[thibs]

Unless the adapter contains a motor.

Which won't happen.

[Supernaut]

But if they launch a mirrorless camera without some level of K-mount compatibility - either directly or via an adaptor - than they will be starting far behind other mirrorless systems with respect to lens selection.

It's a difficult position to be in, and I don't envy the person at Pentax/Hoya that had to make that decision...

Well if it's K-mount directly it means that it will be as big as K-x minus the OVF (and parts of the grip maybe) if made as small as possible. Compare it to a NEX5 and you see that the decision is really simple decision to make.

If the K-mount would go EVIL, a solution like sonys SLT is the way to go.

[gazonk]

Which won't happen.

Probably not. It would of course make the adapter heavier and more expensive, but I guess the real reason why it won't happen is that the most compelling reason for such an adapter would be to be able to AF the Limiteds. And of course Pentax wants to sell the LBA addicts new tiny pancakes tailor-made for the new system :-)

[Aristophanes]

Olympus has AF adaptor for 4/3 lenses. You are right - K-mount compatibility must be.

Your current customer is your next customer is your best customer. If you walk away from them, they stay away.

[Asahiflex]

Your current customer is your next customer is your best customer. If you walk away from them, they stay away.

Then why didn't that happen for Canon when they dropped the FD mount for the EF mount, which are incompatible with each other? There were lots of complaints, but look how big they are now.

[Aristophanes]

Probably not. It would of course make the adapter heavier and more expensive, but I guess the real reason why it won't happen is that the most compelling reason for such an adapter would be to be able to AF the Limiteds. And of course Pentax wants to sell the LBA addicts new tiny pancakes tailor-made for the new system :-)

What Pentax wants is for you to buy 2 systems while still retaining brand loyalty. But if they reduce the Limiteds and the last 5 year's worth of DA glass to MF on a MILC flagship, they have a serious problem retaining that loyalty.

Regardless, APS sensors in MILC will eventually trump M43. That is why Panny and Oly are racing to the bottom for market share. They do not compete on IQ for the pixel peeper crowd; they have an Achilles heel. And don't forget that the NEX can accommodate FF. There may be other reasons why Pentax went with Sony sensors.

[Cannikin]

Well if it's K-mount directly it means that it will be as big as K-x minus the OVF (and parts of the grip maybe) if made as small as possible.

Not true. As has been mentioned many times now (and demonstrated with photo comparisons), many film K-mount SLRs are much thinner than the K-x, and even smaller than several m4/3 cameras out there, despite having a vastly larger mirror, viewfinder, space for film spools and of course full size K-mount. For instance, almost the entire MX body is substantially thinner than the K-x is at its thinnest point. Looking at a cross section of DSLRs, the sensor is actually mounted very far from the back, with a lot of stuff (including empty space) inbetween.

With the miniaturization of electronics, there is no reason why a K-mount mirrorless should be any larger, or substantially thicker than those film SLRs. DSLRs are still burdened with traditional SLR components such as the mirror, prism and phase-detection AF system (which actually takes up quite a lot of space). Removal of those can easily make room for any electronics. LCDs can be made extremely thin (look at your average smartphone), and all they need to do is figure out a side mounting system for the sensor.

---

Last edited by Cannikin; 06-09-2011 at 06:15 AM.

[Aristophanes]

Then why didn't that happen for Canon when they dropped the FD mount for the EF mount, which are incompatible with each other? There were lots of complaints, but look how big they are now.

Canon took years to rebound from that and had to subsidize their optical side for a decade with their booming consumer electronics side (they were the manufacturer for many Apple brand printers). Minolta did the same thing and never really recovered, and Oly itself moved to a non-APS sensor and got trounced on market share. Few optical companies (Panasonic and Sony being the 2 other ones now) command the same depth of resources as Canon, and none came anywhere close in the early 1980's. Only Canon could have pulled that off and it was very risky, but the were coasting off enormous revenues from the dominant AE-1.

Canon is an exceedingly patient company. They were taken aback by the Nikon F4 release, but then borrowed and improved on every idea there to beat Nikon at its own game within 5 years. I doubt Thom Hogan about Canon being in an R&D panic. That's not Canon's corporate culture or how they operate. They observe, engineer, and then move the market leveraging a broad and deep user base and enormous brand identity.

P.S. Speaking as a guy with a 6 lens Minolta Rokkor MD set-up who owns only a Canon printer. 

