[monochrome]

Canon actually has a slightly larger minimum distance between the sensor and lens than Pentax, it's just the mount that is closer. (Lots of M42 lenses hit the mirror on the 5D, but do not on any Pentax cameras (including old FF film cameras).)

Does that fact close the circle?

[drougge]

drougge, I wonder if the bigger mirror the E mount allows has something to do with ultra-fast lenses...

I assume you mean EF mount. I do seem to remember someone writing about fast lenses vignetting in the finder after he shaved the mirror on his 5D. So it's possible. I don't understand optics half as well as I would need to to know.

[Aristophanes]

As a career analyst, though, I'm more convinced by the subtle changes in approach to the market that imply doing things differently (at least in the USA) than they have been done in the recent past. Reading between the lines it is not hard to imagine Pentax emulating Nikon's strategic plan, modified to suit a smaller, more nimble, specialist brand.

Ricoh bought Pentax because of the K-mount. That much is clear. Without the K-mount Pentax would be worth almost nothing save some easily replicated optical formulas.

Messing with the legacy K-mount when SLR mount systems are still selling extremely well is plain foolish. Sony didn't mess with the Minolta Alpha-mount (though they did mess up the naming and should have messed up the flash system).

Despite the mirrorless phenom, there is still plenty of long-term life in the SLR format. It is proven, cost-effective tech with a huge legacy, loyal market. It will be extremely difficult for an EVF to replace an OVF, for example.

The idea of having mirrorless and SLR formats share the same lenses is not really worthwhile. In fact, camera manufactures WANT you to buy into more than one system. They WANT you to buy a RF/mirrorless system or hybrid PLUS an SLR. This is how proficts i the biz have been driven since the 1970's and it shows no sign of slowing down. A consolidated "do everything" mount is an uneconomic fantasy.

All the discussion about minor changes to the mount and registration are just silly talk because the money has already spoken and it obviates such thinking.

FYI: the E-mount from Sony is an FF-capable image circle.

[Aristophanes]

Does that fact close the circle?

Breaks the mirror.

7 years bad luck.

No warranty.

[monochrome]

Ricoh bought Pentax because of the K-mount. That much is clear. Without the K-mount Pentax would be worth almost nothing save some easily replicated optical formulas.

Just to be clear, I meant emerging changes to the way Pentax manages markets in the US and potentially changes in the way Pentax globally positions and segments K-mount dSLR's within the overall market. I make no reference to changes in the K-mount.

One hopes Ricoh has more depth of commitment to building the brand both in terms of technology synergies and in terms of identity synergies. I sense some small tone changes at places such as DPReview and perhaps some of the online magazine sites; Target (if developed) is a good thing; as new bodies are released we will see if their is a Pentax identity or a constantly-shifting design aesthetic.

The real tell, if we could ever really find out, will be whether Ricoh commits capital to more manufacturing lines.

[monochrome]

Breaks the mirror.

7 years bad luck.

No warranty.

I'm not a physicist nor even very knowledgeable about simple camera mechanics, but it seems to me all the discussion of shorter register distance was rendered moot by this simple fact. I have always thought the MFT argument was thinner cameras anyway, not faster lenses.

[Aristophanes]

I'm not a physicist nor even very knowledgeable about simple camera mechanics, but it seems to me all the discussion of shorter register distance was rendered moot by this simple fact. I have always thought the MFT argument was thinner cameras anyway, not faster lenses.

And faster in which way?

sub-f/1.4 f-stop or shallower real DOF?

For the former, $$$ all the way. No point when high-ISO is available.

For the latter, a laregr sensor is the answer. At a certain point, aesthetically speaking, a too shallow DOF is a problem.

Thinner cameras don't necessarily outsell. I happen to very much like the modern DSLR design with the integrated grip. I find it much easier to hold. I tried to Fuji X100 and X Pro-1 and simply could not deal with the loss of the grip.

The real argument for new mounts is smaller lenses, not camera bodies. To some extent Pentax compact primes are a good market response and in fact, appear to be what keep the current batch of loyalists...loyal.

[monochrome]

The real argument for new mounts is smaller lenses, not camera bodies. To some extent Pentax compact primes are a good market response and in fact, appear to be what keep the current batch of loyalists...loyal.

I think we're in agreement but perhaps don't know it. RE: faster lenses, I was referring to a long discussion earlier of possible sub-f/1.0 primes (for whatever reason you'd want that) for a reasonable price using APSc and shorter register distance as a justification for Pentax adding a new mount.

RE: thinner cameras I was referring to what I sense is a recurring theme among the MFT users here that smaller is always better given comparable IQ.

