Originally posted by Art Vandelay II What do you mean how small do I think it is? As in diameter or as in registration distance from the sensor? The registration distance is what concerns me...which is where Samsung screwed up IMO. They made theirs too deep to use Rangefinder glass with an adapter.
And no, present DSLR's aren't designed for digital from the ground up. You can possibly make a case that 4/3's is, but even that system stil uses a lot of film-era tech. I'm not saying anything is wrong with that mind you, but we're moving into a world were flappy mirrors, mechanical shutters, screw drive AF motors, and optical view finders are no longer needed. So I don't see why Pentax should stick to a lens mount that leaves clearance for a lot of parts that will no longer be in cameras 5 years from now.
I'm no huge fan of the Sony NEX3/5, but I can see the appeal for such a slim camera when matched with a pancake prime. If Pentax were to use the K-Mount a design like that simply isn't possible.
I was talking about the mount itself. No one mentioned registration distance. Given that we were talking about aps-c sized stuff, I was talking about the mount in comparison to the NX mount.
Well if the mirrorless stuff was designed from the ground up, they need to scrap that junk and start over if it is supposed to be better dSLRs. It is all in the pursuit of interchangeable lens P & S. Then hang some guys retrofitting adapters because some registry distances allow an adapter for certain vintage glass such as the Canon L glass. The 4/3 and micro 4/3 has been organized chaos. What these aps-c systems have done is added to the chaos to a certain degree.
Furthermore, the Pentax registration distance doesn't have jack-shit to do with screw drive motors etc etc etc. Pentax has used that registration distance all the way back to 1952. I suggest you actually get one of those Asahiflex and either an AP or a K body and look at how small they are in your hand. As far as an optical viewfinder goes, there's no replacement for seeing what you are photographing ttl in certain types of photography. You guys piss and moan about compactness, yet the damn thing is sold with a zoom for a kit lens. However, with an APS-c sensor or larger, the k-mount makes sense size wise anyway. As far as the shutters go, they have been improved dramatically since the 1950s.
One aspect to the mirrorless paradigm from a manufacturing stand point is to make them cheap with planned disposable bodies to have a large margin.
Let me ask you this. Does your car have round tires on it made out of rubber? Your film era argument is a strawman. Photography still requires an optical lens to focus an image on a sensor. That still requires the ability to focus it, time it and control the sensitivity etc.