[Aristophanes]

Olympus and Panasonic do

Olympus has been in financial difficulty.

They need to sell more lenses.

Those retrofitting are sucvh a small number of consumers as to be completely insignificant in market measures. If you're using RFF as a source, you're looking at a few thousand voices. Given the volumes necessary to break even with these worldwide products, that's a statistical blip, not a market-defining strategy the way a proprietary lens mount is.

The fact is that Pentax is stuck with the k-mount, a mount that gives them no competitive advantage

K-mount can adapt to APS-C and larger sensors. That's a competitive advantage as m43 will look more and more like a sub-par sensor. So K-mount is an advantage. If one wants compact cameras, then a new mount is better, I agree (Q, right idea, wrong sensor, too much $$$). But the register distance for the SLR form factor is proven tech that sells well and is equivalent to the big guns of Canikon.

They would be smarter to leverage their skills in optics into making items like the Limited primes for other mounts. Had they done this out of the gate for M43 they would have absolutely scooped the pent-up demand that Olympus is only years later filling with their fast 45mm and 75mm optics. Sounds uncannily like an FA 43 Limited and FA 77 Limited to me!

Way too small a market. Since the m43 standard is FbW and requires in-camera processing that is pretty much impossible to reverse engineer, that option is a non-starter. Pentax would have to pay to get in the door with very little ROI. One of the laments from Olympus about their PEN series, is that it sells well, especially in Asia, but almost as much as a fashion camera with too little after-market sell-through of hardcore accessories. Enter the OM-D to look and perform like a "real" SLR. Funny that. Oly is moving their big money form factor more towards what Pentax already does with K-mount cameras!

---

Last edited by Aristophanes; 05-25-2012 at 10:53 AM.

[Kunzite]

First and foremost, please bring some proof to: "your mount is the limitation to compete". This is absolutely made up (not by you; so all of those who believe this could possible be true, bring proof or remain silent). There are no technical limitations for which the K-mount could not compete at least to Nikon F-mount levels.
You're both vastly underestimating the importance of having a mount and vastly overestimating the importance of being able to adapt decades old and/or exotic lenses (with loss of functionality).
You're also vastly underestimating the difficulty of launching a new mount. It's not something to be done for some people who bought into the wrong system and found out there are no Limiteds there.
And again, I'm reading about those stinky adapters. I don't f***ing want to pay money for adapters, in order to use my Pentax lenses on Pentax cameras. An adapter in itself is a restriction.

These being said, you're all doing a very poor job at explaining why Pentax should stop (properly) supporting their own mount and their customers, me included, in order to make few m4/3 owners happy. Pentax Ricoh ambitions, reduced to the size of Voigtlander? When the pigs will fly (that should happen right after the mirrorless 645D).

P.S. Sorry for the harsh language, hopefully it won't pass as something personal with any of you because its not the case. I'm simply strongly against the idea that Pentax should screw me and others K-mount owners/customers.

[monochrome]

Well this is all encouraaging.




My only questions are whether I should

1. Sell everything Pentax I own while selling is possible and quit photography altogether
2. Sell everything Pentax I own while selling is possible and buy a Nokia 808
3. Sell everything Pentax I own while selling is possible and keep my Olympus XA since they are the future
4. [EDIT:] Sell everything Pentax digital I own while selling is still possible.
   1. Use my K lenses, KX and LX until film dies, Eric dies or I die, whichever comes first.

None.

Be a man.

Back to film.

There. I fixed it.

[Rondec]

Olympus and Panasonic do. That's one of the attractions of M43, and it certainly sells people on the system. Proof is in the Rangefinder forums, where people buy these systems (and Ricoh) only to retrofit their Leica, Voigtlander, etc. lenses. It can be argued that this was a driving factor in Olympus adopting the PEN styling for their digital bodies. Looks a lot more like a rangefinder that way.

