[Aristophanes]

I don't believe it is actually a lot of work, and it would be more than "a few mm's".

It is certainly vastly less work than starting from scratch!

Screw drive compatibility plus stop-down metering, plus old analogue contacts plus an adapter all on a new quasi-K-mount is a frankencamera.

Once you go mirrorless or contemplate a new mount you're going to go fly by wire to recoup your R&D.

It's far better for a company to start a new mirrorless mount (maybe based on the Ricoh GR) as a separate line from the DSLR mount.

[johnmflores]

But we can call ourselves "Ricans"

And this will be our theme song:

Youtu.be

Youtu.be

[snake]

... or PENTAX-like lens stagnation / hazardous and poor investments (DA560, DA 50/1-8) ...

Yep.

Fuji has fast wide angles.
Fuji is out of the box with a fast, small, very good 35 1.4 What does pentax have? The 35 2,4 while good, is a joke, especially for the price. The FA35, if one can even get one, is horrifically expensive, new and used (in a previous thread I posted EU prices, which are matching and going past FA31 pricing).

The DA50 and 55 are short telephotos. On APSc, what's the point, except for portrait situations, which are not big for the investment. The FA50 is silly expensive for what it is. Three lenses in the same class, not to mention the macro.

The 16-50 and 50-135 should have been redeveloped. The former, not only the AF to a new system, but the optics.

No fast 24 on Pentax. Fail to even go up against an X100

For me, Pentax has not gotten anything but a body profit off me and that's debateable because of seeking out a cheap price. So let's say they make little to no profit on the bodies (which seems to be the case) to try to get people to buy lenses-

I have an F50=USED, M85=USED FA35=USED M28=USED, and because I don't trust SDM, I got a Tamron 17-50 and I'm very happy.

This model is certainly a disaster, but let's see if Ricoh will figure it out before we start writing them off.

[mecrox]

Screw drive compatibility plus stop-down metering, plus old analogue contacts plus an adapter all on a new quasi-K-mount is a frankencamera.

Once you go mirrorless or contemplate a new mount you're going to go fly by wire to recoup your R&D.

It's far better for a company to start a new mirrorless mount (maybe based on the Ricoh GR) as a separate line from the DSLR mount.

With the advantages that it enables Ricoh to sell more lenses, keep the Pentax brand quite distinct from the Ricoh line and avoid adapters (which I would guess give most folks the feeling of a serious headache coming on and instead they buy a rival's item). Think simplicity. Also, Pentax's mission seems to have been to provide the best dedicated systems out there in compact interchangeable lens cameras (Q), APS-C DSLRs (K) and enthusiast MF (645). They are within an ace of doing it, too. Other product lines mixed up in Pentax would muddy the waters and perhaps get in the way of doing what I'm sure Ricoh would like to do which is to establish the Ricoh name as a brand of successful and top-selling cameras taking in the areas not covered by those three Pentax lines.

[monochrome]

With the advantages that it enables Ricoh to sell more lenses, keep the Pentax brand quite distinct from the Ricoh line and avoid adapters (which I would guess give most folks the feeling of a serious headache coming on and instead they buy a rival's item). Think simplicity. Also, Pentax's mission seems to have been to provide the best dedicated systems out there in compact interchangeable lens cameras (Q), APS-C DSLRs (K) and enthusiast MF (645). They are within an ace of doing it, too. Other product lines mixed up in Pentax would muddy the waters and perhaps get in the way of doing what I'm sure Ricoh would like to do which is to establish the Ricoh name as a brand of successful and top-selling cameras taking in the areas not covered by those three Pentax lines.

Nailed it.

[RobA_Oz]

Well, that stimulated the most passionate and reasoned debate I've seen here for a while! It's all hypothetical, of course, and I doubt there'll be another short-register mirorless Pentax any time soon, either, because of the distraction it would create, particularly in the design phase. I don't think production capacity is an issue, as it could be contracted out to someone like Cosina (they built the Epson RD-1, remember) if Ricoh had no capacity of their own – something must be occupying their GXR production capacity, after all.

Really, the only substantial reasons why such a camera would exist would be to produce a compact mirrorless large-sensor interchangeable-lens system with ready access to an existing large range of lenses. The Q misses out on the sensor size aspect of that. In a way, it's a logical extension of the Ricoh GR, and its major advantage (aside from body size and weight) would be the ability to use non-retrofocus wide-angle lenses, which could therefore be larger aperture and lighter weight than the present range.

Maybe it will happen with a Ricoh badge. I wonder what we'd say then.

[Aristophanes]

Well, that stimulated the most passionate and reasoned debate I've seen here for a while! It's all hypothetical, of course, and I doubt there'll be another short-register mirorless Pentax any time soon, either, because of the distraction it would create, particularly in the design phase. I don't think production capacity is an issue, as it could be contracted out to someone like Cosina (they built the Epson RD-1, remember) if Ricoh had no capacity of their own – something must be occupying their GXR production capacity, after all.

