[falconeye]

Take of the battery bulge and the mirror and it becomes pretty small.

Exactly as I thought: people keep asking for this because they don't understand.

The Ricoh GXR with a K-module would have the exact same "bulge". You can remove the mirror but would still have to keep the air. Because the K-mount's registration distance is a constant.

BTW, my favorite size comparison is http://camerasize.com/compare/#229,258
I am a big fan of small capable cameras. But mirrorless is not enough to do the trick.

[eddie1960]

Exactly as I thought: people keep asking for this because they don't understand.

The Ricoh GXR with a K-module would have the exact same "bulge". You can remove the mirror but would still have to keep the air. Because the K-mount's registration distance is a constant.

BTW, my favorite size comparison is Compare camera dimensions side by side
I am a big fan of small capable cameras. But mirrorless is not enough to do the trick.

The missing dimension is the depth. the fuji is quite narrow. but it's not a small camera i agree (neither is an m9 the Mirrorless Grandaddy )

Compare camera dimensions side by side

and the fuji vs the m9 is my favourite comparison (it's pretty obvious who Fuji is Gunning for when you see them side by side - if only you could bring up the contax G2 as well to see the Fuji inspiration

Compare camera dimensions side by side

[Sinister]

Exactly as I thought: people keep asking for this because they don't understand.

The Ricoh GXR with a K-module would have the exact same "bulge" - I am referring to the battery bulge! You can remove the mirror but would still have t o keep the air. Because the K-mount's registration distance is a constant.

BTW, my favorite size comparison is Compare camera dimensions side by side
I am a big fan of small capable cameras. But mirrorless is not enough to do the trick.

I think you got me wrong. I am aware of the fact, that the "air" in the module itself is a non-changable constant. What I am asking for is a flat body, without the battery bulge - like an MX - which easily slips in my bag. Next to it the adapter and my FA43 or DA21 and I'd be happy. And the easiest way to achieve this, is the GXR.

[the swede]

BTW, my favorite size comparison is Compare camera dimensions side by side
I am a big fan of small capable cameras. But mirrorless is not enough to do the trick.

exellent example!

The K-mount is still very capable of being small! My three FA's is very very small compared to other brands.

Also, my ist* and 43 Ltd is a very small package, much smaller than a K-r/43 combo.

I think were blessed with a great mount, mirrorles or not....

I see alot of comments about register distance. It's still pretty darn small when you attach lenses like the Ltd's.

[ChopperCharles]

I want a mirrorless with an EVF, which I have the option of using a K adapter on.. but, I want the autofocus to work. Most of the time, I'll want a nice compact capable camera. But if I feel like a 600mm telephoto, it'd be nice if I could slap on an adapter and my 55-300mm DAL lens. When working with telephoto, a little extra length isn't a big deal. I just want the autofocus to work - if they're going to make an adapter, make one that's worth a damn.

Charles.

[colwoodboy]

I want a new medium format film camera

[falconeye]

I think you got me wrong. I am aware of the fact, that the "air" in the module itself is a non-changable constant. What I am asking for is a flat body, without the battery bulge - like an MX - which easily slips in my bag. Next to it the adapter and my FA43 or DA21 and I'd be happy. And the easiest way to achieve this, is the GXR.

Maybe, I got you wrong. I actually have the same dream, owning an MX myself.

But I had to learn that the extra bulge in an, e.g., K-5 over an MX is crowded with electronics, incl. a sensor, AA filter, SR mechanism, LCD screen and PCB boards. All of this would not go away if removing the battery grip bulge, i.e., overall depth of a K mount camera would still remain the same, a K module GXR or K adapter NEX included.

However, I see your point of removable bulge for transport reasons. If you have enough pockets to stuff the rest. I am just not sure that this is enough justification for a K mount mirrorless. If this is this important, you could design a foldable mirror box which folds tight with the mirror locked up in power off state. The fact that nobody ever tried it tells me it isn't this important.

[mecrox]

But I had to learn that the extra bulge in an, e.g., K-5 over an MX is crowded with electronics, incl. a sensor, AA filter, SR mechanism, LCD screen and PCB boards. All of this would not go away if removing the battery grip bulge, i.e., overall depth of a K mount camera would still remain the same, a K module GXR or K adapter NEX included.

