[gazonk]

Shorter register allows for *much* smaller and higher performing lenses from wide end

A K-mount with an empty mirror box would also allow for such lenses - they could all be hidden mostly behind the lens and all look like the DA40 on the outside

[Winder]

A K-mount with an empty mirror box would also allow for such lenses - they could all be hidden mostly behind the lens and all look like the DA40 on the outside

Yes, there is the opportunity to design lenses that recess back into the body, which is what I hope Pentax is planning.

[eddie1960]

Yes, there is the opportunity to design lenses that recess back into the body, which is what I hope Pentax is planning.

it seems the 40mmxs is just such a creature since it's even smaller than a da 40 and rubber covered and not compatible with the slrs (at least according to rumour), it would allow a 15 mm that is a pancake with DA 15 performance. or a truly fast 70 (like 1.4) no bigger than the da 70

[trco]

FAIL in my opinion is kludging together a camera just to appease its tiny existing fan-base and not trying to expand their horizons.

Hmmm, it sounds like Leica strategy - and it doesn't look like Leica is failing .

[eddie1960]

Hmmm, it sounds like Leica strategy - and it doesn't look like Leica is failing .

Leica is a unique case. they were saved buy a rich fan who invested heavily in the company when they were in trouble, and have a fanatical following who (mostly) also have a lot of money
so not Pentax the Student camera

Pentax I would think has more users on a huge order of magnitude as well (leica has been a small niche for 50 years now)

[Aku Ankka]

Again, Pentax = K-mount.

Backwards compatibility is the ONLY huge fat advantage Pentax has. Killing that over 0,75 cm is beyond ridiculous.

If people wanted to cope with a brand that stabs it's customers in the back by killing their mount every now and then, just to force them to spend some more, then they can go with Canikon.

Why would even the "kill-K-mount-crowd" be stupid enough to invest in the new Pentax lenses? From then on it's risky to buy their stuff.

0.75cm? More like 2 to 2.8 cm. This would allow for potential of small fast wide and normal lenses not possible to make for K-mount, and for potential of higher optical quality for them as well.

Additionally it would allow for smaller body which many customers like (it's much more fun to carry a tiny camera with tiny lenses everywhere, than a big bag with big toys). Many also like bigger ones (big lenses and ergonomics may require larger body), but with K-mount one is locked out of half the market. Smaller flange focal distance would allow to build a larger size spread of camera bodies. If a girl with small hands wants a small camera and boy with big ones a huge one, wouldn't it be nice if they could share not just the bed, but also the lenses.

In my opinion they should build a camera with a short flange focal distance mount, and make a K-adapter. The adapter and camera could be designed in a way that would make it non-obvious that an adapter is attached, to keep up pretty and smooth lines for the camera. What I don't quite understand is the hostility to an adapter based approach to phasing out K.

Regarding killing the K-mount: Canon took a risk and killed their FD mount. In bussiness, if you do not take calculated risks, you will lose. In my opinion K is something that should go. There is relatively little for Ricoh to lose as Pentax is a tiny player and a world to win.

[Aku Ankka]

A K-mount with an empty mirror box would also allow for such lenses - they could all be hidden mostly behind the lens and all look like the DA40 on the outside

This is true to a degree - there would be lower speed limits though.

[Clavius]

FAIL in my opinion is kludging together a camera just to appease its tiny existing fan-base and not trying to expand their horizons.

No, lets stab the existing userbase in the back (which is larger then you are picturing) and cross our fingers and hope other new customer will come... Yeah, sounds like a good plan. [COUGH]

Just because Pentax is small in the US, doen't mean it's small everywhere. I see other Pentaxians around here very often.

[audiobomber]

In my opinion K is something that should go. There is relatively little for Ricoh to lose as Pentax is a tiny player and a world to win.

High treason! And not too likely either. Do you own any Pentax gear Aku?

[drougge]

$300,-??

