Originally posted by Kunzite The correct, complete technical term is "stinkin' adapter".
But I would suggest something else: each new camera should have a slightly different mount, same for the lenses; all incompatible with each other but usable with $300 "adapters". It would work great, right? No problem?
Sorry, nope: breaking compatibility is a huge deal and they won't do it that easily. I'm amazed how you can so happily talk about this; aren't you a K-mount user?
You're discussing it because you like to discuss about the "death" of the K-mount. Tricks like starting from scratch with a new APS-C and very expensive lenses can't be an alternative to FF; wait, you want everything for cheap?
If having something at FF level would truly be required, there is a much better solution... wait for it... you'll be surprised... ok... here it is: going FF. With the K-mount.
4/3 failed for several reasons, including not being able to fulfil the promise of cheaper, smaller lenses (the 35-200 f/2 being a notable example). You're asking Pentax to play the same game... including the starting from scratch part that Olympus had to do.
How do you come up with such a price for an adapter?
We aren't talking about nikon or sony adapter with their build in focusing system, we are talking about an extension tube like adapter, simply device that extent the register and connects the contacts. This can never be more the $80.
What's your proof that lenses will be more expensive for an APS-C design mount?
And yes 30mm f/1 would be cheaper on for example 4/3 mount then it would be on a k mount. Just look at the fast lenses on the FF mount and then compare them with fast lenses on mounts with smaller register.
here example
Leica DG Summilux 25mm f/1.4 $539 @ B&H
Cannon EF 24mm f/1.4L $1,629 @ B&H
Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24mm f/1.4G $1,999 @ B&H
Sure nikon and canon are wide angle lenses and the leica is a normal lens but that's precisely the difference that i mean.
Why would we need to spend over $1,500 for an FF lens while we can spend $500 for a lens that uses a mount designed for the sensor.
That's the dilemma we APS-C shooter stuck with an FF mount are living with.
Well yes IF pentax will make an FF then indeed keep the K-mount for sure, all i'm saying that this COULD be an alternative if pentax decide not to make FF. It just doesn't make sense to use a mount not designed for the formatt.
Someone here said using 645 mount for FF camera and this is what you said.
Originally posted by Kunzite A 645D body with a "FF" sensor would be an epic fail, because it would use only medium format, very expensive (and not very fast) lenses.
So 645 lenses on FF camera is an epic fail but it's superb to use FF lenses on a smaller sensor, please point out the logic of that.
About 4/3th i just proved it here above, the 4/3th lens is 1/3th of the price of roughly the same FF lens