[Kobayashi.K]

[Barry Pearson]

Given that most of the great Pentax lenses of the last years are screw driven, I think they need an adapter with built-in AF motor. But if they use a sensor with built-in PDAF, they could probably make an adapter that's smaller than Sony's chunky LE-A2 adapter!

Whoops! I hadn't thought of that. The vast majority of my photos use SDM.

Wouldn't the adapter just have a spindle through it so that the camera still drives the lens? I have a Teleconverter that can drive screw-focus lenses, and it appears just to have a rotating spindle, not its own motor.

[Kunzite]

If the camera would have a motor, and then there's the aperture lever which should be actuated somehow.
But a new mount wouldn't have either, so it's in the adapter or it's missing (no Screw drive AF, manual aperture control).

[Barry Pearson]

The negative reaction is not generated by fear; that's a silly way of downplaying solid arguments. It's about things like the following:
- people like me want DSLRs, not EVF cameras (even more so when talking about the better FF viewfinder). We're a far larger market than the EVF one.
- changing the mount is a hassle; and doing it for no benefit? It's a huge mistake to believe we would simply give up on OVFs, and buy adapters, and accept losing 2-way compatibility with our cameras and lenses.
A new mount should not retain mechanical aperture and AF linkages, by the way; it should be full electric. No sense to include old style technology in a mount designed for the future.
- starting a new system with one expensive camera made for the 4 times smaller MILC market would be much more difficult than expanding the existing K-mount system into FF territory. For lenses, the difference would be dramatic: it would be impossible to share them with the much larger APS-C user base.

The argument isn't for a totally new mount. It is for a mount that is related to the K-mount but with a smaller registration distance. A specific design requirement would be that a cheap glass-less adapter would be all that is necessary to make the camera exactly the equivalent of a K-mount camera - rather like the K-01 but with an EVF. In a forum elsewhere, an engineer suggested that the adapter could even be part of the camera body and extended when needed.

Why do things this way? Because there can be specific optical advantages for wide-angle lenses in being able to get the rear element closer to the sensor. (They would not need a "reverse telephoto" construction). And (rightly or wrongly) I assume that there would be mechanical advantages (size, weight, cost) in being able to do this with a smaller-registration mount.

The mount should offer all the features of the K-mount, for the same reasons - being able to use heritage lenses is an often-publicised benefit of the K-mount. The latest K-mount cameras "include old style technology" - why not any such new cameras?

The currently smaller MILC market by itself isn't an argument against this. I suspect part of that is a chicken-and-egg problem. There wasn't much of a market for APS-C cameras without an AA filter - should that have prevented Pentax from launching the K-5IIs? Pentax has sometimes benefited from launching products with characteristics that there hasn't up to that point been much of a market for. (I don't think there was much of a market for in-body SR at the time that Pentax first used it. Nor for DNG as an alternative to a proprietary raw file format, etc).

[Barry Pearson]

If the camera would have a motor, and then there's the aperture lever which should be actuated somehow.
But a new mount wouldn't have either, so it's in the adapter or it's missing (no Screw drive AF, manual aperture control).

Why not? Those are things that Teleconverters and extensions tubes can do. They are things that can be built into such a new mount and such camera.

It is weird to decide that such a new mount must be crippled in this way, even though there doesn't appear to be a technical reason why, and then to argue that therefore it is not viable!

Turn it round the other way - what are the necessary characteristics of such a new mount so that it would be able to handle all the current K-mount lenses to the same extent? Then - could those characteristics actually be developed and launched? I believe the answer is "yes".

[lytrytyr]

Because there can be specific optical advantages for wide-angle lenses in being able to get the rear element closer to the sensor. (They would not need a "reverse telephoto" construction).

For digital, that is not necessarily the case.

The limited angle over which pixels can accept incoming light rays
means that reverse telephoto wide angle lenses
give better image quality at the edge of the frame,
even when the register distance is short.

That's why Zeiss' new Touit wide-angle lens for mirrorless cameras
has a "Distagon" reverse telephoto design.

[gazonk]

Wouldn't the adapter just have a spindle through it so that the camera still drives the lens?

Should be possible, but do you really want a motor for legacy lenses inside a modern body with a completely new mount?

I think I'd rather have a "K-01, take 2", then: A camera with plain K mount, but made thinner and lighter than the K-01, and with an EVF (on the side, like on NEX-6/7). And to make it a product with broader appeal: A new compact "XS kit lens" that recesses into the body when not in use, so the whole lens doesn't protrude much more than, say a 21 ltd, when not in use.

