Originally posted by Anvh Canon FD use 42mm that's FF so the mirror is 34mm long, heigh however you want to call it.
APS-C mirror is 22mm long so that's already 12mm difference, 50% more then you say and this only by looking at the mirror.
So cannon FD mount but instead of using 34mm mirror we use 22mm mirror, and all of a sudden we have 12mm room to move the register from 42mm to 30mm.
Any flaws in this that will account to more then 1mm differnce?
Again: can you show me how those 8mm would bring such a tremendous advantage (compared even to allowing the lens to protrude 8mm further into the mount) that would offset losing all their customers?
good luck to you to proofing that it doesn't and i never talk about customers, i only said it could be a possible other direction to take to compete with FF instead of getting a FF sensor.
The mirror sits in a "landscape" orientation, which coincidentally is also the sensor/frame orientation; please don't tell me you don't know this because I'd have a hard time believing it. So we're talking about the "height" in this orientation, i.e. the shorter side. 24mm for the FF, 15.7 for APS-C (for simplification, we can say the mirror has the same dimensions as the sensor).
You're insisting they should change the mount,
you must prove there is a very compelling reason to do it.
The "legacy users" are about 100% of the K-mount customers. You would have to show us reasonable evidence that:
1. Pentax can quickly build a new system from scratch, including those ultra-fast lenses, in a record time. How long would it take even to have something comparable with the K-mount system? At 4-5 lenses per year?
2. Pentax can survive all this time while making heavy losses, since the K-mount would be hit and the new system, nowhere near attractive/complete.
3. Pentax can gain back the people's trust, after screwing them for no apparent reason
4. After all this, Pentax would be in a much better position than if concentrating their efforts into growing the K-mount
Tell us about the M42 story when you see Pentax clinging to their obsolete bayonet mount
while all the others switched to something else. There were strong technical reasons why the M42 had to go - the inability to have electric contacts (imprecise alignment), and being slower to use than the bayonet mount.
You failed to provide any compelling argument for completely screwing up their (K-mount) customers. I really don't understand why you insist so much on a terribly flawed idea; are you trolling by any chance?
And yes, we know with absolute certainty it won't happen.