[johnmflores]

johnmflores , it doesn't looks like you agree. The idea was that:

And that's even more true for vintage lenses, they would work quite well adapted on some "foreign" system since there isn't much automation to be lost (and no electronics).

So you could try to push Sony into making that FF MILC; it wouldn't matter for your vintage 50. Though I'm not sure how many people would pay 2500$+ for a camera without a proper viewfinder.

I actually do agree. Whomever comes out with a FF MILC first along with the right adapters will have many people trying out their platform. It's worked for M43 and it's worked for NEX.

It would be great if Pentax was the first to market with a FF MILC. If they are second to Sony or whomever, then they run the risk of otherwise loyal Pentaxians having already taken a bite of another platform and not attracting non-Pentaxians to the brand.

My guess - a FF GRX module along with a larger GRX body to accommodate. Sell the body as a Pentax. Suddenly there's a modular platform that goes all the way from small-sensor pocketable to APS to larger FF. How cool would that be?

[Brangdon]

In a mirrorless system for the future I do not see much use in keeping K-mount.

You missed where I wrote, "ignoring the mirrorless issue". So did everyone else; perhaps I should have included it in the bold. I wanted to focus on things like electronic aperture, not registration distance.

I find this whole notion is preposterous. First, why buy Pentax if not for the K mount and support.

I am putting forward the idea that they stick with the K-mount for another 3-6 years, and then bring in a new mount that can better support forthcoming lens features that don't currently exist.

The interview talk about better-than-HD resolution TV seemed almost out of place. Possibly it refers to criticisms of electronic viewfinders, and is also hinting that it would be premature to switch to the new system right now. Indeed, most of the interview could be read as saying, "This stuff is obvious and inevitable, but not yet".

And when all is said and done, your camera isn't actually going to be any thinner than it is now.

As an aside: isn't this mostly about weight? People don't necessarily want a full-frame inter-changeable lens camera to be tiny in size, especially if they have big hands. Part of the joy of an SLR is having a large body with large buttons and controls and plenty of them. However, if you have to carry it for any length of time you want it as light as possible. Getting rid of the mirror should make it lighter. The bigger the sensor, the bigger the mirror, and the heavier that chunk of glass will be. The interview also implies they see a major image quality benefit in eliminating mirror-slap. So a mirrorless full-frame does make sense for reasons other than size - or will do when the EVF gets good enough.

Presumably Pentax have continued doing research under Hoya, but presumably also Hoya didn't give them much of a budget, so they have lots of ideas but not much actual development. Now Ricoh has come along with money and faith. Innovative things can happen, but not immediately. I am now wondering if the Q was a sort-of dry run, an experiment into releasing a new mount. I'd expect other forthcoming bodies to test the waters in other ways (perhaps a mirrorless APS-C K-mount to trial their EVF, for example), with the big splash new mount coming later.

[junyo]

My guess - a FF GRX module along with a larger GRX body to accommodate. Sell the body as a Pentax. Suddenly there's a modular platform that goes all the way from small-sensor pocketable to APS to larger FF. How cool would that be?

If they were going to do that (and I've already said I think they should) they should leave the basic chassis with Ricoh and give Pentax at least one, better two, separate chassis modules; WR w/articulated LCD and WR with EVF and articulated LCD. Make Q, APSC K, and FF K sensor modules in regular (Ricoh) and WR (Pentax). That would allow Ricoh to keep an identity, position Pentax as a premium brand, and make the system much more attractive as you could fine tune size and capabilities to a larger degree. And it makes the sensor modules an additional upgrade path; when some new sensor hotness hits, I don't need to upgrade the entire kit, just the sensor module.

It would be innovative yet return you to a much more film body like paradigm, where chassis and lens are expected to last a while, while the media gets upgraded on a regular basis.

[Clinton]

Most camera buyers have never heard of K-mount and wouldn't care one way or another. Pentax has near zero market penetration and little incentive to keep the interest of old (and getting older!) buyers. A new successful system could easily double or triple their market.