Really, the only substantial reasons why such a camera would exist would be to produce a compact mirrorless large-sensor interchangeable-lens system with ready access to an existing large range of lenses. The Q misses out on the sensor size aspect of that. In a way, it's a logical extension of the Ricoh GR, and its major advantage (aside from body size and weight) would be the ability to use non-retrofocus wide-angle lenses, which could therefore be larger aperture and lighter weight than the present range.

Maybe it will happen with a Ricoh badge. I wonder what we'd say then.

The Q sensor is too small and the K-mount iris is FF, and therefore oversize.

If you're looking a an ILC mirrorless then smaller than K-mount is necessary.

Backwards compatibility is then a dream for PD and AF and you need a large screw drive mechanism which is necessary for use of top-brand items like the DA Ltds, purchasers of which are precisely the customers you want to keep.

If you're going small you go OM-D small with an APS-C sensor on a new mount to get all the advantages mirrorless provides. Kludging the oversized K-mount is never going to satisfy until FF mirrorless is on the horizon (NEX TBA), at which point you dust of the K-01 again.

The fixation on backwards compatibility for mirrorless with old lenses is against the sales mantra of optical companies. They need you to buy new glass for their short register product, not goof around with a $30 eBay acquisition M28/3.5.

[Kunzite]

I'll spell it out! It is actually very simple.
.....
I emphasise; at launch, that camera will support every lens that (say) a K-5IIs supports, in the same way.

As expected, you're describing a camera with a built-in helicoidal extension tube of some sort. Except it can't work.
There are only about 45mm to play with, let's say 15 are unusable - then the whole mechanism has to fit in 30mm. How much can you gain? 10mm?

Complexity added for nothing, while compromising the imaginary new system's future. Aristophanes is right to call it a frankencamera; it's a kludge, a solution which doesn't solve a problem.
Those looking for a MILC would be better served by a modern mount; and K-mount users, by a native K-mount camera. Sorry, but not every option is worth pursuing.

[monochrome]

If you're going small you go OM-D small with an APS-C sensor on a new mount to get all the advantages mirrorless provides. Kludging the oversized K-mount is never going to satisfy until FF mirrorless is on the horizon (NEX TBA), at which point you dust of the K-01 again.

The fixation on backwards compatibility for mirrorless with old lenses is against the sales mantra of optical companies. They need you to buy new glass for their short register product, not goof around with a $30 eBay acquisition M28/3.5.

So by definition (and hints from Ricoh Imaging) it is a Ricoh-branded camera, where backwards compatibility is not an issue.

[Uluru]

So by definition (and hints from Ricoh Imaging) it is a Ricoh-branded camera, where backwards compatibility is not an issue.

Yes, we need more likes of the m4/3, NEX, NX, X ... In this regression, what will Ricoh's "mee too" concept be named?
/, or \

[Kunzite]

So by definition (and hints from Ricoh Imaging) it is a Ricoh-branded camera, where backwards compatibility is not an issue.

It's an Aristophanes camera, as there are no hints of Ricoh developing such a thing

[RobA_Oz]

It's an Aristophanes camera, as there are no hints of Ricoh developing such a thing

Of course there aren't! All this is just shooting the breeze, and a bit of fun that nobody should get too worked up over. Of course, that's never stopped anyone here in the past.

I would remind some, though, that Ricoh has a K-mount history (a little sullied by the famous Ricoh-pin problem that occasionally stymies the unwary, but a history, nonetheless). That aside, the more relevant question might be whether the APS-C GR is just an evolutionary sport, or whether it may go the way of the Fuji X range, and trend toward an interchangeable-lens model. If it did, then there's no doubt someone would come up with a K-mount adapter, even if Ricoh didn't. While I agree that a fly-by-wire lens range would be sensible, it wouldn't be too much of a task to simulate the mechanical drive for the aperture setting, if a power source was available to an adapter. Failing that, the Q's manual adapter would be the model for a K-mount adapter.

[Kunzite]

Of course there aren't! All this is just shooting the breeze, and a bit of fun that nobody should get too worked up over. Of course, that's never stopped anyone here in the past.

It would be fine if we weren't on the Pentax News and Rumors section, but on the Pentax Fantasy and Science Fiction
The issue is that such speculations, repeated ad nauseam, could be mistaken for rumors.

[Uluru]

. While I agree that a fly-by-wire lens range would be sensible, it wouldn't be too much of a task to simulate the mechanical drive for the aperture setting, if a power source was available to an adapter. Failing that, the Q's manual adapter would be the model for a K-mount adapter.

