[monochrome]

They are not abandoning anything. It just takes them forever to do anything, that's all.

I'm referring to the emerging conversation of an adaptered 'A' mount that seems to have returned from the grave. As if a tiny company like Pentax can support 4 mounts.

[boriscleto]

I'm referring to the emerging conversation of an adaptered 'A' mount that seems to have returned from the grave. As if a tiny company like Pentax can support 4 mounts.

Some would say they can't support 3.

[THoog]

The new 4th mount is dooooooooomed!

[Uluru]

Some would say they can't support 3.

Well, they can't. Ideally it should be just one; like Fuji or Olympus do.
2 is too much already. Canon and Nikon barely play with that idea.
3 is over the top by any definition as Ricoh Imaging is so small and have no resources to dedicate to the K mount and Q when they work on 645 stuff.
Add a 4th and you have real trouble.

Cameras alone are not a problem so much as is the problem of lenses. Even if they find a way to share cost for camera manufacture and design across 4 mounts, lenses will suffer and all systems will never look comprehensive, but scattered all over the place. Quality will suffer too; instead of making two great lenses for K mount alone, or one good lens for K and one good for Q mount each year, the increased cost for 4 mounts will make them make compromised lenses for all 4 and will come every other year.

A big part of endless wait for them to do anything (as we see it) is because they have 3 freakin' mounts!

---

Last edited by Uluru; 08-26-2014 at 05:35 PM.

[mee]

If they're abandoning K-mount and native backward compatibility gor the FF camera (which would be odd considering K-mount is already a FF mount) why would they bother with screwdrive? Wouldn't they just pass the electrical impulses through and limit the adapter to focus motor lenses, and make all their new FF lenses SDM (or whatever the replacement technology is)?

So many of the the DA* lenses become HD DA Pro and the rest are consigned to APSc bodies.

I was thinking more along the lines of why would they abandon all of the K mount screwdrive lenses... one of the finer selling points (imo) for K mount and ultimately the Pentax system was the backwards compatibility and low cost of many of those lenses (and the system as a whole).

What you are saying here makes sense if they were abandoning K mount.. I mean then screw drive support matters not. But if this new mount came out then I couldn't see them saying "sorry all of your screw drive lenses are now manual only have a nice day" with regard to the newer SLR cameras they develop.

If they incorporated it into an adapter then perhaps.. but you still lose some of the behaviors of those lenses with extra distance (unless the new camera system is designed with that in mind and the flange distance with the adapter is the same as current K mount bodies).

Again it makes no sense to me.. I think if we do see a FF body soon it would still be K mount.

[JimmyDranox]

When you want to put a K mount lens on a Q mount camera, the so called registration distance (between mount and sensor) is different. K-mount is longer, about 45mm or something like this (I don't remember the exact figures). While the Q mount has a much shorter distance. The adapter is build to fill this gap.

If an FF mirrorless camera will be build, there are two posibilities. One, to keep the K mount, but without the mirror, the distance from this mount to the sensor will be unjustified, because there is no mirror, and the camera will be bigger than necessary. The second is to make a new mount, with a much shorter registration distance. We can call it A mount, or whatever... But if we want to use K mount lenses on this new camera, we need the following. The A mount must have electrical contacts for focusing, and most probably, for aperture. And an adapter with electrical contacts to the camera side, internal motors for focus and aperture, and traditional lever to the lens side, K mount. It is doable, but not cheap.

Need to say that an FF mirrorless camera will need a number of new lenses? Even a FF K mount camera will need a lot. And I think that this is (or was) one of the reasons for this FF delay.

[monochrome]

If an FF mirrorless camera will be build, there are two posibilities. One, to keep the K mount, but without the mirror, the distance from this mount to the sensor will be unjustified, because there is no mirror, and the camera will be bigger than necessary. The second is to make a new mount, with a much shorter registration distance. We can call it A mount, or whatever... But if we want to use K mount lenses on this new camera, we need the following. The A mount must have electrical contacts for focusing, and most probably, for aperture. And an adapter with electrical contacts to the camera side, internal motors for focus and aperture, and traditional lever to the lens side, K mount. It is doable, but not cheap.

