[Caat]

The funny thing is that very few people seem to saying that Pentax doesn't have the resources to run APS-C and an EVIL alongside each other.

One of the prominent arguements against Pentax going full-frame was that they lacked the resources to support both sensor sizes.

An EVIL would be an entirely new mount...

Edit: for me it's not the compatibility problems with K-mount lenses on an EVIL it's the complete abscence of compability going in the other direction (presumed)

Personally speaking I lack the resources to run two bodies with different mounts and whilst I could use my existing lenses on an EVIL with an adaptor it would add a fair amount to the size, thus negating the primary advantange. Not being able to use any EVIL lenses on my K-7 makes them proportionately more expensive.

Bottom line: I can't afford to own a specialist DSLR - which is what the K-7 would become if I owned an EVIL. I'm sure there are many people in my position. An EVIL would have implications for the future of the K-mount which don't seem to be being discussed much.

---

Last edited by Caat; 08-07-2010 at 09:57 AM.

[nosnoop]

The funny thing is that very few people seem to saying that Pentax doesn't have the resources to run APS-C and an EVIL alongside each other.

The volume of EVIL would make it economical even when you need a new mount and new series of lenses. It is expected to be the fastest growing segment in the next few years, and can potentially replace mid to lower tier DSLR.

An EVIL would be an entirely new mount...
Edit: for me it's not the compatibility problems with K-mount lenses on an EVIL it's the complete abscence of compability going in the other direction (presumed)

That's why EVIL is a new level playing field; and a great opportunity for Pentax if played right. It's like starting afresh. Obviously brand name do play a role, but users can choose a system they like, not the one they have to buy because of their existing equipment.

I myself would keep an open mind, and I may or may not stick with Pentax for the mirrorless.

Bottom line: I can't afford to own a specialist DSLR - which is what the K-7 would become if I owned an EVIL. I'm sure there are many people in my position. An EVIL would have implications for the future of the K-mount which don't seem to be being discussed much.

Exactly. IMHO, the mid and low level DSLRs' days are numbered. That's why I hope Pentax would join the party before Canon does.

[Blue]

If we're going to compare sizes, then we should compare properly.

Pentax *ist DL2 (DSLR), Pentax MX (SLR, probably the smallest 35mm SLR ever made), Panasonic GF1. Lenses are 18-55mm on the *ist, 50mm on the MX, and 14-45mm on the GF1.


Front:
The DSLR is way bigger than both the classic MX and the GF1.


This is obvious when you look at it from an oblique angle, the bulk of the DSLR is plain to see.



Top:
You can see how thick the DSLR is, even if you took away the bulge at the front.
The body of the MX and the GF1 are a similar thickness, but if you include the protruding mirror box/K mount, it is quite a bit thicker, because of the flange/registration distance, 45.5mm vs 20mm).


Notice how the MX and the GF1 are a similar size overall, but the MX has a prime lens while the GF1 has a zoom. If we compare like with like, then we need to show both cameras with a similar zoom range.

GF1 with 14-45mm (28-90mm equiv)
MX with 18-55mm (27-82mm equiv)


It's obvious now, that if Pentax could make an EVIL camera the size of the MX, but with a Pentax K mount, it would be a lot larger than the overall package that micro 4/3 delivers. Pentax COULD make a smaller zoom, but as Sony has shown, you can't get an 18-55mm lens too much smaller and still expect reasonable quality on an APS-C sensor.

You left one out.



That's from CdeHaan's photostream. The K-m is APS-c and still has a real viewfinder and LCD.

[Blue]

Pentax re-worked the FA 43mm into the 43mm L Special version for the Leica m39 format which has a registration of 28.8mm. This means they could do the same for all the ltd lenses. They could do a aps-c digital version of the Voightlander Bessa R with a RF and LCD. They could then hock those lenses to the Leica crowd. However, that's getting into the "bling" money range and these EVIL cameras are stupidly expensive for what they are. At the end of the day, they are P&S that can be pushed a little farther.

[Caat]

The volume of EVIL would make it economical even when you need a new mount and new series of lenses. It is expected to be the fastest growing segment in the next few years, and can potentially replace mid to lower tier DSLR.



That's why EVIL is a new level playing field; and a great opportunity for Pentax if played right. It's like starting afresh. Obviously brand name do play a role, but users can choose a system they like, not the one they have to buy because of their existing equipment.

I myself would keep an open mind, and I may or may not stick with Pentax for the mirrorless.



Exactly. IMHO, the mid and low level DSLRs' days are numbered. That's why I hope Pentax would join the party before Canon does.

The problem is I'm not convinced the market for EVIL is as vast and untapped as people seem to indicate. I think we shall see rapid growth in it and Olympus and Panasonic will benefit from this however Pentax would have exactly the same competitive disadvantages in the EVIL market as they do in the DSLR market and the market could yet contract if we see diversification in large sensor compacts.

Partly because although we see EVILs as a different class people looking to buy them are quite likely also looking at high end compacts like the LX series and DSLRs. In this way you compete with more models to a certain extent. I'm not saying you're wrong in what you say but I'm not convinced the future is as clear for EVILs themselves as some seem to think.

However I think you are right that current DSLRs below 35mm sensors will eventually disappear but I think therein lies the death of the K-mount.

[Blue]

Canon will respond with smaller dSLR bodies in their upper lineup. With Nikon, it remains to be seen but they may be leaning towards an EVIL.

