[kytra]

fully agree with Kunzite here.

IMO, because the current trend is towards big sensors and better optics, Pentax WILL launch some kind of mirrorless-big sensor camera but they will try to position it differently. Some options:

- weather sealed and shock proof big sensor fixed 3x zoom f2.8 aperture camera
- mirrorless WITH KAF2 mount (and in body motor) in order to capitalize on one of their best assets - backward compatibility
...and so on

Good thing is that probably in researching for mirrorless they have improved the Safox because one of the biggest issues in my book regarding MILCs or EVILs is the quickness of AF.

[RMabo]

I interpret the e-mail reply as a confirmation that Pentax are developing a mirrorless camera, but they are not close to release it.

They may show a prototype concept at the Photokina show, but not a ready-to-be-released camera. I believe the final camera will be showned in production form at the PMA show next year.

[Blue]

Nope, not the DA Ltds. Well, they would take the DA 70's optics and put it in a completely different barrel (with all the thingies that would link to the rangefinder mechanisms). We can forgive an apparent increase in length.
A bigger version of the DA 40 f/2.8, I'm not sure if it would make sense. Why not a faster, dedicated lens? Or like they did in the past, reuse the FA 43mm?
Then, the DA 35mm macro. Yep, macro - biiig problem for a rangefinder. And thus, a big no-no.
Last, the 21mm - it won't be a pancake anymore, it's not that good optically and not so fast, either. Why? A non-retrofocus design would be a much better idea.

We'll see how the EVFs will evolve. So far, I wasn't impressed; I'd chose a big, high quality reflex viewfinder anytime. Of course, both choices should exist; but not necessarily from Pentax

The bigger issue is actually the cost of the ltd lenses relative to the masses such a camera is likely marketed towards. The faked the 28.8 registry distance of the Leica m39 at 28.8 with the L 43mm Special version of the 43 ltd with matching finder. They could do the same thing with the 31 and 77.

[Aristophanes]

Nope, not the DA Ltds. Well, they would take the DA 70's optics and put it in a completely different barrel (with all the thingies that would link to the rangefinder mechanisms). We can forgive an apparent increase in length.
A bigger version of the DA 40 f/2.8, I'm not sure if it would make sense. Why not a faster, dedicated lens? Or like they did in the past, reuse the FA 43mm?
Then, the DA 35mm macro. Yep, macro - biiig problem for a rangefinder. And thus, a big no-no.
Last, the 21mm - it won't be a pancake anymore, it's not that good optically and not so fast, either. Why? A non-retrofocus design would be a much better idea.

We'll see how the EVFs will evolve. So far, I wasn't impressed; I'd chose a big, high quality reflex viewfinder anytime. Of course, both choices should exist; but not necessarily from Pentax

Between mirrorless and FF, the poor DA Ltd's and zooms are an iffy investment, especially long-term.

They might be the first real Pentax lens casualties in a format switch if the market veers away from DSLR's going mirrorless at the mid and FF at the flagship. There will be no market for a Ltd APS-C prime.

The solution is an exceptional EVF.

[Pieter M]

I am mostly wondering about how the DA Ltds (or the FA Ltds for that matter) would fare as lenses for an APS-C EVIL system?

AF would probably be impossible, or at least be slow and require a complex adapter, but besides that they seem like a nice match, and a great incentive for enthusiasts to buy into a Pentax EVIL system. Enthusiast probably already have one or more Ltds and probably care less about the AF, so it jumpstarts the system for them and gives Pentax more time to come up with a complete lens line-up

[thibs]

But DA ltf wouldn't be pancake anymore at all, on a mirrorless.

[glanglois]

I am mostly wondering about how the DA Ltds (or the FA Ltds for that matter) would fare as lenses for an APS-C EVIL system?

AF would probably be impossible, or at least be slow and require a complex adapter, but besides that they seem like a nice match, and a great incentive for enthusiasts to buy into a Pentax EVIL system. Enthusiast probably already have one or more Ltds and probably care less about the AF, so it jumpstarts the system for them and gives Pentax more time to come up with a complete lens line-up

While I shoot enthusiastically, I must not be an enthusiast.

I use AF almost all the time as much of what I shoot is or may be in motion. I suppose I shoot more like a PJ than an artist - I want to grab the shot that's there at the moment that it presents itself rather than carefully constructing the shot.