The fact is that Pentax is stuck with the k-mount, a mount that gives them no competitive advantage. Their cameras can't even meter properly. And it forces them into lame systems like the K-01, which is too big and restricted in appeal (compatible with one lens mount) to compete with M43 (compatible with every lens mount in existence).

They would be smarter to leverage their skills in optics into making items like the Limited primes for other mounts. Had they done this out of the gate for M43 they would have absolutely scooped the pent-up demand that Olympus is only years later filling with their fast 45mm and 75mm optics. Sounds uncannily like an FA 43 Limited and FA 77 Limited to me!

I think if Pentax wasn't in the camera selling business, then maybe they would consider selling optics for other makers, but it would definitely hurt their camera sales to become a third-party seller of lenses. To me the only thing particularly special about Pentax cameras is that you can use k mount lenses on them without needing any adapters and with full metering/auto focus. I like the lenses.

As to "metering problems" with Pentax cameras, I don't see them. The big thing with a camera (any camera) is that it meters consistently. The K5 for instance tends to meter a little bright from my perspective and so I dial in a little bit of negative EV compensation and all is well. It's just a decision though. Older cameras (before the K7) did tend to be fooled a lot by small but bright highlights, but that is not a problem with recent generations of cameras.

As to the viability of the K-01, it has been discussed ad nauseum, but it just has a different set of decisions involved with its design than the micro four-thirds cameras. However, I personally, am glad that they didn't introduce another mount, even if it meant that you could mount FD lenses on it with an adapter.

[Anvh]

First and foremost, please bring some proof to: "your mount is the limitation to compete". This is absolutely made up (not by you; so all of those who believe this could possible be true, bring proof or remain silent). There are no technical limitations for which the K-mount could not compete at least to Nikon F-mount levels.

Okay what's the reason to get a FF when it comes to lenses, smaller DOF right.

you can't make a lens faster then 50mm f/1.2 for the k mount so such a lens for APS-C can never compete with the 85mm f/1.4 on FF for example.
A mount with a bigger opening, smaller register or both solves this issue.
I'm not talking about a mega change, hell they could keep the layout of the mount the same and simply change the register and the size of it, so an adapter would be very easy to make.

Lens register of 30mm and mount opening of... well lets make it big, 55mm that would make lenses possible like
30mm f/0.6
35mm f/0.7
50mm f/1
Or maybe even faster, also zoom lenses with f/2 are in reach.

That's what i mean with making APS-C camera more competitive against FF.
Hell Pentax can keep the K-mount for the FF camera's nothing wrong with that, you can't use APS-C lenses on FF fully anyways so the lost is less great.


The only reason i can think off that they need to keep using the K-mount for ASP-C is that you can use k-mount lenses on it, it's a big reason but i would be happy to move forward if there is a good adapter form the new mount to the K-mount.


actually.... what would you guys think if Pentax, Ricoh and Leica will work together?
Pentax can use the leica M-mount for ASP-C, they need to digitalize the mount and make it work with AF but it would open a new market.
Pentax make the DSLR and EVIL (<budget) Ricoh has said they won't make consumers camera anymore but the have the RCH with the M mount, and Leica make range finders and higher end EVIL
So pentax has the APS-C market and Leica the FF market, if you want pentax FF buy a Leica EVIL or rangefinder is then the answer.
Pentax make the budget lenses, the limited pancake and the DA* type lenses, Leica the high end prime lenses.

50mm f/0.95 Noctilux on a pentax DSLR
21mm f/1.4 Summilux would be great for street photography.
Do we need more reason?

[mecrox]

First and foremost, please bring some proof to: "your mount is the limitation to compete". This is absolutely made up (not by you; so all of those who believe this could possible be true, bring proof or remain silent). There are no technical limitations for which the K-mount could not compete at least to Nikon F-mount levels.
You're both vastly underestimating the importance of having a mount and vastly overestimating the importance of being able to adapt decades old and/or exotic lenses (with loss of functionality).
You're also vastly underestimating the difficulty of launching a new mount. It's not something to be done for some people who bought into the wrong system and found out there are no Limiteds there.
And again, I'm reading about those stinky adapters. I don't f***ing want to pay money for adapters, in order to use my Pentax lenses on Pentax cameras. An adapter in itself is a restriction.

