[Barry Pearson]

I am aware that the registration distances on today's cameras with legacy glass was dictated by the need to accommodate a full frame mirror and I can see a time, perhaps, when EVFs are an acceptable alternative. But I don't think this should be a reason to change the registration distance, per se. I've never held a Sony NEX, so I can't really comment, but they seem a bit unbalanced (and a bit silly) with a large lens mounted. I want my camera bodies to be a reasonable size and depth for the most part: size is not such an issue with a zonking great zoom on the front. When I want small, I use another camera (a Q, in fact).

I find my K-5IIs too big (and/or heavy, and/or noisy) for some purposes, and too small for others, such as hand-holding big lenses. (Sometimes it is about right).

So I have a Q system for when I want a smaller and/or lighter and/or quieter and/or less obvious camera. And a battery grip (sometimes with, sometimes without, a battery) for when I want to grasp a camera with all the fingers of my right hand. It is easier to make a particular camera bigger (and heavier) than it is to make it smaller and lighter. Start small and make it bigger if necessary!

[RonHendriks1966]

So before people are screaming that the K-mount would disappear, no that is not the goal.

Entering (advanced electronic) M-mount is to have that new mount that can make smalle camera's while not starting with no lenses to go to. Sgaring enough design and electronics is the way to do this. M-mount camera as a new box for holding sensor and electronics while supporting the M-mount and Pentax having similar insides, but a K-mount. Different market, so I wouldn't make a cheapo M-mount camera.

New lenses like the limited ones for K-mount and M-mount. Makes them also available for Leica users. And yes the M-mount would be for sub 100mm lenses mostley.

A Ricoh M-mount camera (okay maybe a FF and an aps-c version) with the three amigo's 31mm, 43mm and 77mm starting. Offering some new lenses like 20mm and 100mm macro. That would be enough to start off with I think.

Offcourse on that same day Pentax should offer the FF K-mount camera to be clear about the future. And that same 20mm lens.

Busy times for a small camera brand.

*** I did not know about the Ricoh rangefinder camera's ***

[snake]

You do realize that Pentax has produced M-mount FA lenses in the past, right? They weren't big sellers, in the least.

[Uluru]

You do realize that Pentax has produced M-mount FA lenses in the past, right? They weren't big sellers, in the least.

Because the Pentax 43/1.9 for M mount was very limited edition.
Same as was the limited production of the special Pentax LX camera edition from the same year.
I understand it's hard, but please stick to facts.

---

Last edited by Uluru; 08-25-2013 at 03:17 AM.

[RobA_Oz]

There's a view abroad here that Pentax/Ricoh should not get into another photographic market niche, because of the size of the market. Even the Limited variations for the M-mount have been presented as evidence against it. What we don't know is whether or not there would be sufficient profit in such a venture that would make it worthwhile. I'll just rephrase what I said before: if it isn't judged to be economical, regardless of the size of the market, they're highly unlikely to do it, no matter what we say. If it is, they might do it, or not, depending also on what they judge to be the wider value of the product to the company.

I think there's also an assumption here that Pentax will continue to produce the odd quirky product, like the Q or the K-01, rather than something of a high standard, but different. It's this latter possibility that I think some people are speculating about here. In this vein, I also think people have forgotten the impact the Limited lenses had on the photographic press at the time they were released, and in particular the 43 M-mount variant. After years of building plastic-bodied lenses of often indifferent quality, those lenses astounded reviewers, who had to reassess their view of Pentax as a fading camera maker. As a marginal cost variant on the more common K-mount Limiteds, I can't imagine that Pentax actually lost money on the M-mount versions, but, more importantly, they had an impact that was wider than the numbers produced or the profit they may have made. If there's anything Ricoh needs to do for the Pentax brand now, it's to make an impact with their next product.

[lytrytyr]

I think there's also an assumption here that Pentax will continue to produce the odd quirky product, like the Q or the K-01, rather than something of a high standard, but different.

"Rather than"?

Both the Q and the K-01 are definitely "of a high standard",
and certainly different from the run of the mill.

I'm getting great IQ using Apo-Lanthar teles on a Q,
without having to lug a big lens around,
and the K-01 with focus peaking
is tailor-made to get the benefit of the A50/1.2.

