[Kiwi645hauler]

I wonder why a Super-A design with K-mount but FF MILC shouldnt be possible. Pretty much like Olympus' OMD but FF. Ok, battery time probably wouldnt be too great, I guess, but just include a battery grip.

Problem with using K mount for mirrorless is there has to be a specific distance between the lens mount and the sensor, this flange distance is why the K-01 ended up looking like a normal K mount camera with no prism or mirror. The K-Mount specs requires it for focus to be achieved.
The Olympus OM-Ds using Micro 4/3 are able to be so small because the Micro 4/3 mount and sensor size was specifically designed to for Mirrorless cameras. Sure you can use old lenses etc on the Micro 4/3 bodies, but the adapter required also puts the rear lens elements out to the specific distance needed to achieve focus.

[yucafrita]

Problem with using K mount for mirrorless is there has to be a specific distance between the lens mount and the sensor, this flange distance is why the K-01 ended up looking like a normal K mount camera with no prism or mirror. The K-Mount specs requires it for focus to be achieved.
The Olympus OM-Ds using Micro 4/3 are able to be so small because the Micro 4/3 mount and sensor size was specifically designed to for Mirrorless cameras. Sure you can use old lenses etc on the Micro 4/3 bodies, but the adapter required also puts the rear lens elements out to the specific distance needed to achieve focus.

Sure, but the Super-A is small, too. Just a bit larger then my OMD EM5. Just make a Super-A / OMD EM1 blend of design, make it deep enough for an LCD screen and you're almost done. I dont see technical obstacles. I'd think Ricoh is doing their homework and just dont consider this a viable market for them.

[Tony Belding]

Problem with using K mount for mirrorless is there has to be a specific distance between the lens mount and the sensor, this flange distance is why the K-01 ended up looking like a normal K mount camera with no prism or mirror. The K-Mount specs requires it for focus to be achieved.
The Olympus OM-Ds using Micro 4/3 are able to be so small because the Micro 4/3 mount and sensor size was specifically designed to for Mirrorless cameras. Sure you can use old lenses etc on the Micro 4/3 bodies, but the adapter required also puts the rear lens elements out to the specific distance needed to achieve focus.

It seems to me that Pentax have got two possible options to approach this. One would be to make a mirrorless camera with genuine K-mount, basically another K-01 but with an EVF added. The advantage is that it would keep everything simple and require no new lenses, and the DSLR and mirrorless lines would be fully cross-compatible with one another, which is something nobody else has (yet) really tried in the marketplace. The most obvious disadvantage is that it does result in a larger body for the reasons alluded above, because it requires the same flange-to-sensor distance as a DSLR. It also, incidentally, rules out adapting a bunch of lenses from other systems (including vintage lenses) with shorter flange distances, which is something uses of other mirrorless cameras have been having some fun with for a while.

The other strategy is to build a new mirrorless camera with a reduced flange-back distance (let's say, M-mount?), and then rely upon adapters to access the existing catalog of K-mount lenses. The adapter would have to provide a pass-through for everything required to operate a lens, both electronic and mechanical. It's basically just like a macro extension tube, though!

One interesting observation. . . We now have a version of the K-mount, and a new lens, that allows electronic aperture control. Pentax lenses from now and going forward may have no mechanical linkage with the camera at all. It's all done through the electrical contacts. That makes an adapter pretty easy, if you don't require compatibility with any older lenses. The mirrorless camera would be able to use new M-mount lenses natively, new K-mount lenses with a simple adapter, and perhaps older K-mount lenses with an optional and more costly adapter that contains the required mechanical bits. (A solenoid to operate the aperture lever? And maybe even a motor to drive screw-mount AF lenses??)

[monochrome]

One interesting observation. . . We now have a version of the K-mount, and a new lens, that allows electronic aperture control. Pentax lenses from now and going forward may have no mechanical linkage with the camera at all. It's all done through the electrical contacts. That makes an adapter pretty easy, if you don't require compatibility with any older lenses. The mirrorless camera would be able to use new M-mount lenses natively, new K-mount lenses with a simple adapter, and perhaps older K-mount lenses with an optional and more costly adapter that contains the required mechanical bits. (A solenoid to operate the aperture lever? And maybe even a motor to drive screw-mount AF lenses??)

Who would buy the 'regular' new M mount camera? There's only one lens - a K-mount 55~300 - to use with it which means all the disadvantages of K-mount, and the backward-compatible adapter would be such an engineering tour de force that it would be cost-prohibitive.

Pentax is already so buried under lens development programs (645, FF and APSc) that they're rumored to be dropping Q. Do you really think they'll immediately start another mount that they'll need to produce a lens catalog for?