. . .
However I think you are right that current DSLRs below 35mm sensors will eventually disappear but I think therein lies the death of the K-mount.

Why? Anything above 135 image sensor/film equivalent of 24x36mm is mf territory.

[dnas]

You left one out.



That's from CdeHaan's photostream. The K-m is APS-c and still has a real viewfinder and LCD.

You've just finished giving me a lecture about the fact that we've been discussing the registration distance and then you post a picture showing the height and width, but NOT the thickness(that would show registration distance)!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[dnas]

Again, if we are going to compare sizes, then we need to do it properly:


The photo posted above is misleading, because from that angle, it is effectively trying to show the K-m as small as possible compared to the Panasonic, particularly without a lens.

Here is a actual shot comparing the Panasonic G2 & the Pentax *ist DL2 (dimensons for the two Pentax DSLRs: *ist DL2 125x93x66, K-m 123x92x68, so the *ist is very similar size to the K-m)









Clearly, the G2 is quite a bit smaller than any Pentax DSLR with a comparable lens.

Notice high proportion of the front/back depth of the G2(size is 124x84x74 is taken up by the eyecup at the back, and the protruding hand grip. Panasonic had obviously decided to make the photographer's handling a primary consideration over small on paper dimensions.

[Blue]

You've just finished giving me a lecture about the fact that we've been discussing the registration distance and then you post a picture showing the height and width, but NOT the thickness(that would show registration distance)!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Pay attention! I didn't say anything about registration distance, height or anything in the link with the posted pic. That discussion was in previous posts about registration. It was just a comparison of the overall form. The whole thesis behind the pining for an EVIL body is a small interchangeable lens body. Apparently the vampire movement is behind it and they are scared shitless of mirrors.

70% of the people that buy one of those aren't likely to know the difference from an interchangeable lens mirrorless body and a dSLR.

Furthermore, unless that is an aps-c sensor the 14-45mm lens isn't going to be equivalent to the 18-55 kit lens you show there much less a DA 21, DA 40 etc.

You free with a qualitative term like "quite a bit smaller."

Edit: One more time, the point I've been making isn't out of the realm of possibility to make a k-mount aps-c EVIL or L type limited lenses to a 28.8 registration distance. The prism wouldn't be there in either scenario. Do you want me to get out the crayolas? In other words, its about the feasibility. Any one that thinks Pentax should water down their K-mount needs to check into drug rehab. That would probably be bad for Pentax just like Sony's ff fiasco.

[dnas]

Are you ADD?

Why don't you stick to the topic, rather than adding personal insults???

I've shown the comparative pictures, so people can decide for themselves.

[Blue]

Why don't you stick to the topic, rather than adding personal insults???

I've shown the comparative pictures, so people can decide for themselves.

Quit mis-quoting me and getting clever about it when called on it. That wasn't a personal insult, however, I edited. It was a question. The post was on topic.

Its to bad the Lumix line has the tiny sensor equivalent to 110 film.

Edit: First you said I was talking about height and that wasn't the discussion. Then a day or 2 later you bring up registration distance and that wasn't in the discussion.

[dnas]

Quit mis-quoting me and getting clever about it when called on it. That wasn't a personal insult. It was a question. The post was on topic.

Its to bad the Lumix line has the tiny sensor equivalent to 110 film.

Edit: First you said I was talking about height and that wasn't the discussion. Then a day or 2 later you bring up registration distance and that wasn't in the discussion.

It's absurd to say that the Lumix G series have tiny sensors. They are only about 20% smaller than Pentax APS-C. In fact they are closer in size to APS-C than APS-C is to FF.

[Fogel70]

Pentax re-worked the FA 43mm into the 43mm L Special version for the Leica m39 format which has a registration of 28.8mm. This means they could do the same for all the ltd lenses.

It is "easily" done on all lenses designed for longer register distance with an in-built adapter for the shorter register distance.
The 43/1.9 for Leica is bigger than the original FA43/1.9 Limited, and Pentax basically put a 17mm distance ring on the lens to make it work for Leica.
This is not a very good solution as lenses will be bigger than necessary and the total size of camera and lens will be the same as when the lens is used on a DSLR.

A complete re-design with new optical design optimized for the shorter register distance is required if wanting a compact size. The optical design can also be simplified on many (wide angle) lenses and it is easier to make them both small and fast.

[Blue]

It is "easily" done on all lenses designed for longer register distance with an in-built adapter for the shorter register distance.
The 43/1.9 for Leica is bigger than the original FA43/1.9 Limited, and Pentax basically put a 17mm distance ring on the lens to make it work for Leica.
This is not a very good solution as lenses will be bigger than necessary and the total size of camera and lens will be the same as when the lens is used on a DSLR.

A complete re-design with new optical design optimized for the shorter register distance is required if wanting a compact size. The optical design can also be simplified on many (wide angle) lenses and it is easier to make them both small and fast.

If that's the case, I think sticking to slr design would make more sense. I like the idea of the 110 resurrection except it would require a 17mm sensor and I think anything below aps-c is not prudent.

[Blue]

It's absurd to say that the Lumix G series have tiny sensors. They are only about 20% smaller than Pentax APS-C. In fact they are closer in size to APS-C than APS-C is to FF.

The 4/3 sensors are equivalent to 110 film. The 4/3 sensors have a diagonal of 21.6 compared to 28.4. Compared to 135 (24x36), that calculated to a factor of 2x compared to 1.53x and 1x for 135.