I have no opinion on the former. On the latter I don't really care about the mount per se as long as my lenses aren't made obsolete (which means I care about the K-mount).

My real contention is a K-01 and a DA Limited lens or the 40XS is about the same size as a thin MILC with a smaller new lens mounted. Neither will fit in a pocket when armed for combat. Of course the K-01 won't fit in a pocket either way.

Given how I hold a camera I view the K-01 form as an attribute, not a shortcoming,

[eddie1960]

I think we're in agreement but perhaps don't know it. RE: faster lenses, I was referring to a long discussion earlier of possible sub-f/1.0 primes (for whatever reason you'd want that) for a reasonable price using APSc and shorter register distance as a justification for Pentax adding a new mount.

RE: thinner cameras I was referring to what I sense is a recurring theme among the MFT users here that smaller is always better given comparable IQ.

I have no opinion on the former. On the latter I don't really care about the mount per se as long as my lenses aren't made obsolete (which means I care about the K-mount).

My real contention is a K-01 and a DA Limited lens or the 40XS is about the same size as a thin MILC with a smaller new lens mounted. Neither will fit in a pocket when armed for combat. Of course the K-01 won't fit in a pocket either way.

Given how I hold a camera I view the K-01 form as an attribute, not a shortcoming,

Aside from a couple of very fast primes for m mount where DOF is achieved (on m9 and m8) the only other place you see sub f1 is m4/3 and it still doesn't have the dof characteristics of the larger sensor, and due to it''s poorer high iso performance it needs the speed somewhat (as does the leica for that matter MM possibly excepted)

otherwise we are talking only about canon's ability to make a 1.2 85 and 1.8 135 which neither Nikon nor Pentax can do (1.4 and 2 being the fastest respectively i believe) - given how stupidly razor thin a 1.2 85 is on FF I'd debate the overall utility - certainly not an absolute must have over 1.4

FF 85 @ 6 feet ( close portrait)
@ 1.2 - 1.2 inches in focus
@1.4 - 1.4 inches in focus

not much difference, and in either case very tough to nail correct focus point for an AF system, and just as tough to manually focus . My 645 with a 150 @ 2.8 splits the difference and i have to focus bracket to hope to get a shot focused correctly, and i'm more inclined to shoot it at f 4 for that reason

[thibs]

otherwise we are talking only about canon's ability to make a 1.2 85 and 1.8 135 which neither Nikon nor Pentax can do (1.4 and 2 being the fastest respectively i believe) - given how stupidly razor thin a 1.2 85 is on FF I'd debate the overall utility - certainly not an absolute must have over 1.4

Not correct: A* 135/1.8

[ENicolas]

Once you're on a tripod, the need for articulating screens is reduced.

You wouldn't say that if your back was wrecked like mine. Any time I use the K-5 on a tripod low to the ground I'm wishing I had my Canon G12 with the tilt-a-whirl screen! And to get interesting shots you sometimes have to get low to the ground.

[ENicolas]

Well, since this thread is all over the map with wild speculation, something I've been thinking about is the in-camera AF motor that Pentax relies so heavily on. At some point they will get rid of it - and probably first on a higher-end camera like the K-5 replacement. This leaves the current screw-drive low end lenses for the low end cameras, and would require buying the more expensive lenses to have AF on the new high end body.

At least, that's the nightmare I sometimes wake-up from, drenched with perspiration, and screaming "NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!".

[gazonk]

Well, since this thread is all over the map with wild speculation, something I've been thinking about is the in-camera AF motor that Pentax relies so heavily on. At some point they will get rid of it - and probably first on a higher-end camera like the K-5 replacement. This leaves the current screw-drive low end lenses for the low end cameras, and would require buying the more expensive lenses to have AF on the new high end body.

That makes no sense at all - they're not making a high end body that can't auto focus the limiteds. They might have wanted to get rid of it first in the next budget body, but given that recent budget lenses are screw drive only, we can exclude that as well.

[Alizarine]

The in-body AF motor is one of Pentax entry-level's edge features with competing Canikon models, which don't have 'em. So I doubt they'll take it out. It's one of the value-points most new customers overlook because of the better brand recognition towards the big two. Without the in-body AF motor, The K-r replacement will have a hard time battling the D3200 and perhaps a swivel/touch screen replacement for the Canon 1100D.

[gtl]

I would disagree with the in body motor being a Pentax advantage. Take it away and almost the entire pentax lineup won't function. No DA, FA limiteds. No DFA. No DA zooms. At least in nikon land there is AF-S versions of almost every commonly used focal length.