A new-mount MILC, I think, would be Ricoh-branded and NOT K/KAF-mount compatible, even with an adapter - but it isn't at all likely.

[RobA_Oz]

The mechanics of such an adapter aren't complex or otherwise difficult - every auto teleconverter or set of extension tubes from even the M42 days has managed that trick. Adding transducers to convert the mechanical signals or stop-down actuation does add complexity, but once you've done the work, it's done.

Nonetheless, as stated many, many times in the past, a mirrorless body that takes K-mount lenses doesn't have to be chunky or inelegant, but it will need a boss to achieve the K-mount registration. Whether that's done with a fixed or removable extension depends on whether a new range of lenses is planned or not. You could even do it with a collapsible extension, a little like some old Leica M39 lenses, but built into the body. The engineering involved isn't hard, and Pentax is used to building structurally-sound bodies.

[reh321]

The mirrorless camera would be able to use new M-mount lenses natively, new K-mount lenses with a simple adapter, and perhaps older K-mount lenses with an optional and more costly adapter that contains the required mechanical bits. (A solenoid to operate the aperture lever? And maybe even a motor to drive screw-mount AF lenses??)

As I indicated in my message #28 above, I see neither purpose nor advantage to your most costly adapter; I don't understand the details of the KA-mount, but by its nature, an MILC with EVF is a natural for older lenses with an aperture ring that never open up completely - they simply stay at the specified aperture the entire time.

[monochrome]

The mechanics of such an adapter aren't complex or otherwise difficult - every auto teleconverter or set of extension tubes from even the M42 days has managed that trick. Adding transducers to convert the mechanical signals or stop-down actuation does add complexity, but once you've done the work, it's done.

In the adapter there must be a Screwdrive motor, aperture actuator (with nothing in the body, so self-contained, because modern lenses don't have aperture rings) - and that assumes legacy lens users are willing to use the aperture ring for stop-down focusing with the EVF Gain compensating even on A and later lenses - or be manual focus and aperture.

If manual focus and aperture is the case, why wouldn't I just buy a Sony?

[Rondec]

It seems to me that Pentax have got two possible options to approach this. One would be to make a mirrorless camera with genuine K-mount, basically another K-01 but with an EVF added. The advantage is that it would keep everything simple and require no new lenses, and the DSLR and mirrorless lines would be fully cross-compatible with one another, which is something nobody else has (yet) really tried in the marketplace. The most obvious disadvantage is that it does result in a larger body for the reasons alluded above, because it requires the same flange-to-sensor distance as a DSLR. It also, incidentally, rules out adapting a bunch of lenses from other systems (including vintage lenses) with shorter flange distances, which is something uses of other mirrorless cameras have been having some fun with for a while.

The other strategy is to build a new mirrorless camera with a reduced flange-back distance (let's say, M-mount?), and then rely upon adapters to access the existing catalog of K-mount lenses. The adapter would have to provide a pass-through for everything required to operate a lens, both electronic and mechanical. It's basically just like a macro extension tube, though!

One interesting observation. . . We now have a version of the K-mount, and a new lens, that allows electronic aperture control. Pentax lenses from now and going forward may have no mechanical linkage with the camera at all. It's all done through the electrical contacts. That makes an adapter pretty easy, if you don't require compatibility with any older lenses. The mirrorless camera would be able to use new M-mount lenses natively, new K-mount lenses with a simple adapter, and perhaps older K-mount lenses with an optional and more costly adapter that contains the required mechanical bits. (A solenoid to operate the aperture lever? And maybe even a motor to drive screw-mount AF lenses??)

The biggest problem is the lens issue. Pentax is currently trying to whip up a bunch of new lenses for the K-1. The idea of them trying to make a bunch of lenses for a new lens mount and create an adapter that actually provides seamless functionality -- aperture control from camera body and auto focus for screw driven lenses -- is pretty unlikely. From Pentax's standpoint, they aren't really trying to make a camera for you to mount a bunch of non-Pentax lenses on anyway. Most of the folks who want to do that have bought other mirrorless options already.

I could definitely see a K-01 with more normal styling and an EVF come out down the road. If the K-01 hadn't been slammed so hard by everyone, we might have seen it already. It still could be pretty small and with PDAF on the sensor, the auto focus could be quite good compared to the original K-01.

Be that as it may, if Pentax experiments more with EVFs, my guess would be that they would do so on entry level cameras.

[RobA_Oz]

In the adapter there must be a Screwdrive motor, aperture actuator (with nothing in the body, so self-contained, because modern lenses don't have aperture rings) - and that assumes legacy lens users are willing to use the aperture ring for stop-down focusing with the EVF Gain compensating even on A and later lenses - or be manual focus and aperture.

If manual focus and aperture is the case, why wouldn't I just buy a Sony?