[Zygonyx]

There's a view abroad here that Pentax/Ricoh should not get into another photographic market niche, because of the size of the market. Even the Limited variations for the M-mount have been presented as evidence against it. What we don't know is whether or not there would be sufficient profit in such a venture that would make it worthwhile. I'll just rephrase what I said before: if it isn't judged to be economical, regardless of the size of the market, they're highly unlikely to do it, no matter what we say. If it is, they might do it, or not, depending also on what they judge to be the wider value of the product to the company.

I think there's also an assumption here that Pentax will continue to produce the odd quirky product, like the Q or the K-01, rather than something of a high standard, but different. It's this latter possibility that I think some people are speculating about here. In this vein, I also think people have forgotten the impact the Limited lenses had on the photographic press at the time they were released, and in particular the 43 M-mount variant. After years of building plastic-bodied lenses of often indifferent quality, those lenses astounded reviewers, who had to reassess their view of Pentax as a fading camera maker. As a marginal cost variant on the more common K-mount Limiteds, I can't imagine that Pentax actually lost money on the M-mount versions, but, more importantly, they had an impact that was wider than the numbers produced or the profit they may have made. If there's anything Ricoh needs to do for the Pentax brand now, it's to make an impact with their next product.

The problem for them (and for us, considering our often heavy expenditure in K-mount system) is therefore to bring something that will impact favorably the "photography microcosm" with the PENTAX brand ; but can they simultaneously push the RICOH brand with some "innovative product" or have they already chosen only the last solution ?

If you stick to recent facts and declarations, the game seems more or less over for PENTAX, successively dropped as a company and an internet label ; and probably same for the K-system (at short or medium-term horizon), whereas nothing new has come under the "K-mount sky" since early 2012 (real novelties announcements) ; all this despite goodwill in RICOH's corporate and head of development's communication language (the GXR system could be in the same case by-the-way, but here nowbody seems to care).

So let's carry on speculation before new facts arrive ...

---

Last edited by Zygonyx; 08-25-2013 at 07:27 AM.

[monochrome]

M-mount camera as a new box for holding sensor and electronics while supporting the M-mount and Pentax having similar insides, but a K-mount. Different market, so I wouldn't make a cheapo M-mount camera.

This is precisely backwards. Ricoh doesn't care what is wrapped around and stuck behind the K-mount (or Q or 645). All Ricoh cares about is selling K-mounts (and Q and 645). Mostly lots and lots of K-mounts.

When they've sold enough of them they can get back to doing what they have done well, which is designing and selling premium K-mount and 645 lenses (Q being more of an excellent, but unknown system).

[snake]

Because the Pentax 43/1.9 for M mount was very limited edition.
Same as was the limited production of the special Pentax LX camera edition from the same year.
I understand it's hard, but please stick to facts.

No need for rudeness. You've misinterpreted what I've said, regardless.

[Barry Pearson]

"Rather than"?

Both the Q and the K-01 are definitely "of a high standard",
and certainly different from the run of the mill.

I'm getting great IQ using Apo-Lanthar teles on a Q,
without having to lug a big lens around,
and the K-01 with focus peaking
is tailor-made to get the benefit of the A50/1.2.

I concur with what you say about the Q. (I've never handled a K-01).

"Quirky" is the wrong word: "Given to quirks or idiosyncrasies; strange in a somewhat silly, awkward manner, potentially cute".

The Q system is serious, high standard, and well thought out. It is also being evolved in a systematic way: 3 cameras, 2 sensors, 7 lenses with 2 on the way, etc. It shows Pentax at its confident, imaginative, best, not its "what were they thinking of?" or "hurry up, will you" worst.

[Rorschach]

No need for rudeness. You've misinterpreted what I've said, regardless.

Just ignore him. That guy will never change...rudeness comes naturally I guess.

[Barry Pearson]

This is precisely backwards. Ricoh doesn't care what is wrapped around and stuck behind the K-mount (or Q or 645). All Ricoh cares about is selling K-mounts (and Q and 645). Mostly lots and lots of K-mounts.

When they've sold enough of them they can get back to doing what they have done well, which is designing and selling premium K-mount and 645 lenses (Q being more of an excellent, but unknown system).

Actually, they have a very good reason for caring what is stuck behind the K-mount.

It matters a lot whether it is an APS-C or FF sensor, and what the price is, because that has an impact on what lenses need to be developed and how they will sell.

[monochrome]

Actually, they have a very good reason for caring what is stuck behind the K-mount.

It matters a lot whether it is an APS-C or FF sensor, and what the price is, because that has an impact on what lenses need to be developed and how they will sell.