Current GR has a ring around the lens, used as a base to attach a wideangle adapter.
Wouldn't it be great if that ring becomes, say in some mirrorless ILC solution:

- a universal aperture ring, and
- manual focus

In prefrences choose which service it provides.
No matter what lens is attached, camera reads its specs, and adjusts movement required for the ring to go through the f-stops of each lens. Camera shows the f-stop value on top display. I mention this, because I find it extremely important to be able to take photos from the hip, and not look at the back LCD or through the EVF — or raise the camera — just to read out crucial data. That's why I find all curent MILCs extremely frustrating.

Speaking of that, it would be extremely cool if the camera can display, on top display (preferably OLED, like Leica S)
- f stop
- shutter speed
- ISO
- automatically calculated *hyperfocal distance*. Yes, I want camera to become more intuitive.

Then following:

- Snap focus works on all lenses, with ability to have 2 presets, not just one; second preset works in conjunction with an extra button pressed

[Barry Pearson]

Well, that stimulated the most passionate and reasoned debate I've seen here for a while! It's all hypothetical, of course, and I doubt there'll be another short-register mirorless Pentax any time soon, either, because of the distraction it would create, particularly in the design phase. I don't think production capacity is an issue, as it could be contracted out to someone like Cosina (they built the Epson RD-1, remember) if Ricoh had no capacity of their own – something must be occupying their GXR production capacity, after all.

Really, the only substantial reasons why such a camera would exist would be to produce a compact mirrorless large-sensor interchangeable-lens system with ready access to an existing large range of lenses. The Q misses out on the sensor size aspect of that. In a way, it's a logical extension of the Ricoh GR, and its major advantage (aside from body size and weight) would be the ability to use non-retrofocus wide-angle lenses, which could therefore be larger aperture and lighter weight than the present range.

Maybe it will happen with a Ricoh badge. I wonder what we'd say then.

Chuckle! Here is a summary of a possible "compact mirrorless large-sensor interchangeable-lens system with ready access to an existing large range of lenses". I've added notes at the end to show that I am not identifying these possibilities just for the fun of it. I really think that such a camera could be designed and developed without breaking the bank, and might be a game changer. Here goes:

Aim: the first Pentax FF digital camera, taking its place alongside dSLRs from various makers, able to use all the same K-mount lenses in the same way as current Pentax dSLRs, but not a "me too" camera. (Note 1)

Sensor: FF with SR. (Whatever would be chosen for any other sort of Pentax FF camera). (Note 2).

Viewing: Mirrorless and electronic viewfinder. Perhaps with eyepiece at the top left when looking from behind. (Articulated eyepiece?) (Note 3).

Mount: Short Registration version of the K-mount used in (say) the K-5IIs. Accompanied by a glass-less extension adapter to turn the camera into a normal registration K-mount. Note 4).

Adapter: Possibly built in, possibly separate. (Ricoh/Pentax design decision. Note 5).

Body: Slimmer front-to-back corresponding to shorter registration. (Note 6).

Flash: Perhaps a pop-up flash a bit like the Q? (Ricoh/Pentax design decision. Note 5).

LCD: Articulated? Touch screen? (Ricoh/Pentax design decision. Note 5).

Notes:

Note 1: I'm influenced by the massive ongoing arguments here about features and price-points, etc. It is obvious that there will never be a consensus among Pentax users. Ricoh/Pentax are presumably aware that they can't please all Pentax users, won't impress all reviewers, and will struggle with a "me too" camera in a Canon/Nikon dominated environment.

Note 2: I'm describing this camera as an FF camera. But given that it doesn't suffer the size overheads of the whole FF SLR optical path, (main and AF mirror, AF system in the base, screen, pentaprism), I think the same camera body would still be viable if that sensor were replaced with an APS-C sensor. One of the most significant things that needs to be larger for an FF camera, that optical path, wouldn't be there, and so wouldn't be such an overhead with a smaller sensor.

Note 3: An electronic viewfinder avoids one of the things that would surely require significant development and manufacturing cost in an OVF FF camera - the optical path of note 2. (I think optical paths have moved on a lot since Pentax last sold an FF camera - for film). Avoiding a moving mirror might help the fps be raised from 7 fps to (perhaps) 10 fps. Being quieter would also be useful in some environments.

Note 4: I don't accept that there is a need to redesign all the features of the K-mount. Why cripple something that is understood? Perhaps a simplified version of the Short Registration mount would appear later, but not in the first model. So I'm sticking here to the functionality of the current K-mount but with reduced distance between it and the sensor because there is no mirror. That should allow any lens designs that will benefit from such a registration.

Note 5: There are a number of cases above where two or more variants might be possible. Ricoh/Pentax would have to make those decisions, and might even make different decisions at different price-points.

Note 6: The smaller registration might, (I think should), enable the body to be slimmer and lighter. (Except the grip, I hope!) That might enable Ricoh/Pentax to package the same body form used for FF as a smaller lighter body with a lighter kit lens for entry-to-medium use.