Logic then says there won't be a FF camera mirrorless camera. Since Pentax has repeatedly said 1) they are developing a FF camera, 2) there is room for a third full-line camera company and it will be Pentax, 3) they are committed to the three existing mounts, then logically they are developing a FF K-mount dSLR. A 4th mount with a FF adapter seems unlikely.

None of which has anything to do with the K-S1.

[JimmyDranox]

4 mounts is to much for a firm in the first 500 in the world? I don't think so. Maybe time for developing new lenses is to short. I can agree with this. But money cannot be an issue at this level. Can Ricoh spend a lot of millions to buy Pentax to loose face, and shares value? IMO, no chance.

[Uluru]

4 mounts is to much for a firm in the first 500 in the world? I don't think so. Maybe time for developing new lenses is to short. I can agree with this. But money cannot be an issue at this level. Can Ricoh spend a lot of millions to buy Pentax to loose face, and shares value? IMO, no chance.

What 4 mounts can solve that 3 mounts cannot?
We are discussing serious decision-making problems then, done in 2011 especially when Pentax was bought, when the Q mount was announced. That was 3rd and many have hoped it is the last. But if a company needs 4, or 5 or 6 mounts to do a comprehensive job in imaging, then I sincerely doubt in their ability to think.

[JimmyDranox]

What 4 mounts can solve that 3 mounts cannot?
We are discussing serious decision-making problems then, done in 2011 especially when Pentax was bought, when the Q mount was announced. That was 3rd and many have hoped it is the last. But if a company needs 4, or 5 or 6 mounts to do a comprehensive job in imaging, then I sincerely doubt in their ability to think.

I don't think that Pentax needs another new mount. And I think that today, mirrorless technology is not mature enough to really support a professional camera. And a FF camera is mostly a professional one. Maybe in two years from now, they will mach the DSLR.

I was just responding to some questions.

[IchabodCrane]

I don't think that Pentax needs another new mount. And I think that today, mirrorless technology is not mature enough to really support a professional camera. And a FF camera is mostly a professional one. Maybe in two years from now, they will mach the DSLR.

I was just responding to some questions.

There are professionals out there who are using the X-T1 and maybe even some using the A7.

[JPT]

Well, they can't. Ideally it should be just one; like Fuji or Olympus do.
2 is too much already. Canon and Nikon barely play with that idea.
3 is over the top by any definition as Ricoh Imaging is so small and have no resources to dedicate to the K mount and Q when they work on 645 stuff.
Add a 4th and you have real trouble.

Cameras alone are not a problem so much as is the problem of lenses. Even if they find a way to share cost for camera manufacture and design across 4 mounts, lenses will suffer and all systems will never look comprehensive, but scattered all over the place. Quality will suffer too; instead of making two great lenses for K mount alone, or one good lens for K and one good for Q mount each year, the increased cost for 4 mounts will make them make compromised lenses for all 4 and will come every other year.

A big part of endless wait for them to do anything (as we see it) is because they have 3 freakin' mounts!

I guess your implication here is that they should reduce the number of mounts to focus on the most promising mounts. I also guess you're assuming K-mount would be one of the survivors.

The thing is, Q and 645 seem to be selling well enough despite a lack of lenses. I'm not sure that K-mount is, given the huge number of lenses they produce for it.

I personally think they are going to try to make a success of all three mounts, as well as the fixed lens cameras. But be careful what you wish for. If they decide to kill a mount, it might not be the one you want them to!

[rawr]

Some explanation of the LED's in the grip [Google translate]:



via Popco.net
via Dicahub.com
via PhotoRumors.com

[spinach]

LOL. The problem with the interchangeable sensor idea is that future sensors may incorporate technology that overwhelms the older body, i.e., more megapickles, greater bit depth, wider gamut color space, faster processing, etc… Likewise, the technology inside the camera body evolves-faster processors, better power management, wifi, etc...

the ricoh gxr totally exists though

[JPT]

the ricoh gxr totally exists though

And the GXR has a separate processor in the lens unit which takes care of image processing. The other one in the body takes care of storage, screen etc.