Indeed. Some of their adapters are gargantuan, I grant you.

[reh321]

Be that as it may, if Pentax experiments more with EVFs, my guess would be that they would do so on entry level cameras.

Which is why I keep hoping to see either a K-07 {MILC based on K-70} or Q-S2 with an EVF. I understand that Pentax's entire heritage, including the name, comes from the mirror / prism, but having looked at Sony I am certain that over a year ago EVFs reached the point of being largely competitive with OVFs, so I still think MILC will become the dominant technology in lower end ILC.

---------- Post added 08-18-16 at 08:38 AM ----------

... If manual focus and aperture is the case, why wouldn't I just buy a Sony?

If I want a little radio, I'll buy a Sony. For a camera, I would prefer someone with a long heritage of building actual cameras. Ricoh's keeping the name Pentax, while Sony eliminated the name Minolta, says a lot to me about how they value experience and heritage {besides, in all honesty, I expect the Pentax entry to be true K-mount despite the slight size "penalty"}.

[monochrome]

If I want a little radio, I'll buy a Sony. For a camera, I would prefer someone with a long heritage of building actual cameras. Ricoh's keeping the name Pentax, while Sony eliminated the name Minolta, says a lot to me about how they value experience and heritage {besides, in all honesty, I expect the Pentax entry to be true K-mount despite the slight size "penalty"}.

You do understand that Konica Minolta retained exclusive rights to the Minolta brand name, right? Sony cannot use Minolta even if they want to. One of the problems Sony has had with dSLR's is their perceived lack of tenure in the market (with the Sony brand name) when in fact they do have tenure. Maybe Ricoh learned from Sony's experience and decided the Pentax brand could successfully be owned by multiple companies for multiple products.

OTOH, their current MILC products attach a premium value to the Sony brand, so they can charge whatever they want and buyers overlook lots of ergonomic problems just to have a Greek letter on their shiny box.

[lytrytyr]

From Pentax's standpoint, they aren't really trying to make a camera for you to mount a bunch of non-Pentax lenses on anyway.

"Pentax" here is Ricoh, and look what Ricoh did with their GXR M-mount module:

https://www.lensrentals.com/rent/leica/cameras/ricoh-gxr-camera-a12-leica-m-mount-module?

[Tony Belding]

Pentax is already so buried under lens development programs (645, FF and APSc) that they're rumored to be dropping Q. Do you really think they'll immediately start another mount that they'll need to produce a lens catalog for?

That's why I personally favor sticking with K-mount and producing a sequel to the K-01, and keeping the mirrorless and DSLR systems fully compatible. If you want smaller, that's what the Q system is for. (Now keep in mind, I also didn't think producing a full-frame DSLR made much sense, so obviously Ricoh/Pentax don't always do what I think is sensible!)

Canon and Nikon are facing the same dilemma. Canon is rumored to be coming out with a full-frame mirrorless camera Real Soon Now, and I hear that Nikon may also be dabbling with something. Going with a new mount plus adapters might make more sense for those companies.

A new-mount MILC, I think, would be Ricoh-branded and NOT K/KAF-mount compatible, even with an adapter - but it isn't at all likely.

I don't see how that helps any. It breaks the branding model Ricoh have followed so far, which is that interchangeable lens cameras are Pentaxes and fixed-lens cameras are Ricohs. Making a bunch of new lenses for a Ricoh isn't any cheaper or easier than making a bunch of new lenses for a Pentax, doesn't save them anything except producing an adapter. (And then there would be the embarrassment when Metabones produces the full-function adapter that Ricoh were too cheap to offer!)

[reh321]

... Canon and Nikon are facing the same dilemma. Canon is rumored to be coming out with a full-frame mirrorless camera Real Soon Now, and I hear that Nikon may also be dabbling with something. Going with a new mount plus adapters might make more sense for those companies.

Canon has had the M-mount {plus adapter} for some time now, but they've had trouble getting any one {outside Japan, at least} to buy it. My belief is that these have been half-hearted attempts {only the latest had an available EVF, and that was a $200 add-on} - but I have no idea what their take-home lesson has been.

[butangmucat]

To take that a step further... Because of the nature of MILC, they could simplify handling of "K" and "M" lenses {i.e., those before the KA-mount}. The mount could be designed to never open the lens to its widest aperture. Those lenses could work as an M42-mount lens does ... focusing, composing, and metering could be done stopped-down {EVF would give sufficient light and focus-peaking would simplify focusing}. This would provide a platform for using the older lenses in a more natural setting without having to worry about green-button metering.

To be honest I use my M42 and KM lenses on a Sony body exactly for this reason.

Sent from my Android phone, please forgive any possible typos.