Torpedo your existing market, your loyal base, make people fuming mad. It'll be great press. People will do some research and love the idea that Pentax stands nowhere near behind the equipment they've made in the past.

Frankly this is why my first camera wasn't a Cannon. FD to EF nonsense. It's also why I didn't buy a Nikon, their entry level bodies don't do AF with older lenses.

[johnmflores]

Torpedo your existing market, your loyal base, make people fuming mad. It'll be great press. People will do some research and love the idea that Pentax stands nowhere near behind the equipment they've made in the past.

Frankly this is why my first camera wasn't a Cannon. FD to EF nonsense. It's also why I didn't buy a Nikon, their entry level bodies don't do AF with older lenses.

Agreed. Ricoh didn't buy Pentax just to abandon Pentaxians.

[eddie1960]

Agreed. Ricoh didn't buy Pentax just to abandon Pentaxians.

It would seem to be a pretty poor investment if they did.

[Clinton]

You lose the OVF.

Is that a compromise you are willing to make?

If the LCD is high enough resolution, I'm more than willing to use an EVF, with some of the benefits that it could entail.

Adapters are kludges that always limit the experience.

I've yet to see one that's fully functional. I haven't even seen a TC that's fully functional.

What disturbs me most in the interview is virtually no outright support for the K-mount. I fully agree that Pentax is dead as a brand if it abandons its current K-mount user base for newer tech alone. The brand has nowhere near enough cachet to make that leap.

And as far as I can see, for almost no actual value. At the best, you can make the camera a little bit thinner.

There's all sorts of things that could be done with that registration space. Leaf Shutters, LCD shutters, cooling, better SR...

I do however see some value in increasing the K mount to some form of KAF4 mount that passes more information to and from the lens, and coming out with new lenses that can pass that info.

[Clinton]

In other words, it would make no difference if the MILC is made by Pentax or e.g. Sony/Olympus/Panasonic/Samsung. Current K-mount users will not automatically migrate to a Pentax MILC.

I believe you are correct. If this is a new system, an addition like the Q, they have to give me a compelling reason to buy into that system. If that is a switch, as opposed to an addition, I would be compelled to switch elsewhere.

[Clinton]

If I was in marketing for some other camera manufacturer, and disreputable, I would be all over these threads talking about how Pentax needs to abandon their mount and their customer base or they wont be able to move on. I would be making a strong and compelling argument to sew the seeds of fear, uncertainty, and doubt so that people in the brand think about leaving, and people researching the brand would go elsewhere.

It would be quite interesting to see the analytics and website stats for these threads.

[eddie1960]

If I was in marketing for some other camera manufacturer, and disreputable, I would be all over these threads talking about how Pentax needs to abandon their mount and their customer base or they wont be able to move on. I would be making a strong and compelling argument to sew the seeds of fear, uncertainty, and doubt so that people in the brand think about leaving, and people researching the brand would go elsewhere.

It would be quite interesting to see the analytics and website stats for these threads.

you mean not everyone here is who they represent themselves as

[johnmflores]

If I was in marketing for some other camera manufacturer, and disreputable, I would be all over these threads talking about how Pentax needs to abandon their mount and their customer base or they wont be able to move on. I would be making a strong and compelling argument to sew the seeds of fear, uncertainty, and doubt so that people in the brand think about leaving, and people researching the brand would go elsewhere.

It would be quite interesting to see the analytics and website stats for these threads.

If I was in marketing (and I am ), I wouldn't be wasting my time infiltrating a website that attracts a single-digit percentage of customers of a brand with single-digit percentage market share. Unless, of course, I was a bad marketer.

[Kunzite]

Maybe I wasn't clear in my last post:

1. Pentax releases a FF mirrorless camera with adapters for Pentax K, Canon FD, Nikon, Minolta, Olympus, and other lenses. They release a couple of native lenses with the camera.
2. People with legacy lenses like the idea of using them at their native focal length. They buy the Pentax FF mirrorless.
3. People enjoy using their Pentax FF mirrorless with their old lenses and tell others about it. People who otherwise would not consider the Pentax brand are now buying the Pentax FF mirrorless.
4. Pentax develops a native 50mm lens for their FF mirrorless camera.
5. People who had purchased the Pentax FF mirrorless to use with their old lenses are tempted by the new 50mm lens. They buy it.
6. Pentax develops more lenses for their FF mirrorless camera.

