[wed7]

^ like

[filorp]

And how is it that Sony making average AF is bad, but for Pentax it is good?

AF speed and accuracy will be the only drawback of Pentax FF - that's because i said: lets no place our hopes to high.... I know it will exclude such a camera from professionall journalistic use... but at least for landskapers and for studioish use it'll be graet.... If the recent k5 AF isn't even as good as oldies but goldies d200 (low light) there is no hope for pentax to compete on this ground (in my opinion it isnt even as good as entry level d3000 or even F100). Answering to your question: average af for sony was bad because there is nothing good at this camera anyway, for pentax average af is like good enough... it goes... thanks to the other functions....

[Clinton]

Is there any reason that if you removed the mirror box, that you couldn't mount a lens substantially inside the camera body if you wanted something with a shorter registration distance? Wouldn't that solve the issue of continuing the K mount, but allowing you to make lenses that don't protrude as far from the body?

[eurostar]

Is there any reason that if you removed the mirror box, that you couldn't mount a lens substantially inside the camera body if you wanted something with a shorter registration distance? Wouldn't that solve the issue of continuing the K mount, but allowing you to make lenses that don't protrude as far from the body?

The old prototype of a mirrorless Pentax from 1997 was exactly like that. But it was far more bulkier than a mirrorless of our time.

[Fogel70]

Is there any reason that if you removed the mirror box, that you couldn't mount a lens substantially inside the camera body if you wanted something with a shorter registration distance? Wouldn't that solve the issue of continuing the K mount, but allowing you to make lenses that don't protrude as far from the body?

It would put many limitation on the design of the camera and lenses.

- It would limit size of the glass in the lens, not making it possible to make cheap small fast wide angle lenses. Ultra wide angle primes have to be at least 25 mm longer as the whole lens cannot be fitted inside the camera.
- Would make design of zoom lenses more complex.
- Makes it more difficult to fit AF-motors in the lens. Smaller less powerful motors might be needed, making AF slower.
- Focus and zoom ring would be smaller on many lenses and it would be hard to fit other buttons on the lens.
- The camera has to include AF-motor and aperture mechanism for legacy lenses, making the camera more expensive.
- Not possible to use other brand legacy lenses.

[glanglois]

If you like. Keep in mind that Pentax/Ricoh are the size of Canon now, and that Nikon is the small player.

Not really. All three firms separate their business lines, cross-subsidizing substantially only when returns from doing so are very large. Canon and Nikon have much more revenue at stake in the camera lines. Given the comparatively larger revenues and potential profits that Nikon and Canon enjoy from the camera lines, I expect that they'll continue to invest more there than Ricoh will in Pentax.

Of course this is all idle speculation. We'll check back again at this time in 2014 and 2015. I can hardly wait

[Aristophanes]

Is there any reason that if you removed the mirror box, that you couldn't mount a lens substantially inside the camera body if you wanted something with a shorter registration distance? Wouldn't that solve the issue of continuing the K mount, but allowing you to make lenses that don't protrude as far from the body?

Entirely possible and a much-talked about design, especially for making lenses that can retract a bit into the body (where the mirror box used to be). Adds complexity and power drain, doing a modest amount to reduce the form factor.

The issue for lens size is important because one of the advantages of shortening the register distance is not reducing body size, but lens sizes.

You lose the OVF, but could retain backward compatibility with K-mount proper. Video in particular is improved.

We may see something like this with Sony if they go very bold on their FF. I am not sure the market is ready to go there; that advantages are not compelling enough.

[eurostar]

I think the real problem is that the K-AF bayonet is too obsolete for our times. It is the only one that have just ONE pin for electronic communication between lenses and camera (the other being the analog code from A line of lenses) when all the others, including Q bayonet, have many electronic pins. A switch to mirrorless is the less painful way to adopt a revamped mount in line with the needs of today standards.

[Class A]

I think the real problem is that the K-AF bayonet is too obsolete for our times. It is the only one that have just ONE pin for electronic communication between lenses and camera (the other being the analog code from A line of lenses) when all the others, including Q bayonet, have many electronic pins.

1. What functionality does the K-mount not support that you are looking for?
2. Why do you think that one digital pin is not enough? (One digital pin can be used to transmit all data; bandwith may be the only problem.)
3. Why not add further pins to the K-mount, if necessary?

[Fogel70]

I think the real problem is that the K-AF bayonet is too obsolete for our times. It is the only one that have just ONE pin for electronic communication between lenses and camera (the other being the analog code from A line of lenses) when all the others, including Q bayonet, have many electronic pins. A switch to mirrorless is the less painful way to adopt a revamped mount in line with the needs of today standards.

I fully agree, and a mirrorless camera like this is more of a RF type of camera than a DSLR replacement. So it's about entering a new market for Pentax, not only to continue support K-mount market.
A FF mirrorless camera like this might sell more alone to Leica users looking for a budget solution, than a K-mount FF camera would sell in Pentax own K-mount market. But with an K-mount adapter Pentax users can still use their old lenses if they want.

K-mount cameras might also go mirrorless sometime in the future, but I see no reason for replacing OVF yet. Sony has shown it can be done, but I think Pentax should wait a few more years for technology to mature. At least for high end models.

If I was to get a EVF camera I would much prefer something like Sony Nex7 over A77. I don't need a DSLR replacement, but would like a smaller camera to be used with a few small high quality primes.

[Zygonyx]

1. What functionality does the K-mount not support that you are looking for?
2. Why do you think that one digital pin is not enough? (One digital pin can be used to transmit all data; bandwith may be the only problem.)
3. Why not add further pins to the K-mount, if necessary?

Definitely so, one could imagine a K-AF 3 mount with both AF and powerzoom contacts for example.
But this doesn't adress the "need of super-compacity" a new mount would allow.

[drougge]

I think the real problem is that the K-AF bayonet is too obsolete for our times. It is the only one that have just ONE pin for electronic communication between lenses and camera (the other being the analog code from A line of lenses) when all the others, including Q bayonet, have many electronic pins. A switch to mirrorless is the less painful way to adopt a revamped mount in line with the needs of today standards.

Ignoring that a single pin is enough, it actually has several. It has only one that is only used in the modern system, but several of the old pins transmit some form of serial communication on newer lenses. (And the old system wasn't analog either, not that that matters for anything.)

[Clinton]

But this doesn't adress the "need of super-compacity" a new mount would allow.

If you attach the DA 40 Limited pancake to a film body, you've got a wide normal combo that's so small you can slip it in your pocket.

How much more super compact are you looking for?

[Clinton]

A FF mirrorless camera like this might sell more alone to Leica users looking for a budget solution, than a K-mount FF camera would sell in Pentax own K-mount market.

Leica users aren't going to come to our brand. The religion of Leica has them,

But with an K-mount adapter Pentax users can still use their old lenses if they want.

I'm ok with this, but I just don't see it happening. A fully supported adapter is going to be a complex operation. An operation that's going to have to include a substantial AF motor in the adapter.

Which goes back to, what is it in the K mount that isn't doing what you want, except the few mm you think you can save on the registration distance?

[Clinton]

The poll is on. If you've participated in this debate, you really should go vote: https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-dslr-discussion/170327-poll-what-d...focus-etc.html