However, I see your point of removable bulge for transport reasons. If you have enough pockets to stuff the rest. I am just not sure that this is enough justification for a K mount mirrorless. If this is this important, you could design a foldable mirror box which folds tight with the mirror locked up in power off state. The fact that nobody ever tried it tells me it isn't this important.

Well, Pentax could always make a virtue of necessity and forget about trying to make everything as slim as possible, just like every other camera. In fact they already do that with the Q anyway, but not every camera in the range has to follow suit. Instead they could produce a high-quality FF mirrorless that in shape is fairly like a reduced 645D. Eccentric? So what do they have to lose?

[gazonk]

Instead they could produce a high-quality FF mirrorless that in shape is fairly like a reduced 645D. Eccentric? So what do they have to lose?

That sounds insanely eccentric, since the 645D owes its shape to the enormous mirror box.... I think if they really want to be eccentric, they can drop FF altogether and instead offer a lighter, smaller 645D-mount SLR camera with a less expensive (and lower pixel-count) sensor. A 645D for The Rest Of Us.

[eurostar]

That sounds insanely eccentric, since the 645D owes its shape to the enormous mirror box.... I think if they really want to be eccentric, they can drop FF altogether and instead offer a lighter, smaller 645D-mount SLR camera with a less expensive (and lower pixel-count) sensor. A 645D for The Rest Of Us.

Plus, they would have the lenses in production for that thing.

While the same is not true for a FF. I know that people want a FF for their old lenses, and not for new ones to buy... but i fear Ricoh is not on the same idea.

[eddie1960]

Plus, they would have the lenses in production for that thing.

While the same is not true for a FF. I know that people want a FF for their old lenses, and not for new ones to buy... but i fear Ricoh is not on the same idea.

I disagree, while i might not buy any new lenses right away for a FF, I certainly would. As it sits any new lenses I look at have to be FF capable. Even on my apsc I would like to see a Pentax 70-200 2.8 and an 85 1.4. I realise they would likely cost about the same as the used old lenses but If I could buy new for the same price i'd prefer that. I'd also likely replace my sigma 24-70 2.8 with a pentax if it came along. And this doesn't even cover most of the primes I'd upgrade slowly. I think there are a number of people who would end up the same. Sure there are a number who already have all the lenses but then they aren't going to be buying many for their next apsc camera either and they may be more than happy to wait for a FF if they have a K5 meaning less sales on the next apsc since the k5 is so good.
Add to that people who move into the brand and as time goes on look towards upgrades

[falconeye]

To be frank, I don't care so much for an FF camera from Pentax in particular.

I just care about any FF camera from anybody which isn't crippled (on pixel pitch, AF performance, SR, build quality etc.) and reasonably compact and reasonably priced (about 50% above APSC).

So far, such a thing doesn't exist on this planet. And there aren't any technical reasons. There have been; but not anymore. Which IMHO explains why FF sells rather badly. And believe it or not, I still see Pentax in the best situation to change that. They did it for the medium format market. So why not for the FF market too?

[aleonx3]

To be frank, I don't care so much for an FF camera from Pentax in particular.

I just care about any FF camera from anybody which isn't crippled (on pixel pitch, AF performance, SR, build quality etc.) and reasonably compact and reasonably priced (about 50% above APSC).

So far, such a thing doesn't exist on this planet. And there aren't any technical reasons. There have been; but not anymore. Which IMHO explains why FF sells rather badly. And believe it or not, I still see Pentax in the best situation to change that. They did it for the medium format market. So why not for the FF market too?

True for me... I am very happy with the k-5, and unless there is a FF camera that comes similar to the size and features of the k-5, I wouldn't touch it. The FF camera from other brands are too chunky for me to use it regularly.

[Greyser]

Consumer Electronics Show breaks record with 153,000 attendees | VentureBeat

[pz1fan]

To be frank, I don't care so much for an FF camera from Pentax in particular.

I just care about any FF camera from anybody which isn't crippled (on pixel pitch, AF performance, SR, build quality etc.) and reasonably compact and reasonably priced (about 50% above APSC).

So far, such a thing doesn't exist on this planet. And there aren't any technical reasons. There have been; but not anymore. Which IMHO explains why FF sells rather badly. And believe it or not, I still see Pentax in the best situation to change that. They did it for the medium format market. So why not for the FF market too?

My thoughts exactly. And why I'm disappointed with the new XPro camera.