[Boris_Akunin]

They don't "abandon" K-mount - they just stop (or dramtically slow) development of new K-mount products. They focus their efforts on uR-mount for mirrorless and FF, brand it Ricoh to differentiate it from Pentax K-mount and avoid antogonsizing what user base they do have, make a functional legacy K-mount adapter for the uR-mount (which I would actually use) and invest the bulk of theri development dollars there. God help them if they don't market, though.

Don't forget the big volume is still APSc at this time. There is no logical reason to abandon a working model in that mount, but there is every reason in the world to want to be first-mover in mirrorless FF.

My speculation is a good specualtion because no one is happy.

If the new mount would still allow for a FF SLR mirror, the flange distance couldn't be much shorter than the K-Mount and there would be no advantage that couln't be achieved by updating the K-mount, so I'm guessing you are talking about a short mount for mirrorless cameras only, right?
In that case none of the current or old Pentax FF lens design could be used without an adapter, so they'd have to develop a completely new FF lineup that could then not be used on K-mount cameras.

The fact that APS-C cameras would still make up the bulk of sales is EXACTLY why new FF lens designs should be compatible with them, are you seriously telling Pentax to "stop (or dramtically slow)" development for segment that makes up most of their sales?

---

Last edited by Boris_Akunin; 04-08-2013 at 08:14 AM.

[RonHendriks1966]

If the new mount would still allow for a FF SLR mirror, the flange distance couldn't be much shorter than the K-Mount and there would be no advantage that couln't be achieved by updating the K-mount, so I'm guessing you are talking about a short mount for mirrorless cameras only, right?
In that case none of the current or old Pentax FF lens design could be used without an adapter, so they'd have to develop a completely new FF lineup that could then not be used on K-mount cameras.

Well most logical choice in this one would be M-mount with electronics and AF support. So all old M-mount lenses would fit and new lenses with AF would be made. Offcourse for mirrorless FF camera.

[monochrome]

This now makes me question all of your *other* opinions, monochrome.

Yes it does. Me, too. But if we read closely, it becomes apparent I've been working up to this for months without really knowing it.

[monochrome]

If the new mount would still allow for a FF SLR mirror, the flange distance couldn't be much shorter than the K-Mount and there would be no advantage that couln't be achieved by updating the K-mount, so I'm guessing you are talking about a short mount for mirrorless cameras only, right?
In that case none of the current or old Pentax FF lens design could be used without an adapter, so they'd have to develop a completely new FF lineup that could then not be used on K-mount cameras.

The fact that APS-C cameras would still make up the bulk of sales is EXACTLY why new FF lens designs should be compatible with them, are you seriously telling Pentax to "stop (or dramtically slow)" development for segment that makes up most of their sales?

There are ample reasons to beleive Pentax Ricoh will NOT abandon the K-mount. For instance, why would Camera World in the USA suddenly decide to stock virtually the entire line, and Denver Pro Photo agree to be the Denver HQ host retail store (and why would Pentax Ricoh Americas encourage these new distributions) if the entire line is to be abandoned in just a few months? What of the plans to build 400 DA560's a month? What of the story that, at the Pentax Clearance Sale in Denver, a Pentax Rep told one fo our emmebrs, "Good things are coming," and that another member heard the same thing from a Camera World Sales Manager? Why is James Malcolm even in the USA if there is to be such a large and distrruptive change? I can't imagine taking such a dramatic business risk - but I CAN imagine taking a more measured and managed business risk. There might be some credence to the single post from a member that Pentaxland will be very sad in the fall - that a FF dSLR is not coming from Pentax - but that "the opposite" is (a FF mirrorless from Ricoh?).

I'm suggesting there is no other logical reason nor way to abandon the K-mount unless it would be mirrorless. Being first mover in a mirrorless FF camera might justify everything - and might be the only reasonable strategy for Pentax to break back into the fragmented camera market. They've let Canon and Nikon differentiate things too deeply to stay traditional.

Again, how did Surf break into the USA laundry detergent aisle against Tide, Cheer and All? (By price competition, but that was a bold stroke at the time)..

---

Last edited by monochrome; 03-28-2013 at 03:54 PM.

[Zygonyx]

The speculation that Ricoh would launch it'own 24x36mm products could make sense somehow if they adopted a new mirrorless-type mount.

But in the K mount only Pentax branded products make sense, preferably SLR.

And the fact that not any of the still produced FA/DFA and FF covering third-part lenses can actually benefit to K mount digital 24x36mm sensor, should stay as the most longlasting and unrecorded "ineptie" in modern photography.

[Boris_Akunin]

Well most logical choice in this one would be M-mount with electronics and AF support. So all old M-mount lenses would fit and new lenses with AF would be made. Offcourse for mirrorless FF camera.

Now THAT I could get behind. Not instead of a K-mount FF DSLR but in addition, mind you.
They could sell a cheaper competitor to the Leica M cameras (to use M-Mount glass on) AND they could sell M-Mount Limiteds.
And linking the K-mount to the M-mount (and all its wealthy users) could bring the Leica users to Pentax for their DSLR needs.

