[Matus]

Not to offend anybody involved and interested in Petax past, current and future products (and their compatibility), but "forcing" Pentax to use K-mount as basic for their FF ML camera would mean forcing them to unnecessarily large lenses and strongly retrofocus wide lenses.

One needs to realize that once a company comes out with new more compact camera (Like Sony NEX, m4/3 etc..) than MOST of their buyers do no care at all about the (for them) "old, big and/or expensive" SLR lenses as they do not own any of these. The want a new cool camera with mostly just 1 or 2 zoom lenses. It is the case for NEX or m4/3 or Samsung. It also allows Pentax to sell more/new lenses.

Indeed Pentax may prove us all wrong (that is what mostly happens) - anyway an interesting times are to come

[Brangdon]

Increasing the price by offering an adapter only some will actually need?

The market for a full-frame camera is primarily people who already own more than one lens. They are going to want to use their existing lenses, so they will want the adapter. People switching from rival brands will also want to use old K-mount lenses. The only people who won't want to use their existing lenses are those getting into photography for the first time. I don't think many of those will start with a full-frame camera. It won't be an entry-level model. Even if a few such customers do exist, they aren't in such significant numbers to be worth compromising the product for.

And I think providing the adapter as a separate, paid-for product will compromise the experience. It makes it more complicated, for production, for marketing and for user. So the FF camera either needs to be K-mount natively, or else have a K-mount adapter as standard. Either one.

As to why others haven't done this: I don't think that's an argument against Pentax doing it. Ricoh have said that when they bought Pentax they especially wanted the customer base, so supporting K-mount well should be a priority for them. Frankly, any new mount will upset us (as it suggests no new K-mount lenses), and the transition strategy I suggest would at least soften the blow a little. It would send a message, at a time when we are all watching them carefully to see if they love us as much as they say they do (and they are watching us carefully, ditto).

That's what you (EVF fans) are consistently forgetting: many long-time Pentax users don't want EVFs, and certainly don't want Pentax to give up on the K-mount. Yet you want us to pay the price because you chose the wrong company.

Good thing or not, I think EVF is inevitable, and it's just a question of when and how. Sorry.

If there is a new full-frame, optical viewfinder, interchangeable lens K-mount camera, then I suspect it will be the last one (ie last k-mount SLR any size sensor). But that could be great; it could be a legendary classic camera that endures for many years.

[jolepp]

...
- I hate trying to compose a shot in near darkness with an OVF, esp. since cameras like the K-5 can actually take decent shots ...
- I love the "looking at reality" feeling that OVFs can provide (x 2)

Indeed. My experience with the Panasonic G3 is that I can MF reliably with a M50 1.4 in indoor artificial light far below the level where there would be no point trying to take a picture handheld with the K-5. With the K-5 itself I find the same feat impossible (YMMV). This requires using the magnification feature of the EVF and is similar to using magnification in LV except that I can hold the camera to my eye, of course. Getting an optical view of the whole frame the whole time is very nice, of course, but so is being able to take full advantage of the high ISOs.

[Emacs]

If there is a new full-frame, optical viewfinder, interchangeable lens K-mount camera, then I suspect it will be the last one (ie last k-mount SLR any size sensor). But that could be great; it could be a legendary classic camera that endures for many years.

I don't think so. For example, the Pentax LX still has one advantage over anything today: ease of MF with it's great viewfinder. The DSLR will have nothing against future FF EVILs: the software AF will exceed outdated and unreliable PDAF in the very near future, the EVF will be better than dark OVF (30% of light reflects to the metering and PDAF sensors), the wide optics on EVIl is lighter, smaller. Easier to construct and produce. The only disadvantage will be battery eating issue, but it's not such a big deal IMO.

[Kunzite]

How about people who want that (so far imaginary) FF MILC with one or two specifically designed, high quality compact lenses? Should they pay for the adapter as well?
You're funny, you actually called killing the K-mount and offering us a (probably quite expensive) adapter as consolation prize "supporting K-mount".

Me not buying an EVF until all it's issues are solved to my satisfaction is also inevitable.

johnmflores, for me the EVF is nowhere near "good enough". Please don't forget we're talking about FF and even medium format here, and not about pentamirror APS-C OVFs.

[Emacs]

johnmflores, for me the EVF is nowhere near "good enough". Please don't forget we're talking about FF and even medium format here, and not about pentamirror APS-C OVFs.

The EVF is already good enough. And future ones will be better and better.

[johnmflores]

How about people who want that (so far imaginary) FF MILC with one or two specifically designed, high quality compact lenses? Should they pay for the adapter as well?
You're funny, you actually called killing the K-mount and offering us a (probably quite expensive) adapter as consolation prize "supporting K-mount".

Me not buying an EVF until all it's issues are solved to my satisfaction is also inevitable.

johnmflores, for me the EVF is nowhere near "good enough". Please don't forget we're talking about FF and even medium format here, and not about pentamirror APS-C OVFs.

Fair point about FF and larger OVFs vs APS-C.

Your standards are your standards, and nobody should argue that they are right or wrong. The point that I am making is that Ricoh Pentax has to estimate is what percentage of current owners have similar standards, how many will adopt EVFs, and what sales opportunities will be won/lost with an EVF future vs. an OVF future.

Personally, I suspect that the K-5 will be the last OVF camera that I purchase*. For me, the benefits of EVFs outweigh the drawbacks. I guess we'll have to see where Ricoh Pentax goes from here...

*Unless Pentax does something crazy like introduce a sub $1000 FF with OVF

[violini]

Pentax already had FF DSLR back in 2000, MZ-D or MR-52. Based on that experience, I am sure they can quickly assemble a FF DSLR with current crop of sensor and micro-processor and price it around $3,000. 2012 is going to be an interesting year; I skip K-5 and put some funds aside and am waiting for either Pentax or Fuji's new body. I already have the compact x10 and am quite happy with it.

[Kunzite]

The EVF is already good enough. And future ones will be better and better.

Who the h*ll are you to decide for me?

[rawr]

This is all so confusing.

We have a 140 page thread of people saying they all want Pentax FF, with big bright OVF, impproved AF, retain K-mount etc etc, and they wouldn't mind if it was D700 size, and now we have many of the same people saying they would love compact mirrorless with OVF, and that if K-mount needs to go, that's just progress.

[Kunzite]

I doubt many of them would actually buy the real thing (mirrorless or not). Talk is cheap, cameras are expensive.

[zapp]

Pentax wants to fill a gap. There is still a need for a wide angle MF camera, although there are severel really good cameras on the market, the big manufacterers are not taking part.
Filling a gap means in this case they may want to add something mirror camera users don't care about. How can we get rid of the term mirrorless, it is stupid.. cameras do not need mirrors...

[stanleyk]

I doubt many of them would actually buy the real thing (mirrorless or not). Talk is cheap, cameras are expensive.

Yeah I tend to agree.

[johnmflores]

Pentax wants to fill a gap. There is still a need for a wide angle MF camera, although there are severel really good cameras on the market, the big manufacterers are not taking part.
Filling a gap means in this case they may want to add something mirror camera users don't care about. How can we get rid of the term mirrorless, it is stupid.. cameras do not need mirrors...

Flopless?
Prismless?
Humpless?
Movingpartsless?
In-the-way-of-the-sensor-less?
Steampunk-things-that-do-stuff-that-aren't-needed-any-more-less?

[jolepp]

+FF/BFless? (= AFFineAdjustLess)
+Noiseless? (in the audible sense, moreso anyway )