[reh321]

A k-mount MILC may just as well force many users to other brand for mirrorless. Many users want other advantages than just "mirrorless" on a MILC.
Some of us have already left Pentax when it comes to mirrorless, and a K-mount MILC will not bring us back. But a optimized mirrorless system will most likely do as it may offer advantages no other manufacurer offer. FI full support on K-mount with an adapter.

If properly executed a short register mount MiLC can both protect K-mount, and satisfy those that want a second more compact system.

In other words, do the equivalent of what Canon did - introduce a more compact system with a simple adapter that would enable use of at least KAF3-mount lenses.

[CarlG]

Some of us will leave K mount DSLR.

That is true. The thing that matters to Pentax is whether the leavers are the ones that bought the new 560mm and the 150-450mm or whether they bought used 50-200mm lenses. They will need a lot of new customers of the latter type to make up for disappearance of the former.

[Na Horuk]

Some of us will leave K mount DSLR. The options are:

Yep. The problem is that if they start a new mount, people might as well buy Sony, Oly, Fuji - brands that already have good reputation with that kind of camera.
The other problem with reduced register distance is that it prevents some super compact lens designs, like the DA limited pancake lenses. If I understand correctly, these are only possible due to the register distance. I'd rather have a brick-like camera (which will only get thinner as LCD and other components get smaller) with many small lenses than a tiny camera with big lenses (bigger still if you want shake reduction). The K-01 with DA 21mm, DA 40mm, DA 70mm is a wonderful super-compact kit for really high quality photos. It is well-balanced, light, has SR. What good is a tiny, super compact body, with overweight lenses? Sony only has few compact lenses for their super small cameras

[Fogel70]

In other words, do the equivalent of what Canon did

Yes, and Sony, Olympus... Well all brands that produced other systems before they started with large sensor mirrorless.
They could even do like Sony and put a motor in the adapter for screw drive AF.

[Kunzite]

@Simen1:
A different perspective:

- K-mount MILC: yes, you can use lots of lenses - but would you want to? IMO it doesn't make sense with many of the K-mount lenses; imagine a K-01 (OK, with an EVF on top) with a D FA* 70-200. Nope, you'd go DSLR.
Such a camera would be a curiosity, an one-off "fun" product, perhaps with a few matched lenses like the K-01 was supposed to have.
On the long term... I don't believe in a product line that would require people to first buy into K-mount DSLR, gather some lenses, then decide they want to use those lenses on a mirrorless. It doesn't make sense.

- New mount MILC - an adapter could be available with the camera, or shortly thereafter. Olympus, Sony and Samsung did that. And obviously, it doesn't have to be "manual focus and aperture"; Sony's even have an AF motor and PDAF system.
As I said, this option is the most future-proof. It's a mistake to think that Pentaxians would want a MILC to use their existing lenses, without adapters. Some might; but others might look at characteristics incompatible with a fat large registration distance camera. They might want something compact to have, besides their large DSLR, and a few compact lenses. They might just want a camera better suited for video. Or, they might want to buy their wife/etc a less intimidating camera. Then, there are the non-Pentaxians.
We shouldn't only think of the one option leading to what we already decided to be the correct answer. That's confirmation bias.

- Other brand MILC - if we're talking APS-C and smaller formats, OK, there are lots of existing lenses. If we're talking FF, there's only one option, with 18 lenses - and not all are excellent.
Again, we shouldn't assume that people are deciding on a single factor (lenses). Perhaps brand loyalty would play a factor, in many cases. Perhaps, Pentax would do a Pentax-like MILC which we'd appreciate more than the competition's cameras.

On a closing note, it's easy to dismiss an option and build some kind of "argumentation", just because we'd like to see some other product. The thing is, what we think we want might be very different than what's possible; and our reaction in front of a finished product might not be favorable at all. I'm including here all who would ask for a "K-1000"-like K-mount MILC - that can't be, the interface has to support many more functions, the camera would be much thicker, and the price won't be what we hope. But it's not the only example. Here, we're only talking, we're not committing in any way.
Be careful what you wish for, it might happen.

[Fogel70]

Yep. The problem is that if they start a new mount, people might as well buy Sony, Oly, Fuji - brands that already have good reputation with that kind of camera.
The other problem with reduced register distance is that it prevents some super compact lens designs, like the DA limited pancake lenses. If I understand correctly, these are only possible due to the register distance.

Not really, on APS-C it will only be tele lenses that increase in size on mirrorless. So a DA 70/2.4 would increase in size as the front lens would be at the same distance from sensor on mirrorless.
Wide angle lenses would on other hand be smaller or faster. For instance a DA 15/2 for mirrorless would probably not be any larger than DA 15/4 for DSLR. And with the shorter register distance the whole package would be much smaller.