That formula worked for Olympus and Panasonic. There is a huge chunk of M43 owners that would not have considered buying an Olympus (let alone unknown Panasonic) if they could not have used their old lenses.

You could start writing science fiction
- making a camera to be used with legacy lenses is not a solid business case. If it's an expensive camera, even worse.
- the market for such a camera is obviously limited (how many have such old lenses, and still afford a $2500+ camera?). And... it can never grow.
- Olympus never did that, not to mention they're using a sensor smaller than APS-C (i.e. cheap). They simply launched a mirrorless system, and had to offer compatibility with 4/3.
That's similar with Pentax making a mirrorless, and having to offer a K-mount adapter - to prevent some of the customers to leave. But Olympus had trouble selling their 4/3 cameras, so they had to do it; Pentax is in a much better position.
What you think it's a good idea I'd call digging a hole and jumping in. Unless... they can properly support the K-mount at the same time (with lots of new products, including FF DSLR), and convince the market they aren't nowhere near phasing it out.

Torpedo your existing market, your loyal base, make people fuming mad. It'll be great press. People will do some research and love the idea that Pentax stands nowhere near behind the equipment they've made in the past.

Agreed. Ricoh didn't buy Pentax just to abandon Pentaxians.

That's a given.

By the way, isn't the SLT-A65's EVF the best on the market? I still don't like it. Quite good for a miniature TV but it still looks unnatural.

[Emacs]

The image in OVF doesn't look natural as well, the focusing screen prevents this. You only can see things natural without any VF

[Kunzite]

By your "logic" I never see a natural image since I'm wearing glasses

[johnmflores]

You could start writing science fiction
- making a camera to be used with legacy lenses is not a solid business case. If it's an expensive camera, even worse.
- the market for such a camera is obviously limited (how many have such old lenses, and still afford a $2500+ camera?). And... it can never grow.
- Olympus never did that, not to mention they're using a sensor smaller than APS-C (i.e. cheap). They simply launched a mirrorless system, and had to offer compatibility with 4/3.
That's similar with Pentax making a mirrorless, and having to offer a K-mount adapter - to prevent some of the customers to leave. But Olympus had trouble selling their 4/3 cameras, so they had to do it; Pentax is in a much better position.
What you think it's a good idea I'd call digging a hole and jumping in. Unless... they can properly support the K-mount at the same time (with lots of new products, including FF DSLR), and convince the market they aren't nowhere near phasing it out.

How'd you know I was writing a science fiction book? Alas, it's not about cameras.

A couple of points....

1. I said nothing about $2500. I don't know where that price came from. It's not mine. Don't apply it to my post.
2. I am not drawing a direct comparison between Olympus 43 and Pentax APS-C. I didn't even mention 43. The point that I'm making is that a lot of people became interested in M43 because A) it was smaller than dSLRs and B) they could buy an adaptor and use their existing lenses.
3. At the end of the day, a FF Pentax dSLR is not going to be interesting to anyone but current Pentax customers. And the current user base of Pentax owners is not big enough to justify a FF dSLR. It's a cart/horse problem. FF in and of itself is not enough to attract new customers, just ask Sony.
4. If Pentax is going FF, they've got to do something different, which makes sense, since being different is built into their DNA.
5. If you have any doubts about the growth of mirrorless, just look at Panasonic. Five years ago they were just entering the market. 0% market share. They misstepped with 43, and have similar challenges as Pentax with advertising, marketing, and distribution. Now on the eve of a new year, Panasonic likely has greater market share than Pentax in every major market in the world. And that's with what many consider inferior, smaller, noisier, sensors, a less complete lens lineup, and pricing disadvantages that Aristophanes is all to happy to point out. How'd they do it? Certainly not by being me-too.

OK, that was 5 points. That's why writers need editors.