[Barry Pearson]

Without Pentax developing any new lenses, users would have a lot to choose from:
- All FF-compatible K-mount lenses (with AF)
- All M-mount lenses (without AF)
- All lenses that are adaptable to M-mount (without AF)

Are you saying that the full Canon dSLR range of lenses and the full Nikon dSLR range of lenses could be attached to a Pentax FF camera this way?

[Zygonyx]

Whose side are you on?

The current Pentax pricing policies are complete disasters and are threatening the company. Imagine what n00bs to Pentax think when they see the pricing when even seasoned Pentax fans can't justify the pricing.

Not to mention the holes in the line that suggest a company in trouble, particularly no fast 24, which has seen new found interest with the MILC market and fixed cams like the X100 and so on.

Not to mention, Pentax moved production (they say assembly) to Vietnam, then raised the prices. In some cases, 80% raises. For a company priding itself on primes, it made it very easy to move to competitors who have cheaper 35s and 50s available.

The core of Pentax's line and business practices needs to be fixed and made sustainable before they go on some trip of trying to make some interchangeable mount system with adapters for even its own mount.

Yes, a credible and reasonably priced lens roadmap is the basis of SLR's corporation sustainable cash-flow.
Nothing we've seen since RIcoh's takeover... for any of the current 3 Pentax mounts...
Even the Q lenses are "aperture flawed", at a time where f/1.4 flourishes amongst P&S...

[snake]

Even the Q lenses are "aperture flawed", at a time where f/1.4 flourishes amongst P&S...

Only a few are f1.4.

Panasonic's 1.4 uses also a smaller sensor than the previous generation.

Samsung's 1.4 is being argued as inferior to the EX1 (which I still own, in fact) and controls are schizophrenic (ie: no direct access to ISO).

Olympus, Pentax- 1.8
Canon's s120 is 1.8 on the wide end
Nikon p7700 f2
G15 1.8
G1X- 2.8 on the wide end
Nikon A, Ricoh GRD f2.8

So can you provide factual information of where f1.4 for this sensor size is flourishing?

Save the fact that the Q is a unique offering that's best not compared to prosumer point and shoots. If you're comparing it to point and shoots, you're missing the point.

[Boris_Akunin]

Are you saying that the full Canon dSLR range of lenses and the full Nikon dSLR range of lenses could be attached to a Pentax FF camera this way?

Yes, without any AF-support of course. I doubt that many people would buy current Nikon or Canon lenses to use with manual focus on a Pentax body if Pentax was selling a similar AF-lens.

If Pentax' backwards compatibility, such as it is, is a selling point now, surely this would be too...

[bossa]

I suspect the K-01 was a prototype meant to test a number of factors apart from marketing. I also suspect that the first Pentax FF will just be a crop mode on a new 645D MILC. A more modular GXR type of camera system could well be what ends up being delivered - one that crosses formats.

Has anyone looked at how much reduction can occur with that concept? It may be that a mirrorless 645D II isn't any bigger than a D800 with a grip. Interchangeable mounts aren't all that far fetched either....

[RonHendriks1966]

Are you saying that the full Canon dSLR range of lenses and the full Nikon dSLR range of lenses could be attached to a Pentax FF camera this way?

Well when there would be a M-mount ff camera from Pentax then offcourse with the right adapter much off the lenses can be connected to this camera and be used.


Old Nikon glas can already be attached to K-mount. You need lenses with aperturering, since your camera can't conrol that. There is an adapter for this, but this is one with a glas element. I have one and used it with an older Nikkor 300mm/f4.5 lens:

I made this image from Justin Henin with this combo:

[RonHendriks1966]

What we're suggesting would basically be a K-01 with a FF-sensor, a viewfinder and part of the empty mirror box built to be detachable. It would essentially be a K-mount MILC like the K-01 but with the added option to detach the adapter and mount lenses with other mounts (manual focus only).
It could be a lot thinner than the K-01 and users could attach (almost?) any FF-lens ever built by attaching a different adapter. Pentax would probably unwilling and unable to support any AF-system besides their own, so non-K-mount lenses wouldn't directly compete with the current K-mount lenses.

Pentax could use any mount with a short flange focal distance to mount the adapters, they might as well choose the M-mount.
The existing M-mount lenses from Leica, Voigtländer and Zeiss would give users more (manual focus) options in areas where the current Pentax-lineup is rather weak: wide angle FF-primes and very fast primes but given the rather high prices of current M-mount lenses, Pentax' prices wouldn't be undercut.

