[Supernaut]

Can someone explain why this is better than a new mount with a full k-mount support with a adapter?
This will only appeal to parts of the small amount of old k-users. This will only attract new users if the NEX won't come out with new lenses and if Panasonic and Samsung fails to make good sensors.

I see this as an attempt to make the life of k-mount live a few years longer, like the SLT is for a-mount.

[eurostar]

Can someone explain why this is better than a new mount with a full k-mount support with a adapter?

It' s not better, but at least we know that our lenses will work. You talk about an adapter, but seeing that in twenty more years Pentax has not been able to create extension tubes and rear converters working with AF, I have doubts that it would have been able to create a working adapter.

[Caat]

I think there are couple of points about a mirrorless K-mount (which I will call mK-m):

There have been several criticisms of this strategy:

1) Not a huge reduction in size. To be honest I think this idea of a pocketable interchangeable lens camera is a red herring. The NEX and the m43s offerings are not pocketable. The lens, even if they collapse, will still lead to cameras that you know you're carrying around. I know people don't like the idea of the Q being Pentax's answer to a small mirrorless but having seen the thing in person it looks amazing - far smaller than any m43s. I think if you want a mirrorless for a tiny camera it's an excellent choice. If you want a mirrorless for compactness and image quality it might still be good enough (and probably will be in time) but an mK-m could equally be small enough. With lenses that recess into the body, collapseable zooms, etc I think you could end up with a camera that whilst thicker in the body is comparable in total lens/camera depth.

2) Not being able to use short registration distance lenses. Should this override all other concerns? (including development costs) I mean really? People on this website talk about Leica M-mount and Contax G-mount as if millions of people have these lenses just lying around. I would think that most people who have these or similar lenses have already bought a m43 camera with which to use them.

These are issues to be sure but I think that they have been overblown a little bit - given what Pentax can realistically do with the resources that it has.

My own concerns are as follows:

1) The design and build quality need to be top notch. It's a hard sell vs Sony SLTs (which do bring some inherent advantages such as AF speed in video) and so Pentax need to produce something that has tangible benefits in terms of design - it needs to not look like an afterthought. It will have size on it's side but it also needs something else.

2) They will have to capitalise on any advantage they can in terms of shrinking lens size using recessed elements/focussing. They need to show that removing the mirror but not shrinking the registration distance brings an advantage above and beyond simply maintaining the K-mount and making it a bit smaller. Let's hope that the XS lens that comes with it does just that.

3) It needs an articulating display.

[parsons]

If the lens will be recessed into the mount, won't the SDM motor couplings get in the way? it seems stupid that they might release a camera that doesn't work with SDM?
it probably won't get in the way.

[Aku Ankka]

What proof is there that the K-01 is replacing anything? For that matter, where's the credible rumour that it's a K-r replacement? I emphatically believe the K-r will be replaced by a DSLR, and I've stated why several times in this thread, i.e. quote from Pentax UK General Manager. So what have you got?

BTW, you haven't said whether you own any Pentax gear. I suspect you don't and you're just here to troll.

It is just my opinion that K-01 is a cost cut replacement. Can I not have an opinion without solid evidence, or is that a priviledge reserved for people who you agree with?

And to your BTW, it is not relevant wether I have or don't have Pentax gear. I do have (K20D as my second camera), but I just as well could not have and it would not make any difference. Why it is so important to you that only Pentax owners should talk on this forum? What about potential future Pentax owners?

You are very impolite person. Calling person you don't agree with a troll for no good reason. Please grow up.

[Bob from Aus]

This thread just shows how starved we are about any news concerning k mount gear. We are a sorry lot. LOL

[ogl]

Can someone explain why this is better than a new mount with a full k-mount support with a adapter?
This will only appeal to parts of the small amount of old k-users. This will only attract new users if the NEX won't come out with new lenses and if Panasonic and Samsung fails to make good sensors.

I see this as an attempt to make the life of k-mount live a few years longer, like the SLT is for a-mount.

As for me - I don't want ANY adapter at all. So I think there are tens of thousands of Pentaxian like me....

By the way, we don't have 100% information about new K-01's mount. It seems to me - it's modified K-mount.

[Aku Ankka]

Using the DA 40 as a kit lens is not a bad idea. Sure, it would be nice if it was a little wider, say 30mm, but the DA 40 is a tiny, very fast focusing lens and there are plenty of people who use it currently as a walk around lens due to its corner to corner sharpness, nice colors, and small size

Yes, those are the good points, but the focal length (60mm equivalent) itself is not too good. If we look at the history of SLR (and rangefinder) lenses, 60mm doesn't really exist at all. The SLR manufacturers did make some 55mm (especially Asahi/Pentax) and 58mm lenses popular as they are easier to make to good optical quality, but the consumers never really liked them. Typically the diagonal of the film/sensor is considered to be the "right" (opinions of course vary) focal length, thus 43mm would be right for 135 film/full frame. Thus it's hardly surprising that the two focal lengths surrounding this - 35mm and 50mm - are (and have been) extremely popular. Historically there's been an empty spot from 50 (or a bit more) to about 80mm - the 60 to 70mm have not been considered to be useful enough.

[Paul Ewins]

Can someone explain why this is better than a new mount with a full k-mount support with a adapter?