Yes, I know that PJs used to function well with manual focus. I still have my old military photographer's ID on my desk. Dates back a couple of generations although I'm glad to say that I never needed to use the office Speed Graphic (having purchased an Asahi Spotmatic).

Maybe I'm a lazy enthusiast - enthusiastic about the capturing an instant rather than re-learning my (rather limited and very rusty) manual photo skills.

But I suspect that there are many, many enthusiasts who absolutely depend on AF to get the images they want. And are not interested in a transition to a new body for which they'll eventually have to buy new lenses. Jump start for Pentax but dead end for a lot of us.

[Aristophanes]

Maybe I'm a lazy enthusiast - enthusiastic about the capturing an instant rather than re-learning my (rather limited and very rusty) manual photo skills.

But I suspect that there are many, many enthusiasts who absolutely depend on AF to get the images they want. And are not interested in a transition to a new body for which they'll eventually have to buy new lenses. Jump start for Pentax but dead end for a lot of us.

You speak for 95% of the market.

[Blue]

I still think Pentax could pull off an EVIL that uses the k-mount. Compare the NX-10 ( 123 x 87 x 39.8mm) with the K-x (22.5 x 91.5 x 67.5). The could shave the height some with the elimination of the Pentamirror. The grip could be flattened. Based on the *istD, we know they can get the flange to back to 60mm. If they could push that to 50mm, they would have it.

[Fogel70]

What would be the reason for removing the mirror if still using K-mount?
If still using K-mount AF would be really slow if removing the mirror as DSLR lenses are not made for contrast detect AF.

[Blue]

What would be the reason for removing the mirror if still using K-mount?
If still using K-mount AF would be really slow if removing the mirror as DSLR lenses are not made for contrast detect AF.

Mirrorless . . . the AF is a different issue. The flip side to this is they could just get down to the profile of the *istD. That may be Canon's planning at the moment.

[Fogel70]

Mirrorless . . .

But what would be the added value by removing the mirror on a K-mount camera?
I doubt many customers buy a mirrorless cameras just because of the loss of the mirror, they buy them for other reasons.
(small size, small fast lenses, cooler looking camera, quiet AF that work in video...)

Most of these resons for buying a mirrorless camera would not apply on K-mount camera. Only some Pentax DSLR owners would be interested in this type of camera, but why would they buy it when the can get a DSLR that is pretty much the same size and probably work better for their needs?

[Blue]

But what would be the added value by removing the mirror on a K-mount camera?
I doubt many customers buy a mirrorless cameras just because of the loss of the mirror, they buy them for other reasons.
(small size, small fast lenses, cooler looking camera, quiet AF that work in video...)

Most of these resons for buying a mirrorless camera would not apply on K-mount camera. Only some Pentax DSLR owners would be interested in this type of camera, but why would they buy it when the can get a DSLR that is pretty much the same size and probably work better for their needs?

Did you even look at the comparison of the NX-10 and K-x and the possibility of size reduction to the K-x?

What you just asked me is why by the Samsung NX-10. Exactly! I need a damn adapter. I'm not one of the guys clamoring for EVIL. They could get a K-x type camera down to the *istD size and fill that same niche because in Japan, they already are.

[Kunzite]

They'll have to either remove the SR (no need for going mirrorless, then) or to reduce the registration distance (current lenses would work only with an adapter).

[Pentaxor]

Between mirrorless and FF, the poor DA Ltd's and zooms are an iffy investment, especially long-term.

They might be the first real Pentax lens casualties in a format switch if the market veers away from DSLR's going mirrorless at the mid and FF at the flagship. There will be no market for a Ltd APS-C prime.

The solution is an exceptional EVF.

I would think that there will still be a market to the DA LTD's. the entry level mirrorless APS-C ($500) and the mirrorless midrange APS-C($1,200) will accommodate those lenses. as many had speculated that mirrorless FF could cost at around $1,800-$2000 (could be pushed further to $2300). so it all comes down to pricing category.

I could only assume that if Pentax sells a mirrorless FF for $1,800, I would expect a price hike with FF lenses inorder for the mirrorless APS-C and APS-C lenses become a cheap and attractive alternative as to getting a FF. the market for APS-C would be the general enthusiasts/hobbyist or budget constraint/conscious consumer. while the market for the mirrorless FF would be a few hobbyist, a huge number of amateurs or advanced amateurs, semi/pro photographers.

if people are anticipating such event and Pentax does indeed a FF this year or early next year, I would advise them to horde those FF lenses while they're still cheap.