[dnas]

I dont see why people think it is an insurmountable engineering problem to have a fully electronic mount for the mirrorless camera but still retain aperture and focus control. Any adapter for a kmount lens to a mirrorless camera is going to be of substantial thickness (look at the sony alpha to nex adapter, which does have aperture control).
http://www.sonystyle.com/wcsstore/SonyStyleStorefrontAssetStore/img/718x407/LAEA1.png
Anything for Pentax would be of similar dimensions. There is plenty of room in there for 2 micromotors, one to operate the aperture linkage (as sony has already done) and one to run the af screw. It would be more expensive and probably pretty slow focusing if it had to move heavy glass around, but I think alot of people would buy it if that meant they could still use their limiteds on it. And of course, using any of the sdm lenses would not be a problem as long as the adapter had aperture control. Samsung, panasonic, and olympus all make af pancake lenses that are not any larger than that adapter that squeeze in focusing motors along with lens elements and aperture motors. In fact, someone posted a video on dpreview where some guy in Korea had converted a samsung pancake lens for the nx10 into a working autofocus adapter for nikon FF lenses, and it had to move the entire FF lens back and forth. People assume its not doable just because no one has done it yet. But none of the other manufacturers have quite the incentive to preserve backwards compatibility that pentax has.

I totally agree!!!

For example, I have Panasonic micro 4/3 cameras, and the adapter is quite thick. If you buy a standard Pentax K - micro 4/3 adapter you can't use any of the DA lenses in a practical way, because they don't have the aperture ring on the lens.(so the lens is always in the fully stopped down position)
However, you can buy a Pentax K DA - micro 4/3 adapter, where there is a ring that can be used to open/close the aperture.

So in other words, there is plenty of room on the adapter to build in a host of features, including aperture and focus control using two micro motors.

Personally, I think Pentax would be smart to use micro 4/3 ( ) rather than another new mirrorless system, because the standard and market is already established. But if they make a fully operational adapter for a bucket load of Pentax AF lenses, then at least they might sell a lot of adapters & lenses to current Pany & Oly owners!!!!!
And if Pentax released micro 4/3 cameras, I would definitely consider switching from Pany to Pentax, because I know the innovative approach Pentax has.

[duncsuss]

Thank you for this opinion. Actually I can't undrestand why everyone trusts this source. I don't trust Citi at all. They make bad business, lie to the customers and the marketing model they applied here (wher I live) is almost to be called scam.

I'm surprised you are the first person to say this

A simple online search gets you to a story on Marketwatch.com about how Citigroup Global Markets recently got fined for lying to investors.

Citigroup Global Markets, Inc. Found Liable for More Than $550,000 in Connection With the Improper Sale of Its MAT 3 Municipal Arbitrage Fund to Investors

[jaitas]

I'd just like to see a locking mechanism for the hinge. I'd hate to accidentally crush my thumb - that's all that separates me from apes!

Yeah locking mechanism is a must, I just wanted to keep drawing very simple just to show the principle, But I honestly think that actual grip would be quite good while retaining portability.

-J

[BRunner]

I think, it will be possible for Pentax to create EVIL with current mount and register distance. Look at the old Pentax ME film body, EVIL at this size will be just perfect. Remove pentaprism and with current OLED displays which are ~1mm thin, the body does not need to be much thicker than old film body. I tried yesterday Sony NEX at local shop... i think that cigarette pack paired with Coca-Cola can is worse to handle than bigger rangefinder cameras (like Leica Ms) with small primes. Which is approximately the size of potential K-mount EVIL.
In addition immediately after release Pentax will have full range of tiny DA Limited primes ready for its new EVIL body. The only thing they need is smaller kit zoom. Even here I see no problem, because it can protrude inside the body, where is lot of free space now without the mirror. The outer part of this zoom can be approximately the size of DA15, maybe even smaller. And this will open even new possibilities for high quality non-retrofocus wide angle primes, which can be backward usable on DSLR bodies with LiveView. The only requirement is to implement mirror-lock in new DSLRs.
IMHO this way is most safe for Pentax with its limited R&D budget. No need to develop new mount and new lenses. Even for the users, they will see safe upgrade way from EVIL to DSLRs. But this is just what plain common sense tells me, unfortunately the marketing does not work this way.

