[Zygonyx]

There's no advantage. That adapter would be for legacy k-mount users that will need a camera body if mirrorless cameras do indeed displace DSLR's. I would never use an adapter like that myself, but if someone has $4000 worth off old lenses I imagine they'd appreciate the ability to use them on mirrorless bodies if they can no longer find suitable DSLR's.
... Tons of glass, and no camera bodies. ...

Yes, this would be a very frustrating option for me.

[sjwaldron]

This information appears to be valid.

I said so in https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-news-rumors/129409-forthcoming-pen...ss-camera.html

I still support my half year old post. Except that things have been delayed a lot.

The key idea of the forthcoming Pentax mirrorless (not the Q) indeed seems to be a good compatibility with K mount lenses. However, at this stage I heard no claims that this wouldn't be by some kind of adapter. Too much of a detail to know about.

Yeah, it makes sense to me as well that Pentax would try their best to make something that utilizes their existing technology because that's what they have always done (to our benefit). Making a completely different system for a large sensor mirrorless would probably not catch on because there is already too much competition and I think it would be a "me too" offering.

1. A guaranteed audience to start off. Even though I don't have much interest in these mirrorless interchangeable lens cameras, I see this as a lot more appealing than mirrorless of other companies and something like the Q (all of which would require an initial glass investment to get a decent focal length range).
2. A large selection of older lenses to interest hobbyists. Pentax is still known for their lenses before anything else (and that they keep compatibility high). I had a Nikon user look at my 31mm with amazement recently. He thought it was an old high-end lens until I told him it was the in-production 31mm we had talked about in the past.
3. New lenses specifically designed to match the body should allow Pentax to make some more profit off of the new system in a system.

[robgo2]

If Pentax's 2nd EVIL is going to look like a NEX, here is a picture of the new NEX-C3 with a Pentax FA77 Limited mounted on it. BTW, the "peaking" manual focus aid works brilliantly with Pentax primes and it has the same Sony sensor as the K5, albeit limited to ISO 200.

I fail to see the point of having a small camera hanging off the back end of a large lens. Why bother?

Rob

[detritus]

I fail to see the point of having a small camera hanging off the back end of a large lens. Why bother?

Rob

i totally agree. the value proposition is very questionable.

i suspect that it is rooted in the desire for "backward compatibility", so people can use old lenses on ever newer bodies and "protect" their investments somewhat.

the versatility of a system that can allow such backward compatibility would be impressive but the resulting form factor would be butt-ugly and unwieldy.

not to mention that it does nothing to help the company sell new lenses and break into new markets. it'll essentially be a camera built mainly for legacy pentaxians who will spend the least money on a new system.

my preference is that they keep the 2 lines separate. i don't care if the mirrorless is k-mount, is compatible with k-mount, or can be adapted to k-mount. i just want a DSLR that is k-mount

[Art Vandelay II]

I fail to see the point of having a small camera hanging off the back end of a large lens. Why bother?

I wonder how long it will be before someone makes a large body EVIL just for that reason. There is no reason that an EVIL has to be small, they've just been making them that way because so far that's what most people want and they finally have the technology to do it. But I suspect after these systems mature companies will start making a few K-7 size mirrorless bodies for those that shoot telephotos. That's what makes EVIL's so interesting to me, the freedom camera designers have with them. A wedding photographer could have large body for their big 70-200mm f/2.8 zoom, along with a couple of NEX-5 size bodies with pancake primes stuffed in jacket pockets to shoot a wedding. Sure beats using those silly looking harnesses I see some photographers use now. Looks like they're marching off to war instead of to a wedding. Ha, well, now that I think about it, a wedding is just the start of a life long war...so maybe I should reconsider my stance

[glanglois]

I wonder how long it will be before someone makes a large body EVIL just for that reason. There is no reason that an EVIL has to be small, they've just been making them that way because so far that's what most people want and they finally have the technology to do it. But I suspect after these systems mature companies will start making a few K-7 size mirrorless bodies for those that shoot telephotos. That's what makes EVIL's so interesting to me, the freedom camera designers have with them. A wedding photographer could have large body for their big 70-200mm f/2.8 zoom, along with a couple of NEX-5 size bodies with pancake primes stuffed in jacket pockets to shoot a wedding. Sure beats using those silly looking harnesses I see some photographers use now. Looks like they're marching off to war instead of to a wedding. Ha, well, now that I think about it, a wedding is just the start of a life long war...so maybe I should reconsider my stance

Should she get the opportunity, my bride would be happy to help you reconsider your stance, your footing, your balance, etc.

OK, now that the Henny Youngman jokes are out of the way, I agree completely. I would like to see if later-generation EVF in a K-5 style body could provide the optical sensation of an optical VF. If so, it could be any size and permit a variety of configurations, data displays, image displays, etc. All under software control and customized to the user. A large VF canvas on which to paint what is needed at the moment, from distance-to-focus point to a 6X magnification for manual focus. Heck, it could hang in front of one lens of my glasses and connect to the body by a thin cord, shooting handheld in any direction or height or posture.

My fear is that I'm going to have too many creaks and cracks in my joints by the time it becomes possible ......

[tsammyc]

I fail to see the point of having a small camera hanging off the back end of a large lens. Why bother?