[eddie1960]

Canon took years to rebound from that and had to subsidize their optical side for a decade with their booming consumer electronics side (they were the manufacturer for many Apple brand printers). Minolta did the same thing and never really recovered, and Oly itself moved to a non-APS sensor and got trounced on market share. Few optical companies (Panasonic and Sony being the 2 other ones now) command the same depth of resources as Canon, and none came anywhere close in the early 1980's. Only Canon could have pulled that off and it was very risky, but the were coasting off enormous revenues from the dominant AE-1.

Canon is an exceedingly patient company. They were taken aback by the Nikon F4 release, but then borrowed and improved on every idea there to beat Nikon at its own game within 5 years. I doubt Thom Hogan about Canon being in an R&D panic. That's not Canon's corporate culture or how they operate. They observe, engineer, and then move the market leveraging a broad and deep user base and enormous brand identity.

P.S. Speaking as a guy with a 6 lens Minolta Rokkor MD set-up who owns only a Canon printer. 

excellent analysis of that changeover sir

I shot some FD product but when it was stolen I went back to pentax as canon didn't support the old lenses and i was one of the annoyed.

[Supernaut]

Not true. As has been mentioned many times now (and demonstrated with photo comparisons), many film K-mount SLRs are much thinner than the K-x, and even smaller than several m4/3 cameras out there, despite having a vastly larger mirror, viewfinder, space for film spools and of course full size K-mount. For instance, almost the entire MX body is substantially thinner than the K-x is at its thinnest point. Looking at a cross section of DSLRs, the sensor is actually mounted very far from the back, with a lot of stuff (including empty space) inbetween.

With the miniaturization of electronics, there is no reason why a K-mount mirrorless should be any larger, or substantially thicker than those film SLRs. DSLRs are still burdened with traditional SLR components such as the mirror, prism and phase-detection AF system (which actually takes up quite a lot of space). Removal of those can easily make room for any electronics. LCDs can be made extremely thin (look at your average smartphone), and all they need to do is figure out a side mounting system for the sensor.

Yes, demonstrated by numerous forum members. Is any of those experienced in camera engineering? I'm pretty sure that the so called space between the sensor and the circuit board is there for some reason. Otherwise someone (Pentax) would have filled it already to achieve a more compact design.

Side or top mounting the sensor is a great idea which was speculated in some thread here for a while ago

[thibs]

No SR would slim down the body site a bit IMO bit do we want this?
Also the sensor needs to cool down.

[johnmflores]

Yes, demonstrated by numerous forum members. Is any of those experienced in camera engineering? I'm pretty sure that the so called space between the sensor and the circuit board is there for some reason. Otherwise someone (Pentax) would have filled it already to achieve a more compact design.

Side or top mounting the sensor is a great idea which was speculated in some thread here for a while ago

Courtesy of FalkLumo:



If you look at all of the space that the OVF, PDAF, and mirrorbox take up, it's no wonder that mirrorless cameras can be made so much smaller.

[Pentaxor]

Courtesy of FalkLumo:



If you look at all of the space that the OVF, PDAF, and mirrorbox take up, it's no wonder that mirrorless cameras can be made so much smaller.

you also gotta wonder how old SLRs with mirrorboxes are as small as the current MILCs.

[DaveBlack]

Then why didn't that happen for Canon when they dropped the FD mount for the EF mount, which are incompatible with each other? There were lots of complaints, but look how big they are now.

And I still will not buy a Canon because of this.

For a Pentax APS mirrorless camera a new mount is most likely needed. Still a converter that will AF K-mount lenses is also needed. I will then be more likely buy the Pentax version instead of the m-4/3 just because of this AF K-lens adaptor. Otherwise I just might as well buy a M-4/3.

Then again who says that Pentax couldn't use the same registor distance as the K-mount and do a slight update to the K-mount to get the lenses to CD-AF better. This will might the camera slightly thicker, but they could place a dial around the lens mount )kind of like the Olympus OM series has the shutter speed dial at the lens mount). Then two more dials like the current K-5. This will give us three easy to get to dials. A person could have the one around the mount to control the f-stop, the rear dial for shutter speed and the front one for iso or ev-comp. Placing a dial around the lens mount and using this extra thinkness just might come in very handy.

Anyhow, just a few ideas. We should know more about the two rumored cameras in a month or two.

Dave

[Winder]

I just find it hard to believe that Pentax is not going to release an APS-C mirrorless.

I am hoping to see Samsung put their 36x36mm MF sensor in a NX10 styled body.