---

Last edited by BRunner; 08-05-2010 at 07:00 AM.

[Fogel70]

MHO this way is most safe for Pentax with its limited R&D budget. No need to develop new mount and new lenses. Even for the users, they will see safe upgrade way from EVIL to DSLRs. But this is just what plain common sense tells me, unfortunately the marketing does not work this way.

I see several problem with this.

If keeping the register distance from DSLR it will be difficult for Pentax to make as small and fast lenses as the competition can. Sony 16/2.8 for NEX or Samsung 30/2 for NX are both smaller and faster than most DA-primes. The shorter register distance is part of the solution of making a smaller system as both camera and lenses can be made smaller. Lenses protruding into the camera might be a solution for smaller lenses, but to me it sounds like a overly complicated solution. A new mount with an adapter for old DSLR lenses seems to be much simpler solution. Lenses protruding into the camera might also lead to new complications (just look at the troubles Leica faced when making their digital RF).

Lenses made for DSLR will not work very well on a EVIL camera, phase detection AF and contrast detection AF require different design on lenses (and cameras) for AF speed to be optimized. If using (D)SLR phase detection lenses on an EVIL, AF speed will be much slower that on a lens optimized for contrast detection AF.
Most of Pentax DSLR lenses use screw-drive AF which will be less attractive to most buyers of an EVIL camera. As they also want to use the camera for video they require silent AF.

I just don't see this being a very successful design. If releasing a new type of camera its design should be optimized for the future and any compatibility to the past has to come in second hand. Otherwise Pentax will be trapped in a corner and only a few Pentax (D)SLR owners will be interested in the camera.

[junyo]

I see several problem with this.

If keeping the register distance from DSLR it will be difficult for Pentax to make as small and fast lenses as the competition can. Sony 16/2.8 for NEX or Samsung 30/2 for NX are both smaller and faster than most DA-primes. The shorter register distance is part of the solution of making a smaller system as both camera and lenses can be made smaller. Lenses protruding into the camera might be a solution for smaller lenses, but to me it sounds like a overly complicated solution. A new mount with an adapter for old DSLR lenses seems to be much simpler solution. Lenses protruding into the camera might also lead to new complications (just look at the troubles Leica faced when making their digital RF).

Lenses made for DSLR will not work very well on a EVIL camera, phase detection AF and contrast detection AF require different design on lenses (and cameras) for AF speed to be optimized. If using (D)SLR phase detection lenses on an EVIL, AF speed will be much slower that on a lens optimized for contrast detection AF.
Most of Pentax DSLR lenses use screw-drive AF which will be less attractive to most buyers of an EVIL camera. As they also want to use the camera for video they require silent AF.

I just don't see this being a very successful design. If releasing a new type of camera its design should be optimized for the future and any compatibility to the past has to come in second hand. Otherwise Pentax will be trapped in a corner and only a few Pentax (D)SLR owners will be interested in the camera.

It would be a successful design because in exchange for the slightly larger package of a K-mount EVIL , day one, it has a larger and more widely available lens library than any of the EVIL competitors.

[Blue]

If it accepts K-mount, it's DOA! But Pentax of course isn't that stupid: The whole point of these cameras is the reduced flange distance.

HOWEVER, if they manage to make a new mount with an adapter with built-in screw-drive AF motor for K-mount lenses (is that possible...?), I would be VERY interested.

Actually, if it doesn't have k-mount its DOA. I don't think the lens mount is automatically an issue on working out the registration distance. The mirror box was the main issue. People won't to get rid of the mirror so they can have an electronic view finder. However, the biggest point of the reduced flange distance has more to do with compactness.

[gazonk]

Actually, if it doesn't have k-mount its DOA. I don't think the lens mount is automatically an issue on working out the registration distance.

I don't quite understand what you're talking about here, but registration distance is one of the most important properties of a lens mount. And IMHO a mirrorless camera with SLR registration distance will be difficult to sell.