Rob

I disagree. The point is to have a system that produces true DSLR quality at a fraction of its size. The total C3/FA77 package is a third the size of my K5 and much less obtrusive when I am shooting people. I also get similar image quality to the K5 because it uses the similar or same sensor. I always hesitated in the past putting a Pentax lens on an EVIL because of manual focus. But Sony's new "peaking" focus assist is brilliant. I can even focus when not wearing my glasses as I can still see the focus points when everything is blur.

Now, when I pick up my K5, it feels like picking up a full frame camera....

[tsammyc]

Perhaps, we should consider whether someone will make an adapter for Q lenses to EVIL cameras with APS-C sensors. It will look rather like this Pentax 110 to NEX adapter

[falconeye]

I fail to see the point of having a small camera hanging off the back end of a large lens. Why bother?

The way Rob is putting it IMHO illustrates one aspect:

Today, making a camera (much) smaller than the lens doesn't make sense.

However, IMHO this will change.

Sooner or later, the camera will become sort of a "digital lens rear cap".

I.e., every lens we carry will have such a rear cap attached and then we may care they are small. Not unlike the GXR system except that today is too early for a GXR-like system and GXR has the fault that it still requires to change something on the camera (the module).

The reason for an exchangeable rear cap then would be to keep the digital end up-to-date while the optical lens part keeps its value.

Even now I think about a Q (with K mount adapter) to become a digital rear cap for a DA*300. Because of the Q's tiny pixel pitch (and SR system), it would deliver the same "reach" as a 900 mm lens would on the K-5 (assuming the DA*300 resolves this many lines in the center -- 330 lp/mm what some SLR lenses actually do resolve).

So, while I agree that "smaller than the lens" cameras don't make much sense today, this may change. Therefore, I think that a mirrorless mount should be designed such that "smaller than the lens" cameras are doable. Otherwise, the mount may die before it even establishes. In that respect, Sony's E mount seems more promising than Olympus µFT mount.


One last comment about the digital rear cap prediction:

The current situation (with one camera and interchangeable lenses) reminds me of the "one motor and interchangeable devices" approach of the past: One motor which could become drill, saw or grinder. Or my mother's vacuum cleaner which served as a blender and hood dryer too Electric motors used to be so valuable that the need to reuse them appears to be ridiculous a few decades later: now everything comes with embedded motor and soon everything will come with embedded computers replacing the multi-purpose PCs more and more (as anticipated by Apple).

So, my prediction is (and it is a 99% safe prediction): Future lenses will come with their embedded sensors (most likely complete with camera). The more expensive lenses will have the embedded sensor to be replaceable, primarily as a service option.

[Zygonyx]

Perhaps, we should consider whether someone will make an adapter for Q lenses to EVIL cameras with APS-C sensors. It will look rather like this Pentax 110 to NEX adapter

Well, in that particular case (Q lens adapted to APS-C sensor), there will certainly be a serious vignetting problem.
Auto 110 format was already in the APS-C format or something very close.

[falconeye]

Auto 110 format was already in the APS-C format or something very close.

Auto 110 is half format nowadays known as FourThirds

110 (like 135) is a film size denominator (crop factor 2.02), cf. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/110_film

[Mistral75]

Auto 110 format is equal to the current 4/3 - µ4/3 format, so a bit smaller than APS-C.

[Zygonyx]

OK, thank you, so there shall already be some vignetting with Nex + 110 lens.

[robgo2]

I disagree. The point is to have a system that produces true DSLR quality at a fraction of its size. The total C3/FA77 package is a third the size of my K5 and much less obtrusive when I am shooting people. I also get similar image quality to the K5 because it uses the similar or same sensor. I always hesitated in the past putting a Pentax lens on an EVIL because of manual focus. But Sony's new "peaking" focus assist is brilliant. I can even focus when not wearing my glasses as I can still see the focus points when everything is blur.

Now, when I pick up my K5, it feels like picking up a full frame camera....

Well, then that is just fine for you, but I do not see myself deriving much pleasure from handling such an unbalanced apparatus. If one wants small mirrorless cameras, then one should accept the logic of small lenses to be used with them. Sorry if that screws up backwards compatibility, but progress waits for no one. Personally, I hope to continue using dSLRs for the foreseeable future, but I do not rule out a high quality MILC for those times when I want to travel as lightly as possible.

As an aside, I must say that the Ricoh GXR is a very attractive, if somewhat oddball, MILC that delivers extremely high IQ. I suspect that it will never be commercially successful, not because it lacks quality or is too expensive, but rather because most people cannot incorporate the GXR concept into their mental construct of what a camera should be.

Rob

[robgo2]

I wonder how long it will be before someone makes a large body EVIL just for that reason. There is no reason that an EVIL has to be small, they've just been making them that way because so far that's what most people want and they finally have the technology to do it. But I suspect after these systems mature companies will start making a few K-7 size mirrorless bodies for those that shoot telephotos. That's what makes EVIL's so interesting to me, the freedom camera designers have with them. A wedding photographer could have large body for their big 70-200mm f/2.8 zoom, along with a couple of NEX-5 size bodies with pancake primes stuffed in jacket pockets to shoot a wedding. Sure beats using those silly looking harnesses I see some photographers use now. Looks like they're marching off to war instead of to a wedding. Ha, well, now that I think about it, a wedding is just the start of a life long war...so maybe I should reconsider my stance

Actually, there is such a camera already--the Leica M9--but it is a true rangefinder and not the sort of mirrorless camera that most people are considering. It also costs $7,000.

Rob