These being said, you're all doing a very poor job at explaining why Pentax should stop (properly) supporting their own mount and their customers, me included, in order to make few m4/3 owners happy. Pentax Ricoh ambitions, reduced to the size of Voigtlander? When the pigs will fly (that should happen right after the mirrorless 645D).

P.S. Sorry for the harsh language, hopefully it won't pass as something personal with any of you because its not the case. I'm simply strongly against the idea that Pentax should screw me and others K-mount owners/customers.

Lol, everyone here has vast answers ...

My example of the limitations of a mount is the K-01. I have not yet heard one personal claim it is a commercial success, although it sounds an excellent camera and has certainly got Pentax a lot of publicity. But the compromises inherent in using a big old mount on MILC seem to have nixed any sales. Now the advent of the K30 is likely to finish the job.

Personally I would not be fazed if Pentax produced an FF camera - but not a standard-issue dSLR one - which requires a new mount. A bit of a shake-up might be no bad thing if it is pitched to attract users new to Pentax, and in my case I have no FF lenses worth the name bar an old manual one so I would need to buy new ones anyway. I can hear the gasps of horror already ... but were this to happen I would guess it would be as a Ricoh camera, with an adapter for Pentax lenses.

[Kunzite]

Okay what's the reason to get a FF when it comes to lenses, smaller DOF right.

you can't make a lens faster then 50mm f/1.2 for the k mount so such a lens for APS-C can never compete with the 85mm f/1.4 on FF for example.
[...]

50mm f/0.95 Noctilux on a pentax DSLR

Do you plan (as in, paying for) to buy such faster than f/1.2 lenses? FFS, the Noctilux is $11000 - even if Pentax would be half of that, would you buy it?
Or you're talking about the possibility of having lenses no one would buy? Because that would be a very sound business plan
By the way, should Nikon change their mount as well, scrapping their market share, erm, clients would gladly buy stinky adapters? If starting from 0 is a good idea for Pentax, it would be even better for Nikon because they have way more customers to abandon.

"The only reason" actually is called having a client base, i.e. a revenue stream i.e. the only means of survival for a company.

[Anvh]

Well that's where the shorter register and large mount comes in, it makes it easier to design faster lenses.
They can use the cheap 50mm design to make 30~35mm lenses and make them faster.
hell if they use the 50mm f/1.4 design and only change the focal length you will get a 35mm f/1 or a 30mm f/0.85 and that for the same material and so they could go for the same price, and this only take into accoun t the register difference.

The Noctilux is indeed expensive but what a lens.
but don't forget that with a FF + 85mm is also $5000 and large part of that money is gone for the most part after 2 years, the Noctilux is an investment almost.
Voigtlander 25mm f/0.95 has a better price, it's $900 for example.
Would i want that lens on APS-C DSLR for that price, absolutely.


About nikon, they are in a different situation since they have an FF camera.

Sure you can keep making products for your current clinets but since pentax has... what is it 5% of the market the client base is already small so if they want to make a change and get ahead now is the time.
When they have a bigger client base they wont be able to do it, like you said.

And about adapters, that's preciesly what olympus, panasonic, sony, samsung, nikon and pentax are doing already with their evil cameras

[monochrome]

I have not yet heard one personal claim it is a commercial success

Adam has.

[Aristophanes]

you can't make a lens faster then 50mm f/1.2 for the k mount so such a lens for APS-C can never compete with the 85mm f/1.4 on FF for example.

Lenses of this speed were always extremely rare. High price = rare.

They did not drive a market.