[Kunzite]

And Olympus was always talking about how telecentricity was important, until they launched m43

Barry, I understand your point but I don't see it being a good strategy. It's short term thinking, however a mount is designed for the future. The K-mount would soon pass half a century of existence (with upgrades). Was it a mistake to not include support for M42's aperture pin?
A new mount would be their future, designed to last until the end of the world or something. It doesn't make sense to compromise it with legacy mechanisms.
I am talking about a new fully functional mount. If they'll do that, expect it to be full electric, like any non-legacy mount out there.

[monochrome]

Should be possible, but do you really want a motor for legacy lenses inside a modern body with a completely new mount?

I think I'd rather have a "K-01, take 2", then: A camera with plain K mount, but made thinner and lighter than the K-01, and with an EVF (on the side, like on NEX-6/7). And to make it a product with broader appeal: A new compact "XS kit lens" that recesses into the body when not in use, so the whole lens doesn't protrude much more than, say a 21 ltd, when not in use.

That camera will be a Ricoh.

[snake]

Should be possible, but do you really want a motor for legacy lenses inside a modern body with a completely new mount?

I think I'd rather have a "K-01, take 2", then: A camera with plain K mount, but made thinner and lighter than the K-01, and with an EVF (on the side, like on NEX-6/7). And to make it a product with broader appeal: A new compact "XS kit lens" that recesses into the body when not in use, so the whole lens doesn't protrude much more than, say a 21 ltd, when not in use.

Yeah, I would. There are stellar old school lenses out there and such short-sighted thinking is exactly why manufacturers don't listen to fans/consumers. Look at how many millions in development and tooling is wrapped up in rather superb primes that are made small, in part, by having SD that essentially takes up negligible volumes inside bodies. We have LTD primes that are the size of some of the smaller manual focus lenses because of SD. So you want to give that up for essentially zero advantage?

It seems you want the small lenses, but you don't want screw drive?

[gazonk]

It seems you want the small lenses, but you don't want screw drive?

Who says I don't want screw drive? I have nothing but screw drive (and MF) lenses

So you're basically saying you'd like a new mount with shorter register distance but still screw drive AF. Hmm! Maybe not a bad idea after all, but will the market accept a completely new system with noisy AF?

[Barry Pearson]

For digital, that is not necessarily the case.

The limited angle over which pixels can accept incoming light rays
means that reverse telephoto wide angle lenses
give better image quality at the edge of the frame,
even when the register distance is short.

That's why Zeiss' new Touit wide-angle lens for mirrorless cameras
has a "Distagon" reverse telephoto design.

True. It mustn't be taken to extremes. I don't think it is specifically the sensor itself, but what it fixed in front of it. I believe Leica sensors have special micro-lenses or something at the edges/corners to cater for this.

Once the mirror is absent, one constraint on the lens design has gone, (and perhaps removing the AA filter removes another constraint?), but there are still compromises that have to be made. However, I think the Zeiss lenses are light in spite of this.

[slip]

So far they sound like Hoya...lots of smoke and mirrors. If they want to compete they can't keep giving us what is essentially warmed over products. It's been too long since they introduced a truely innovative product.
No bashing, just see what I see

Thanks

Randy

[Barry Pearson]

Should be possible, but do you really want a motor for legacy lenses inside a modern body with a completely new mount?

I think I'd rather have a "K-01, take 2", then: A camera with plain K mount, but made thinner and lighter than the K-01, and with an EVF (on the side, like on NEX-6/7). And to make it a product with broader appeal: A new compact "XS kit lens" that recesses into the body when not in use, so the whole lens doesn't protrude much more than, say a 21 ltd, when not in use.

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?

[snake]

So far they sound like Hoya...lots of smoke and mirrors. If they want to compete they can't keep giving us what is essentially warmed over products. It's been too long since they introduced a truely innovative product.
No bashing, just see what I see

Thanks

Randy

How? They haven't even had a chance to really take over Pentax yet. It's so early, no one knows either way.

And as far as the "innovation" goes, aside from the 70D, what else has anyone introduced that's been innovative? Apparently, the family of sensors in the K-5 is still valid in today's market, as even Sony is using them, still, with good results. It was apparently several generations ahead of its time for still performance. The D7100 is debatable. The D600 and 800 are ok, but mostly MP monsters. However, they are making that move for pro/studio work, as well as for motion picture studios.

The 5DIII? Warmed over 5DII. Still an industry standard, but not much innovation there. The only innovation in the industry has been the 70D, certain Sonys, a couple of those Fujis (mostly innovative marketing to backup reasonably good performance and vision). I even find the Ricoh GRD innovative. Not groundbreaking, but to put such optical quality together is rather innovative, especially seeing what Nikon did with their chance.