On the other hand, there are already many good players on the EVIL playfield. Panasonic and Olympus have already their excellent second generation cameras and both Sony and Samsung have even APS-C sized sensors. Not to mention Sony is very aggressively priced. So what are the changes of Pentax getting slowly to the game? Not much if they play the same game as the ones who were there first.

If Pentax brings an EVIL with a new mount with only manual K mount lens support at best, I think that for example quite few people on this forum will get one. But if it comes with K mount, I think that quite a few people will get the camera body as their smaller option. For people who do not still have K mount glass they'd have to invent something new to attract new customers. Like WR - and heck, why not many colors as well.

[Blue]

I don't quite understand what you're talking about here, but registration distance is one of the most important properties of a lens mount. And IMHO a mirrorless camera with SLR registration distance will be difficult to sell.

I wasn't talking about the importance of the registration distance. Duh, if it isn't right, the image isn't focused properly on the sensor/film (or 0.02mm into the emulsion in the case of film).

And IMHO a mirrorless camera with SLR registration distance will be difficult to sell.

The sale won't be as difficult as with a diminutive sensor system with no lens line up. I suppose they could go with a 17mm diagonal and resurrect the Auto 110 lenses. I think and APS-c would make more sense. Beyond that, an additional lens & mount system is a "bridge too far." One of the biggest concerns raised in the FF debates here is the availability of suitable lenses for a ff body. Ten ounces of peanut butter will only cover so many slices of bread. Ten engineers can design and modify only so many things in time frame. 100 workers can only build so much. Furthermore, I doubt the average consumer with a mirrorless camera could tell you the difference between a slr and a mirrorless interchangeable lens much less what the registration distance is.

[gazonk]

Furthermore, I doubt the average consumer with a mirrorless camera could tell you the difference between a slr and a mirrorless interchangeable lens much less what the registration distance is.

That doesn't matter. They will certainly be able to tell the difference in looks between a camera with 42mm registration distance and one with 18 mm registration distance.

[Fogel70]

It would be a successful design because in exchange for the slightly larger package of a K-mount EVIL , day one, it has a larger and more widely available lens library than any of the EVIL competitors.

I don't think the size will be small enough compared to DSLR. The only difference in size compared to a DSLR is that the EVIL with K-mount do not need the prisma housing. If you want a EVF on your EVIL this difference in size is gone.

When the competitors has come with a few more lenses an EVIL with k-mount will only have disadvantages compared to the competition for the majority of EVIL camera buyers. After all the main reason why EVIL sell well is that you can get a big sensor camera in a small package.

Sooner or later Pentax has to make an EVIL with a new mount to keep up with the competitors, and the longer they wait the more they will lose on it. An EVIL with K-mount can at most only be a short term solution.

[ewalk]

Anyone have any thoughts on price?

[Blue]

That doesn't matter. They will certainly be able to tell the difference in looks between a camera with 42mm registration distance and one with 18 mm registration distance.

You overlooked this part:

I suppose they could go with a 17mm diagonal and resurrect the Auto 110 lenses.

You apparently don't know much about Pentax. 42mm is the Canon FD distance. Pentax 35mm slr has been 45.46 for ever .

Take a look at these dimensions. I think Pentax could get it down to at least the dimensions of the *istD for a body along the lines of a WR APS-C camera which would be more like a G1 or GH1 in appearance. An EVF is better than no viewfinder to me. We are talking 15mm in difference for the GH1 and a *istD size form. That gains you all the K-mount lenses ever made for use on it.

Olympus: 120.6 x 69.9 x 36.4mm

G1: 124 x 84 x 46mm

GH1: 123.95 x 83.57 x 45.21mm

GF1: 119 x 71 x 36.3mm

K-7: 129.5 x 96.5 x 73.7mm

*istD: 129 x 95 x 60


Further Notes: Take a look at the size of some of the slr film bodies

ME Super: 131.5 x 83 x 49.5

Pentax AP, S, & K bodies 145 x 92 x 50 mm

[gazonk]

You apparently don't know much about Pentax. 42mm is the Canon FD distance. Pentax 35mm slr has been 45.46 for ever .

Whatever. I didn't remember the exact number, despite having used K-mount cameras for more than 30 years...

Anyway, I don't buy your argument. It's the THIN cameras that sell, like it or not.