You still have it backwards. Ricoh will make whatever K-mount wrapper will sell the most K-mounts. Then they'll design, make and sell whatever lenses are best suited to that K-mount wrapper. That isn't supposition - it comes directly from Pentax.

If that wasn't true there would have been a FF camera years ago.

[philbaum]

As I said - the proposal isn't for "a completely new mount". It is for a mount that easily adapts to the full K-mount. And yes, I do want a motor inside the body! I want to be able to continue to use lenses such as my Sigma 500mm f/4.5, which (for me) is a very expensive lens that only has screw-focusing.

Pentax will have a bigger market for such a camera if they cater (without too much design compromise) for lots of people with some special requirements. I think they would be unwise to exclude such people - the reduced market and the bad publicity might sink such a camera. It isn't as though Pentax don't know how to put such things into a relatively cheap camera such as a K-500 - so why abandon that investment in a more up-market camera?

Seriously, i like your ideas to reinvent Pentax. Why do i care? I care because i want to see Pentax survive for a long time and the way they are going now, seems to not be a good trend.

I was disappointed when Pentax decided not to have a K01 successor and ended up buying a coupla Nex's to see how another company does it. Sony was/iis in a similar situation as Pentax with some differences. Their main alpha line (with SLTs) is reportedly not doing very well. Their Nex line is reportedly very popular with customers clamoring for a FF Nex. So Sony went off and prioritized a FF Nex, promising that it will mount both alpha lenses and e lenses. I don't have any idea and no detailed information has leaked on how they would do that.

I have a number of K-mount lenses, some of which I use frequently on my K5, others which i use frequently on my Nex 5/6. I even have used my DA300 on a Nex, but my current favorite is using the DA 35 macro on the Nex, and i love it. So i don't want to give up all those K-mount lenses, and my K5 excels in several areas.

But i have a lot of hope for Ricoh going to a new hybrid Kmount. with a shorter registration distance, but yet able to use legacy glass. Both Sony and Pentax, i hope, are working on how to accomplish that. On a practical note, i see the design coming down to an intelligent adapter with electrical contacts.

Now where did i put my hard hat :-)

[Kunzite]

So before people are screaming that the K-mount would disappear, no that is not the goal.

Entering (advanced electronic) M-mount is to have that new mount that can make smalle camera's while not starting with no lenses to go to. Sgaring enough design and electronics is the way to do this. M-mount camera as a new box for holding sensor and electronics while supporting the M-mount and Pentax having similar insides, but a K-mount. Different market, so I wouldn't make a cheapo M-mount camera.

The problem is, you're starting with the solution and not with the problem (or business case). You're thinking about this modernized M-mount camera, and try to explain what's good for.
Technically, there is no reason for start from the old M-mount (rangefinder elements removed, I presume) and add electronic contacts, with aperture control and AF. If anything, it means adding restrictions; not helping.
As a business case, I'm not sure there is one. That it helps selling Leica lenses? Pentax needs to sell their lenses, not Leica's; including high quality and expensive Limiteds. An advantage over the competition? Nope, NEX and 4/3 can use Leica lenses with an adapter; and rumors says Sony is preparing a FF NEX. The M-mount market is quite small, and not worth fighting for.

About the idea of a MILC, modernized M-mount, short registration distance based on K-mount or a completely new mount, same story. Talking a lot about how it would be, neglecting the "why". But how could we talk about "why", when it's all about pushing personal preferences and biases on a traditional SLR manufacturer? The idea is "good" and it would "work" just because some people likes MILCs.
Pentax (Ricoh Imaging) cannot get sidetracked by marginal ideas like these. There is a much more effective strategy, expanding the K-mount system upwards in FF territory, with all the obvious advantages.

I'm sure the time will come when Ricoh will pursue the MILC idea; but it will be properly planned, and executed in force. We're not there yet, and I'd guess the MILCs would first have to gain some acceptance outside Japan.

Barry Pearson for President :-) Seriously, i like your ideas to reinvent Pentax. Why do i care? I care because i want to see Pentax survive for a long time and the way they are going now, seems to not be a good trend.

The issue here is identifying the right thing to change. You, Barry and few others thinks it's the mount; but is it really the problem? You might risk changing the one thing that actually works.

As a side note, let's think a little bit about the K-mount, how it survived a hostile takeover and being sold to Ricoh (and the mistakes done by the old Pentax Corporation). Not exactly the ideal conditions, right? Yet, without such corporate issues, Olympus had to scrap the 4/3. It didn't work, yet the K-mount did and does.