To build this camera, Pentax would have to add (KAF2-based?) electronics to the M-mount and thereby create a fully electronic AF-version of the M-mount, so they could also sell new AF-lenses designed for the short flange distance and compete with the other MILC manufacturers.

Without Pentax developing any new lenses, users would have a lot to choose from:
- All FF-compatible K-mount lenses (with AF)
- All M-mount lenses (without AF)
- All lenses that are adaptable to M-mount (without AF)

That way Pentax could concentrate on the gap: small wide-angle lenses with AF and they would still have a larger lineup than any other MILC manufacturer. The existing small K-mount primes would fit quite well on such a camera, even if the adapter would make them ~2cm longer.

A hybrid rangefinder taht would work with the M-mount lenses like the X-Pro1 does (when using the Adapter) would make it perfect but rather expensive, an EVF with focus peaking would suffice.

This camera could compete with the other MILCs in terms of size while offering a larger variety of lenses.

Well said and all points as I was saying from start. When Pentax would create a new mount with shorter flange distance then starting with an already excisting mount would give a lot off benefits over starting something new.

[Kunzite]

Care to enumer those "lot of benefits"?

[cfraz]

Well said and all points as I was saying from start. When Pentax would create a new mount with shorter flange distance then starting with an already excisting mount would give a lot off benefits over starting something new.

But then you have to deal with the resulting low angle of incidence of light to edges of the sensor, exaccerbated on 24 x 36 sensors. No free lunch. Pick any camera design. You've now selected a set of compromises which other designs don't suffer.

[Kunzite]

Maybe Pentax should employ weak, thin IR filters and offset microlenses to make sure their expensive camera works best with Leica lenses... and not so well with Pentax ones

[RonHendriks1966]

Care to enumer those "lot of benefits"?

The benefits are excisting lenses and possible new customers already on that format. Big issues for new mounts are the lack off lenses.

Remember the entrance off the K-01. There where lots off complaints, but everyone knew that this was the one mirrorless system that had the most lenses at startpoint:



So there are 25 lenses available for the M-mount just from Leica ans some other manufactures are offering more lenses. These aren't cheap, so there is no sence in offering a cheap camera. It can be a luxery offering, but much cheaper then Leica M.
Leica objectieven bij CameraNU.nl


When discussing the possability of a new small sensor mount I was in favor for joining the m4/3 group. That turned out into Q at that time. But that was almost in a different era, since we know see the photograpic world changing fast.

[Aristophanes]

Are you saying that the full Canon dSLR range of lenses and the full Nikon dSLR range of lenses could be attached to a Pentax FF camera this way?

Would be a disaster. For Pentax glass is money. Other glass on their bodies steals the bulk of Pentax as an optical company.

[Aristophanes]

But then you have to deal with the resulting low angle of incidence of light to edges of the sensor, exaccerbated on 24 x 36 sensors. No free lunch. Pick any camera design. You've now selected a set of compromises which other designs don't suffer.

Exactly. What you gain going wide which is what a shorter register distance get you, you lose in telecentricity and have to account for sensor micro lenses.

No free lunch.

You go mirrorless for size. I remember when Olympus 43 was all about the benefits of telecentricity. Very popular for birders. Don't hear that much with the m43 marketing.

[Kunzite]

The benefits are excisting lenses and possible new customers already on that format. Big issues for new mounts are the lack off lenses.

How would that work - is it for those already having Leica lenses but missing a camera, or do you think people would run to pay 1639 euro for a 50mm f/2.5?
Hijacking another company's mount in order to get access to expensive lenses (25, but only 10 different FLs closely grouped together) is hardly an advantage, and Pentax would gain nothing over e.g. Sony NEX (which can use Leica M lenses, but not natively) this way.

Anyway, you said "lot of benefits" - others, please? More substantial than "Pentax needs to sell Leica lenses", preferably.

[Barry Pearson]

Even the Q lenses are "aperture flawed", at a time where f/1.4 flourishes amongst P&S...

What would the weight (and size) of f/1.4 Q lenses be in comparison to their current weight?

The value of the Q system to me is the size and weight, as a carry-everywhere interchangeable lens system. It is in addition to my comprehensive K-mount system, and I want it to remain as different from that system in size and weight as possible, while still producing good quality photos.