So a mirrorless short register mount may offer a major advantage if you like a compact system with fast wide angle lenses.
Fuji has a pancake 18/2 lens of about the same size as DA 21/3.2.

There are a lot more pancake lenses produced for mirrorless systems than for DSLR, and the mirrorless pancakes are usually faster than Pentax pancakes.

[Simen1]

Sorry for being so stubborn. I will consider a shorter focal flange APS-C mirrorless from Pentax too, if it has a reasonable priced K mount adapter with screw AF and otherwise full electric compatibility.

[TedH42]

I will consider a shorter focal flange APS-C mirrorless from Pentax too, if it has a reasonable priced K mount adapter with screw AF and otherwise full electric compatibility.

I agree with this. Makes the most sense to me.

[Zygonyx]

I'm not sure if this "advantage" is real....
But i'm sure that if confirmed, this new mount will entail K-mount new lenses stagnation... if not stop.
With or without new reinfored optics design teams, RI has from past records not been able to produce more than 3 to 4 new lenses in a year (3 mounts altogether).
We then might even loose part of the planned new primes for K-1...
And 645 buyers will probably switch for Fuji's new MF dynamic line...
So, all in all, a very risquy strategic change in an already overcrowded ML environment : i don't see the point.

[reh321]

I'm not sure if this "advantage" is real....
But i'm sure that if confirmed, this new mount will entail K-mount new lenses stagnation... if not stop.
With or without new reinfored optics design teams, RI has from past records not been able to produce more than 3 to 4 new lenses in a year (3 mounts altogether).
We then might even loose part of the planned new primes for K-1...
And 645 buyers will probably switch for Fuji's new MF dynamic line...
So, all in all, a very risquy strategic change in an already overcrowded ML environment : i don't see the point.

First of all, they need maybe two lenses - 18-135 and 55-300 would be enough for virtually any purchaser in the lower tier model territory. I'm not a lens designer, but I'm guessing that basing those two lenses off the existing models would be much easier than designing lenses "from scratch", so designing them plus an adapter might not put that much stress on their design team. The point is that it would put them in a good position if the lower tier reaches a tipping point, and suddenly MILC is all that market will purchase. I don't believe it is that risky.

[Nicolas06]

In other words, do the equivalent of what Canon did - introduce a more compact system with a simple adapter that would enable use of at least KAF3-mount lenses.

The problem with that strategy is the KAF3 lenses. What are they mostly? Big/heavy zoom that would not balance well on a smaller mirorrless body except the DA20-40 and the Re kit lens. (that is the only advantage of very short registration distance) but all the best historical lenses that made Pentax reputation like the ltd would not AF. That's not acceptable and mean the same as basically starting from scratch your new echosystem.

To be honest, if I didn't care about AF, I would be already on a Sony A7 with a few manual primes. MF is not why people spend lot of money on modern bodies and lenses even if there a niche with Samyang/Irix and others.

[Nicolas06]

First of all, they need maybe two lenses - 18-135 and 55-300 would be enough for virtually any purchaser in the lower tier model territory. I'm not a lens designer, but I'm guessing that basing those two lenses off the existing models would be much easier than designing lenses "from scratch", so designing them plus an adapter might not put that much stress on their design team. The point is that it would put them in a good position if the lower tier reaches a tipping point, and suddenly MILC is all that market will purchase. I don't believe it is that risky.

18-135 is too big as a kit lens for a small mirrorless. You need a revised 18-50 RE pancake like or otherwise you'll loose all your entry level sales to much better looking Olympus Pen and Sonys.

If you can't at least AF all screw drive, you'll not make a sale neither from any enthousiast that would prefer then Fuji X, high end m4/3 lenses or A7 serie.

Even with a fully working adapter, this would only work for existing customers, new customers that would not have K-mount lenses already will not want to buy some K-mount, an expensive high quality adapter to finally get their lens. You'd need at least 3-4 primes and 3-4 zooms and most people would still consider that to be a terrible echosystem. If you make the lens expensive and high quality and likely big you'll serve a single niche as well as you make them small/light entry level.

You'd have a pricing problem too. Olympus/Pana/Sony have very agressive entry level price of old model that perform surprisingly well.And they have lot of experience. The R&D investment just to get on sensor AF right would be significant. and you'd have either to purely throw away money at a pure loss or ask for very high price where the camera would never sell.

Pentax FF already has this issue. There no affordable zoom on the system outside a few old tamron/sigma and the 28-105. The FF line is already quite lacking with a single model while the competition has cheaper old model and more advanced high end model. K1 was a success for a very 2 reasons: K-mount and price. It mostly leveraged on existing customers by reusing the mount and proposed an attractive price that sealed the deal and bring back (only a few) users from different echosystem.