If you want ALL the functionality the lenses currently have. Screwdrive, SDM, DC, etc... Then you're looking at $700,-. Oh WR too? That's $850,-. IF it's even possible to retain all lens functionality. It's an engineering nightmare.

An adapter that countains a small part of a K mount DSLR and a microcontroller (costing a few cents) would be more expesive than such a DSLR? Yeah that makes all kinds of sense. WR in something like this should be a gasket on the camera side, the rest is WR by default. Doesn't sound like a terribly expensive addition to me. The most expsive parts, except the physical adapter itself, will be the aperture actuator and the screw drive. The electronics are simple and practically free except for development cost. Most of them would just be passing signals though, a new physical mount doesn't mean a new protocol. $300 sounds perfectly reasonable to me.

Not that I actually want them to make a new mount, I agree that the people who desperately want a thin camera are well served by enough other makers.

[eddie1960]

Regarding killing the K-mount: Canon took a risk and killed their FD mount. In bussiness, if you do not take calculated risks, you will lose. In my opinion K is something that should go. There is relatively little for Ricoh to lose as Pentax is a tiny player and a world to win.

Canon killed FD because they had technical issues implementing Af on the mount they weren't able to overcome, and the had to respond to the Minolta 7000 which had superior AF to everyone. it wasn't the pursuit of #1 that did this it was fear of dropping from #2
Minolta had killed their mount (SR) to build AF (the Alpha Mount) ground up and the success was huge scaring Canon into developing better AF
Olympus essentially just got out of the SLR market when AF became big and when they got back into the SLR market went the 4/3 route due to sensor cost, then in reality went to m4/3 and developed an adapter since the user base was tiny for the most part

Pentax was able to make AF work within the K mount design and that had to have retained their user base (which was always more value oriented than pro oriented in the 35mm realm (despite some excellent higher end cameras like the LX - which cost them a bomb) medium format being the pro line

Nikon also managed to make AF work and were the only company aside from pentax who did not abandon legact glass at that point (some of the modern digital bodies did and they have had complaints, most now do support the old glass again - though not as effectively as Pentax does)

By supporting their legacy users pentax is actually being different.

[rawr]

Damn, I missed making the #1000 post.

[cali92rs]

No, lets stab the existing userbase in the back (which is larger then you are picturing) and cross our fingers and hope other new customer will come... Yeah, sounds like a good plan. [COUGH]

Just because Pentax is small in the US, doen't mean it's small everywhere. I see other Pentaxians around here very often.

If you read what I have said, I never said kill the K-mount. I said the K-mount is an SLR mount and was designed as such. Sticking it on a MILC would be a big compromise and not be optimized for anything.
In my opinion, if you want to do MILC right, you develop a fully functional adaptor...adapted to a new mount which was designed for a mirrorless camera.
And you can develop a DSLR, using the K-mount natively, for full frame.

[wjjstu]

I think the new 40mm is optimized for CDAF to be competetive with other systems.

If that necessitates new lenses that are incompatible with K-mount, why use K-mount to begin with and not just start from scratch with a K-mini mount?

[eddie1960]

If that necessitates new lenses that are incompatible with K-mount, why use K-mount to begin with and not just start from scratch with a K-mini mount?

lets see launch a camera that will with an adaptor take a K mount lens. have it be an entry camera to compete on price for the market who aren't already users.have to develop a new line of lenses to support it and then screw the loyal customers buy charging them $300 for an adapter. sounds like a good idea

maybe they decided this was a way to bring new users to the mount offering a camera for the mirrorless crowd (most of which i am sure are using a couple of lenses designed for the mount and nothing else and then there are a few who use them for lots of other mounts (and populate forums)
the smart think with the full size k is when some of them go to buy their next camera they will buy into a higher end possible an SLR because they now have the lenses. I would bet less than half of the newer DSLR users own more than 2 kit type lenses. when the camera dies they are the same ones who may hop brands as they have no investment.