom from DSLR and the small slow lens from mirror-less.

You can't say this comparison made any sense... And once you compare to equivalent lenses, the mirror-less one are no smaller. The huge size difference gain of mirror-less apply to large aperture wide angle only (try to find something smaller than a DA21...). You still didn't provide a single convincing example of how mirror-less tele-lenses (from same sensor size) are significantly smaller... whatever the max aperture.

You are the winner!! (Does that make you happy?) You know the K-mount catalog better than someone who has been back to K-mount for an entire six months!!! Back to your other point, no one other than you has been interested in telephoto, but even with a "small slow lens" a K-02 system would be noticeably smaller than my K-30 system (because the body would still be a noticeable percentage of the system), and that is what I am interested in.

Sure a m4/3 Olympus Pen + collapsible kit lens is much smaller than a K-S1 even with collapsible kit lens. This come at the cost of a smaller sensor and being very limited for both camera in what you can shoot. No much subject separation, no possibility to shoot anything a bit far away or even with a truly wide angle of view.

Sure it is possible to add other lenses to the Pen and keep a smaller system than with a DSLR but this is because the sensor is smaller not because this is a mirror-less design.

All of this is beside the point. The OP asked for a semi-pro MILC. A normal K-01 system is much smaller than my K-30. I would have bought an EVF-equiped K-02 if such a thing had existed six months ago, but it didn't. All this other babble is beside the point. A semi-pro, by definition, doesn't work weddings or sports. All the OP asked for 20+ months ago, before the account went inactive, was for a K-02. We keep talking about that, because people here are interested in that. Pentax has chosen not to supply one, and they get to make that choice; some people here have chosen to leave Pentax and go to Olympus because the tradeoffs are appealing to them, and they get to make that choice;others here are attracted to Sony's APC-S Sony A6000 system, which is noticeably smaller than any Pentax DSLR system, and they get to make that choice. You may continue to pontificate on the subject if that makes you feel good, but I'm ready to get off at this station, since we've passed it multiple times already.

BTW - looking at my files, I'm taking as many pictures with my Q-7 as I am with my K-30. With my shooting style, having a deeper DoF is just fine for me, and the camera I can have with me is better than the camera I wouldn't think of packing for the occasion

[Tony Belding]

BTW - looking at my files, I'm taking as many pictures with my Q-7 as I am with my K-30. With my shooting style, having a deeper DoF is just fine for me, and the camera I can have with me is better than the camera I wouldn't think of packing for the occasion

I shoot more with the Q7 these days than anything else.

[Nicolas06]

You are the winner!! (Does that make you happy?) You know the K-mount catalog better than someone who has been back to K-mount for an entire six months!!!

Spending 5 minutes on Pentax website to look at what is available in K-mount doesn't require years of experience.

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.

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.

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.

[Nicolas06]

BTW - looking at my files, I'm taking as many pictures with my Q-7 as I am with my K-30. With my shooting style, having a deeper DoF is just fine for me, and the camera I can have with me is better than the camera I wouldn't think of packing for the occasion

Then be happy with it ! No APSC mirorless will be as small and with as much Dof as a Q...

[Rondec]

First of all, it is clear that Pentax isn't releasing a mirrorless camera other than the Q any time soon. Even more clear is the fact that they aren't abandoning the K mount.

Mirrorless does have some benefits. From a personal standpoint, 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. By all accounts the alpha/FE mount adapter is a kludge, which while functional, adds considerable bulk to the whole set up and isn't exactly speedy at auto focus.

I am not an expert on lens design, but my understanding is that lens size is determined by the aperture, the focal length, the registration distance, and the amount of corrective lens elements that are used in its design. Obviously longer focal lengths and faster apertures will tend to lead toward larger lenses. Lenses that are close to the registration distance will also be smaller -- the smallest lens in a k mount is the 40mm XS, which is really tiny, considering that it is an f2.8 lens. Sony has kept lenses smaller for their mirrorless cameras by under correcting them (and then fixing them with software) and keeping their apertures relatively slow (no f2.8 zooms).

All of that is probably immaterial to Pentaxians. SLR is clearly the direction that Pentax is headed for the near future, at any rate.