From Pentax's point of view it means that (a) they don't have to produce a brand new mount and (b) they don't have to produce a full set of lenses to suit that mount. All they need to do is bring out those few lenses that will actually benefit from the lack of mirror, namely the wide angles which will no longer need to be as heavily retrofocus. Pentax will still be able to talk about having a full range of lenses, rather than saying that lenses will fit with an adapter which will sound rather half-baked even if it is effectively the same thing.

From our point of view it means that we won't need to buy an adapter.

[Kenn100D]

Moving aside K-01 rumor just a brief moment. I just got info sony's FF SLT Alpha 99 is on prototype at the moment here at Photoword Exhibit in Manila. Just wondering if Pentax will release their FF soon. Okay back to K-01 APS-C Rumor. =)

[Rondec]

Can someone explain why this is better than a new mount with a full k-mount support with a adapter?
This will only appeal to parts of the small amount of old k-users. This will only attract new users if the NEX won't come out with new lenses and if Panasonic and Samsung fails to make good sensors.

I see this as an attempt to make the life of k-mount live a few years longer, like the SLT is for a-mount.

I think there are two reasons. First of all, the adapter would be quite expensive (read 250 to 300 dollars). Combine that with a 600 dollar camera and the whole package will be pretty expensive. It would also need to be fairly complex as it would need to include a focus motor in order to drive most of the K mount lenses -- historically there are few Pentax lenses with in lens auto focus. The second thing is that it doesn't make a whole lot of sense from Pentax's standpoint to release another line of lenses with a different register distance. Eventually one of the mounts (I suppose the k mount) will starve.

The biggest problem with NEX is the dearth of lenses. Sure, people can use all the old lenses, but new, tiny, fast focusing lenses are basically absent. It would take Pentax longer than Sony to get a decent set of lenses up and running. Whereas, other than not being able to mount your old FD mount lenses, this will meet most of the sweet spots that the Sony NEX does.

What percentage of people buy a camera like the NEX because it is small and how many buy it because you can mount old glass on it with an adapter? Well, my guess would be on small, but I guess we will find out, won't we?

[Aku Ankka]

If you shoot mainly video then why do you use a PHOTOcamera for that?!?! That's what videocamera's are for.

I wish they would use a CCD for te higher IQ. Liveview and video can be stolen for all I care.

While CCD used to have an IQ advantage, this is no longer the case, and CMOS is mostly better. CCD allows for higher fill factor than front-side-illuminated CMOS (as is used on large sensors), but micro lenses close the gap (and back-side-illumination could be used if needed, and will be used when the pixels get even smaller). CCD allows for better infra-red sensitivvity than normal CMOS, but that's not too relevant for normal photography. CCD also tends to have better uniformity among pixels, though the best modern CMOS has pretty much closed that gap too.

On the other hand typical CCD suffers from higher read noise and blooming.

CCD used to be the better choice for IQ as the technology was much more mature only a few years ago, but times have changed and CMOS has matured well, and has much more potential than CCD, plus much more money is poured into CMOS developement than CCD developement.

Personally, I'm waiting for BSI CMOS for APS-C and bigger, but that's a money issue and probably won't happen until pixels become somewhat smaller.

[Fogel70]

The K20 did not have video capability.

Yes I know K20D do not have video, but the sensor in K20D support video feed for LV, so it might be possible to record video from the sensor. And K20D had 21 fps burst mode (in 1.6MP mode) which is not far from video. The reason for K20D missing video might be other reasons than the sensor not having support for it.
(I think Pentax did not want to put in extra R&D for video, which would have delayed the release of K20D).

Right, the extra channels were to accommodate video.

It's also used for higher frame rate for images.

I don't think so. AFAIK the D90 used a newer sensor than the D300. The D90 was from the same generation as the D300S.

D90 has higher IQ than both D300 and D300s, which is probably because the added electronics for extra channels takes up some extra space on the sensor.

[Aku Ankka]

I wasn't discussing CCD vs CMOS, just the addition of video to DLSR's. K-x and K-m used different sensors. The point of the K20D vs. K-7 comparison is that it was the same basic sensor, but tweaked for video capability on the K-7. If anything the K-7should have been better because it was a second iteration, but video circuitry adds noise, hence the compromised SNR and DR. The same thing happens with CD vs DVD. Video noise compromises DVD sound quality.

"Video circuitry" is in the digital domain and doesn't add any noise. Noise is a property of the analog domain.

The K20D sensor was Samsungs first attempt at APS-C sensor and was largely unchanged in the K-7 - the K20 sensor was already almost capable of delivering 1080P25 video. Looking at the DxOMark measurements, it seems like the K20D had for whatever reason somewhat better QE than K7 - this implies of it having better microlenses. Maybe Pentax saved some money here?

Also, K7 has less pattern noise than K20D.

[Aku Ankka]

From what i read the K7 has a lower "blur" filter (sorry forgot the name but that's the effect) on the sensor.
The K7 therefore has more noise but also has more details.

The anti-alias filter does not influence noise directly. Having a weaker AA-filter means more risk of aliasing (like color moire), but also allows more slightly more details and reduces the sharpening requirement (thus potentially reduces image noise slightly).