[audiobomber]

Actually, lots of the DA's are compatible. There's a thread on it somewhere here on PF...

I believe all the primes from 35mm up are FF compatible. Certainly the DA 40mm Ltd is.

[DaveBlack]

Actually, lots of the DA's are compatible. There's a thread on it somewhere here on PF...

True, there are a lot of users that have tested their DA's and found some able to shot FF without too much light full off. Still Pentax offically stated otherwise for the DA lens. Now if Pentax came out with a FF camera we will see how the camera will handle those DA lenses. Pentax just might have those lenses shoot FF in a 1.5 crop mode.

[gazonk]

I believe all the primes from 35mm up are FF compatible. Certainly the DA 40mm Ltd is.

Still pretty useless with most film bodies, so not backward compatible...

[causey]

If the Pentax mirrorless turns out to be K mount indeed, then this has a number of pro and cons:

+ a future full frame mirrirless is feasible.

Exactly. So why change the mount? Who needs a NEX-like camera can buy a NEX. Pentax has no reason to go into a competition with NEX. Moreover, it's safe to stay with the K-mount, for which there is a market. But the ultimate reason to keep the K mount in a mirrorless camera is... FF!

[Clavius]

Pentax just might have those lenses shoot FF in a 1.5 crop mode.

Of course there should be a option to turn off that crop mode, for the people that think their DA is usable on FF. What person A finds acceptable often differs from person B.

[Fogel70]

The DA lenses are not FF compatible. Seems to be Pentax thinking to have lenses being foward compatible so old lenses can be used with new cameras. But not always the other way around where new lenses can be used with old cameras.

Dave

DA lenses are compatible with FF SLR, just not fully compatible with all of them. AFAIK all K-mount lenses can be used on all K-mount cameras, but there might be some limitations. But lenses that cannot be used on or might break the camera is a different thing.

[Eruditass]

Exactly. So why change the mount? Who needs a NEX-like camera can buy a NEX. Pentax has no reason to go into a competition with NEX. Moreover, it's safe to stay with the K-mount, for which there is a market. But the ultimate reason to keep the K mount in a mirrorless camera is... FF!

And exactly why can't you have a shorter mount with FF? Just look at Leica. Don't tell me it is because our microlenses aren't as good.

[Docrwm]

Why does anybody like to argue with me?

The very page you linked contains the following paragraph:
To copy information in a form accessible to google violates the terms.

And anyway, it simply is a matter of good style and education not to publish a reputated person's full private data (like email, full name and phone numbers) on a page which is disposed to google crawling. It is a criminal offense in some countries even.

Not here, nor where this forum is based. Stop telling others what to do, please - it's considered rude in some countries........

Adam's response to a personal request from the person in question does not support nor justify your otherwise boorish behavior in this matter IMHO.

[falconeye]

I deleted as he personally requested it. It's public but usually spambot-proof on those whois sites.

Adam, thank you very much.

I would have thought moderator intervention wouldn't be required here. I thought people would be more reasonably educated. How naive I am

[Docrwm]

Adam, thank you very much.

I would have thought moderator interception wouldn't be required here. I thought people would be more reasonably educated. How naive I am

No, simply boorish. Please stop being the policeman here, we don't need one and I personally resent it when I see it happen.

[Caat]

Sounds interesting and gives the potential for future growth. As someone else said if you remove the full sized grip and the OVF from standard Pentax DSLRs they'd approach this size anyway.

My only concerns are:

1. Battery life - reducing grip size reduces battery cavity space (plus you're probably relying on an EVF).
2. Aufofocus performance with non-dedicated lenses might be suspect. Will there be an AF motor? Maybe not if this is actually entry level.
3. Nature of the viewfinder - on a higher end model I could see a Fuji style hybrid viewfinder (Pentax has similar patents).

How this looks in terms of compactness will depend alot upon how it's styled. So it could feel smaller IRL than it looks on paper.

MX: 135.8 x 82.5 (60)* x 49.3 mm 495g * with the OVF knocked off
K-01: 121, 79, 59 mm 560g

If the K-01 were metal than it's weight might make more sense. Squeeze the depth down a touch more and reduce the height a touch and you'd not be a million miles off the MX. Maybe even close enough.

Future iterations might get there. Add a FF sensor in 18 months and you'll have a multi-tier system with lenses compatible across the range. I think this is plausible given Pentax's previous prototypes.

[JohnBee]

Why argue with you?

You said it was illegal and it isn't. Maybe where you live, but not here on my side of the Internet.

What you just posted is based in a DDoS on the WHOIS database, which a link in the Pentax forums (or Google crawing) is hardly qualified to do.

I don't put people's info out there, but if someone is starting to squat a Pentax domain, then it's fair game to use the legal methods to display who it is.

I have to agree.
To my knowledge, there is no domain privacy, when the data is open for all to see(public).
There are however domain legislation available through private registrars options, however, this would not apply to the public records.

Also, I think the legal information you cited in your previous post was specific to the WHOIS service itself rather than the registrant information per say. Though I can't see how anyone could ever enforce such restrictions through search engine queries. Which would be the equivalent of trying to stop people from posting search engine keywords(which anyone could do) in order to avoid seeing any private contact information.

Having said that, I was able to find the following information;

WHOIS has generated policy issues in the United States federal government. As noted above, WHOIS creates a privacy issue which is also tied to free speech and anonymous speech. However, WHOIS is an important tool for law enforcement officers investigating violations like spam and phishing to track down the holders of domain names. Law enforcement officers become frustrated when WHOIS records are filled with rubbish. As a result, law enforcement agencies have sought to make WHOIS records both open and verified:[11]

• The Federal Trade Commission has testified about how inaccurate WHOIS records thwart their investigations.[12]
• Congressional hearings have been conducted about the importance of WHOIS in 2006, 2002, and 2001.[13]
• The Fraudulent Online Identity Sanctions Act[14] "make it a violation of trademark and copyright law if a person knowingly provided, or caused to be provided, materially false contact information in making, maintaining, or renewing the registration of a domain name used in connection with the violation,"[15] where the latter "violation" refers to a prior violation of trademark or copyright law. The act does not make the submission of false WHOIS data illegal in itself, only if used to shield oneself from prosecution for crimes committed using that domain name.

[MMVIII]

If the weight and dimensions rumours are true, it may be a modified/crippled k-mount, or a mirrorless k-mount.

The stated inclusion of a new DA 40 also says something.

If the flange distance is not kept to the K-mount identity exactly, a huge slew of legacy glass will not focus properly and not to infinity.

Unless you get an adapter, probably for SDM lenses, screw drive, etc.

Hard to tell if this is a sidebar evolution of the K-mount. I suspect if it is NOT, then the issue will be the size of the body being larger than NEX/m43, etc.

If it IS a modified K-mount requiring new lenses for many FL's, the issue will be one of it being a bastard child, and really a new mount in all but name.

Extrapolating from another recent (well, only) Pentax mirrorless the XS may stand for XShutter, Pentax calls it lensshutter. Might be in line with the shortest shutter time of 1/4000 indicating an electronic shutter only...? So no change necessary for mount, still new lenses...

[monochrome]

K-01 could be a code name like NC-1 was for the Q.

If it is internal code, which makes some sense, K-01 could be shorthand for

first <01> MILC with a K-mount <K>

[JonathanKark]

Has anyone thought this could be the "Mystery rugged-looking K-mount no-VF camera" that was seen at CES?

Kinda fits the bill....