50/1.8's drive the market. Or f/2.8 or even f/4 zooms. The equivalent of the 16-45/4 + a 50/1.4 in either APS-C of FF is what makes a system. Those with more $$$ look for a 2.8.

It's 20x easier to find a Mamiya medium format (645) 80/2.8 lens (about f/1.4) than it is to find a sub-f/1.4 lens in 135. That's what pro shooters made their living on and what f-stop capacities drove their buying and their customer buying. Super-fast lenses hit a law of diminishing returns real fast both for consumers and suppliers.

[Anvh]

Lenses of this speed were always extremely rare. High price = rare.

They did not drive a market.

That's true for k-mount and other FF mounts and that's the limitation, we don't need FF mount for APS-C, they could make a mount optimized for that and with these optimization it's easier to design and make faster lenses that are more fitted for the sensor.
And because of that the price of such lenses will go down.

you say they look for 50mm f/1.4 but that's not a standard lens for APS-C so they need to look at 35mm to get the same AOV, have you seen what comparable 35mm lens cost to 50mm f/1.4.
Now with a different mount the price of the comparable 35mm can be the same as the 50mm f/1.4
comparable lens will be 35mm f/0.95, good luck finding one for FF mount...

[Aristophanes]

That's true for k-mount and other FF mounts and that's the limitation, we don't need FF mount for APS-C, they could make a mount optimized for that and with these optimization it's easier to design and make faster lenses that are more fitted for the sensor.
And because of that the price of such lenses will go down.

you say they look for 50mm f/1.4 but that's not a standard lens for APS-C so they need to look at 30mm to get the same AOV, have you seen what comparable 30mm lens cost to 50mm f/1.4.
Now with a different mount the price of the comparable 30mm can be the same as the 50mm f/1.4
comparable lens will be 30mm f/0.95, good luck finding one for FF mount...

There's a 30/1.4 for Sigma. It's OK, not exactly driving people to buy cameras. I bet the 35/2.4 vastly outsells it.

[monochrome]

What truly amazes me about these recurring mount discussions (and they seem to come up and die back down about every 60 days) is that we and in particular the MFT advocates and MILC advocates - we think we know better than Ricoh knows what it should do with its $250mm company (cash purcahse price plus planned capital allocations).

If Ricoh is so benighted that they can't even make this basic decision - how many millimeters should our cameras have between the mount flange and the sensor - if they can't even get that right then the enterprise should be a total loss.

But I bet they do know what they are doing.

[Ash]

I can hardly understand the defeatism over Pentax and its K-mount when it's success has been evident since its beginnings. And I too have never seen any issues with metering on the 8 Pentax dSLRs I have owned and used both with AF and MF lenses. There is little need to change the mount or flange to accommodate faster lenses when as FF cameras become a reality there will be plenty of excellent fast lenses available to satisfy our need for speed.

[Kunzite]

monochrome, the issue is most of those bright idea are pretty much suicidal. Since Pentax survived for so long, I bet they know how to avoid committing suicide

Few notes:
- APS-C doesn't, I repeat, doesn't have to compete with FF. It's a more affordable but (more than) good enough for most solution, it should stay like that.
- m4/3 is even more unable to compete with FF, and btw all but 2 lenses are f/1.4 and slower. However, it is not Pentax job to help m4/3 being slightly more competitive.
- extremely shallow DOF is not the ultimate feature, and if you really want it you should buy a system that has it.
- very fast good lenses are expensive and won't sell nearly as well as more affordable versions. $1200 for a 50mm f/1.4 equivalent? With no autofocus, manual exposure... wow, I want to buy a dozen
- going from whatever market share Pentax currently has to whatever Voigtlander has is not something you want from your company.
- Ricoh wants to grow Pentax around the K-mount, which would be slightly more difficult to do if they kill it as a first step.
- I don't care if you're asking for products you'll never buy, and neither does Pentax. I care that you're asking Pentax to give up on products I would buy, for those. Guess what... so does Pentax.

Get real, folks! It's stupid and it won't happen.