Samsung too was thinking is was easy and not so big investment. They had an impressive flagship, not that many lenses and so on. And failed.

[Nicolas06]

Not really, on APS-C it will only be tele lenses that increase in size on mirrorless. So a DA 70/2.4 would increase in size as the front lens would be at the same distance from sensor on mirrorless.
Wide angle lenses would on other hand be smaller or faster. For instance a DA 15/2 for mirrorless would probably not be any larger than DA 15/4 for DSLR. And with the shorter register distance the whole package would be much smaller

First that depend if you target FF or APSC. With current tendencies. You must at least have a possibility for FF. FA20 f/2.8 show that you don't need to have a big lens to cover DA15 framing with reasonable apperture and lens 35mm or longer would be smaller/ligter with K-mount than with a short registration distance mount. Just see FA35, FA43, FA77, DFA100 macro, F135... So that would be putting all your effort for basically 1-2 primes that most people would not buy anyway when you see the price and the already very shallow and high iso performance of an FF body with just f/2.8 or f/4. Zooms are not smaller except maybe an UWA because they do at least target moderate tele focal length (70mm) and what you gain for the WA part is completely lost on the tele part. There isn't any body size advantage neither when you compare K01 to A7... Actually the K01 is lighter than the latest Sony bodies of the series because of SR.

So that would be only for APSC, were you'd target entry level anyway. I am sure you can make small lenses with 3.5-5.6 or 4-6.3 apperture range and the limited are already available for the prime line anyway.

[Kunzite]

I'm not sure if this "advantage" is real....
But i'm sure that if confirmed, this new mount will entail K-mount new lenses stagnation... if not stop.
With or without new reinfored optics design teams, RI has from past records not been able to produce more than 3 to 4 new lenses in a year (3 mounts altogether).
We then might even loose part of the planned new primes for K-1...
And 645 buyers will probably switch for Fuji's new MF dynamic line...
So, all in all, a very risquy strategic change in an already overcrowded ML environment : i don't see the point.

Stopping the D FA line will not happen, period. Our reasoning should start from this simple fact. Yes, the D FA line is a fact while the rumor is something someone made up; let's have our priorities clear and not reject reality for imagination, in our discussions.

So if being busy with the D FA line means they won't be able to launch a new large sensor mirrorless system, that means they won't launch a new large sensor mirrorless system - for now. And when they do, they might not go all-out (Canon EF-M: 7 lenses in 5 years).

Ricoh Imaging is only 5 years old, and they were investing into increasing capacity.
I suppose you're not counting the HD DA Limiteds? OK, then, the maximum number of new lenses Pentax announced - in the digital era - is 8 - in 2008; 4 DA* and 1 Limited among them. Sure, that can't be done without some previous preparation and might not be sustainable year after year; but they could launch a camera with 2 new lenses. Even the K-01 was launched with a new lens, and they had planned at least another (shown in prototype form)

Anyway, I don't see it as being a priority right now (their priority is the D FA line). And I don't believe the rumor.

[Fogel70]

First that depend if you target FF or APSC. With current tendencies. You must at least have a possibility for FF. FA20 f/2.8 show that you don't need to have a big lens to cover DA15 framing with reasonable apperture and lens 35mm or longer would be smaller/ligter with K-mount than with a short registration distance mount. Just see FA35, FA43, FA77, DFA100 macro, F135... So that would be putting all your effort for basically 1-2 primes that most people would not buy anyway when you see the price and the already very shallow and high iso performance of an FF body with just f/2.8 or f/4. Zooms are not smaller except maybe an UWA because they do at least target moderate tele focal length (70mm) and what you gain for the WA part is completely lost on the tele part. There isn't any body size advantage neither when you compare K01 to A7... Actually the K01 is lighter than the latest Sony bodies of the series because of SR.

So that would be only for APSC, were you'd target entry level anyway. I am sure you can make small lenses with 3.5-5.6 or 4-6.3 apperture range and the limited are already available for the prime line anyway.

A FF 20/2.8 lens for mirrorless can be more compact than FA 20/2.8 as can all other lenses up to tele. And for zoom lenses the shorter register distance makes it easier to design more compact retractable zoom lenses.

Not sure why you compare a K01 with A7. A APS-C DSLR like camera without EVF vs a FF frame mirrorless with EVF. Add a FF sensor and EVF to K-01 and see what you will end up with. Or you can compare K-01 with the smallest APS-C E-mount cameras that are half the weight and 1/3 of the size of K-01.

There are many other brand on mirrorless that are much more successful than Sony in designing compact lenses. Which make a very good business opportunity for anyone designing a much better optimized FF mirrorless system than Sony.