[Na Horuk]

But arent mounts proprietary? And besides, why would you need old M glass? There is great old K glass and new K glass. I dont see the point of buying ancient M glass that still costs more than a whole system

[Boris_Akunin]

But arent mounts proprietary? And besides, why would you need old M glass? There is great old K glass and new K glass. I dont see the point of buying ancient M glass that still costs more than a whole system

M-lenses may be pricy and to some extend overpriced but there is a lot of great glas out there for M-mount, some of it arguably better than anything else. Whether or not you or I are among them, there are people out there willing to pay those prices and for them a mirrorless Pentax using the M-mount would be a cheaper alternative to the Leica Ms. It would also allow Pentax to sell similarly overpriced lenses to those people, they do have experience with small high-IQ lenses afterall.

[ElJamoquio]

APS-C is smaller, lighter, cheaper, better.

Is it?

[TomE]

A FF mirrorless Pentax, is just a high priced point and shoot to me, that is almost impossible to use in bright sunlight.

Tom

[Sky"e" runner]

Need new lenses with not only Full frame DSLR. Should be able to use on APS-C and Full frame. New coating and WR at least.

[jon404]

Uluru (and others), perhaps you could tell me -- why do you want a FF? I'm not trying to start an argument here, but I'm just curious. If current Pentax APS-C cameras can yield sharp 20" x 30" prints, then what is the FF attraction? Wouldn't you want to just move up a notch further, to the 645D with its truly larger sensor?

As for the millions of existing 135-format lenses out there, of course it would be nice that they will fit any future Pentax FF. But they also work on the APS-C cameras, too. So I don't see their existence as a compelling reason to produce, well, a dinosaur. Would you ask Cadillac to bring back the 1976 Cadillac Eldorado with its 500 cubic-inch V-8... when the new models are faster, cheaper, better with much smaller engines?

Help me with this. I'm a potential consumer. Now, I can understand the rationale for moving up from my K-01 to a K-5 IIs. A real viewfinder, more features, etc. Actual product advantages that a salesman could work with. But a FF? How does that larger sensor benefit me? I certainly don't need any more megapixels -- what I have now is more than enough for web display, or for commercial printing -- although I might go to medium-format for a double-page spread in Vogue. But there are just bout zero pros or amateurs who will ever be asked to come up with an image that large, and they already have Hasselblads or 645Ds or whatever.

What else? Does a FF help birders, with their ultra-long lenses? Or, if I were a pro covering the Olympics, is there anything I can't do already with a K-5 II ... or, to be accurate, an improved K-5 II optimized for this VERY small group of customers? I'm trying to think of other justifications for a new FF, and I can't, unless it's just 'keeping up with the Joneses', which is no way to run a business.

If I'm on the wrong track here, please let me know. I'm curious about all the FF fuss!

[RobA_Oz]

Uluru (and others), perhaps you could tell me -- why do you want a FF?

Others can give their viewpoints, and many will no doubt overlap, but I'd like a Pentax DSLR with a 35mm format sensor for (in roughly this order) the bigger, brighter viewfinder (try looking through a film SLR viewfinder, and you'll see what I mean), the restored FoV that all my non-DA K-mount lenses have and the low-light advantage of a modern sensor with larger sensels (hopefully). There are other potential reasons like more room to place a greater number of AF points, but they are of lesser interest to me.

There are criteria such a body would have to meet, like size, build quality and ergonomics that suit me, but they're all dependent on what will (I don't believe "may" is likely, anymore) emerge from Pentax.

[Sky"e" runner]

Uluru (and others), perhaps you could tell me -- why do you want a FF? I'm not trying to start an argument here, but I'm just curious. If current Pentax APS-C cameras can yield sharp 20" x 30" prints, then what is the FF attraction? Wouldn't you want to just move up a notch further, to the 645D with its truly larger sensor?

As for the millions of existing 135-format lenses out there, of course it would be nice that they will fit any future Pentax FF. But they also work on the APS-C cameras, too. So I don't see their existence as a compelling reason to produce, well, a dinosaur. Would you ask Cadillac to bring back the 1976 Cadillac Eldorado with its 500 cubic-inch V-8... when the new models are faster, cheaper, better with much smaller engines?

Help me with this. I'm a potential consumer. Now, I can understand the rationale for moving up from my K-01 to a K-5 IIs. A real viewfinder, more features, etc. Actual product advantages that a salesman could work with. But a FF? How does that larger sensor benefit me? I certainly don't need any more megapixels -- what I have now is more than enough for web display, or for commercial printing -- although I might go to medium-format for a double-page spread in Vogue. But there are just bout zero pros or amateurs who will ever be asked to come up with an image that large, and they already have Hasselblads or 645Ds or whatever.

What else? Does a FF help birders, with their ultra-long lenses? Or, if I were a pro covering the Olympics, is there anything I can't do already with a K-5 II ... or, to be accurate, an improved K-5 II optimized for this VERY small group of customers? I'm trying to think of other justifications for a new FF, and I can't, unless it's just 'keeping up with the Joneses', which is no way to run a business.

If I'm on the wrong track here, please let me know. I'm curious about all the FF fuss!

FF is definitely better than APS-C to take landscape with wide lens. APS-C is good to take bird or aeroplane with telephoto lens.
And FF is getting smaller, see the Canon 6D. I believe Pentax can make it much much better than 6D.
645D is very good for landscape but too expensive, not good to take flying object.

[ElJamoquio]

Uluru (and others), perhaps you could tell me -- why do you want a FF?

Smaller, lighter, cheaper, better...?