Originally posted by Clavius 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.