[clackers]

But where would Sony be today if they only had A-mount?

Overall Sony camera sales have plummeted in recent years, but to permit this cannibalization was a correct decision by management.

I have an A7, I wouldn't have bought an A99.

[Simen1]

People would just be complaining about wasting sensor space and "pentax is too cheap to make decent lenses for the format" and adapt larger lenses to the mount in order to use the entire sensor.

I think people will say Pentax are generous to offer better usage of the existing lenses, in stead of just telling customers to buy a whole new set of lenses.

A whole new set of lenses to cover the entire sensor in any situation would be bigger, heavier and a massive reinvestment for current customers. No benefit from being a loyal customer. It would also defeat the smallness of the Q system. Its would be a meaningless upgrade. People would think Pentax shoot them selves in the foot. So thats obviously not a good solution you suggest.

However offering a cheap sensor size upgrade for people owning several Q lenses is a great benefit for a low price (compared to upgrading their whole lens line up). Especially for those that currently have a 1/2,3" sensor in their Q. Such a larger sensor are cheap and doesn't need to increase the camera size. Q users will feel appreciated as loyal customers and get a real upgrade for a low price. Pentax will benefit from selling the loyal customers another camera body.

There are many good reasons to waste less of the image circle that already are there.

[fuent104]

You know who hasn't gotten the message that mirrorless cameras with SLR mounted are a waste?

Arriflex: Alexa (the leading camera in the motion picture industry) and Amira both feature optional EF mounts.

Canon: leading television cameras, C100 / C300 / C500 have EF mounts.

Blackmagic Design motion picture cameras have optional EF mounts.

RED motion picture cameras (EPIC, SCARLET, RAVEN, WEAPON) have either fixed or optional EF mounts.

panasonic: Varicam LT, a television camera, comes with EF mount.

Maybe all these manufacturers need forum members to let them know mirrorless cameras with SLR mounts are a waste.

[Nicolas06]

People would just be complaining about wasting sensor space and "pentax is too cheap to make decent lenses for the format" and adapt larger lenses to the mount in order to use the entire sensor.

Yep that why nobody buy K1... Some lenses that you can put on it are only APSC, that's innaceptable and so K1 doesn't sell at all... Isn't it?

[D1N0]

Yep that why nobody buy K1... Some lenses that you can put on it are only APSC, that's innaceptable and so K1 doesn't sell at all... Isn't it?

Pentax does make lenses for full frame. Are you are either stupid or disrespectful posting such an idiotic remark.

[Nicolas06]

Yes. Sony is getting all camera sales thanks to that. I think Ricoh knows that and, I presume, they plan to venture into mirrorless FF cameras, able to use any previous Pentax lens. I believe they can make better mirrorless camera than Sony, together with their Olympus design team. Like that, Ricoh does not need to change all the external equipment for the system, and gather audience now served exclusively by Sony.
Why would Ricoh allow Sony to steal unnecessary camera sales?

The question as if it is to be done is another question. Sony did it and get actuall people from all mounts putting lenses on their camera. Often old used lenses, but still. This was the key selling point of A7 familly for most. You'll notice that a different version of that type of trans-mount is what some Q users are actually doing today too.

People do it all the time on their newly acquired FF: putting APSC lenses on it, discovering that half of the lens are good enough to cover the FF sensor and getting time to upgrade. Or to never upgrade if they think the new FF lens too big or expensive.

What we don't have today is a system really marketed as that, not just as a mere additionnal feature but as core to the system. And to me there 2-3 reasons for that:
- You need a sensor with lot of MPs for this to be acceptable 36 => 15MP is acceptable or 42MP=>18MP too. 24MP => 10 is ok but a bit at the limit for some. So basically that was acceptable only for FF with lot of pixels (even if some smartphone did it already wit 40MP+). But I don't the need to go say to 30MP on 1", m4/3 or APSC as something that could not be achieved. For all we know the standard for APSC sensors will be soon 30 or 36MP...
- You need to propose new lenses on purpose for that. That honestly quite easy. You could have the entry level cheap line and pro line, each using different sensor size.

We are almost there with APSC and FF, this is just that it is stupid to buy an FF if you plan to buy APSC only because of price difference, but that's about it.

Nothing prevent Pentax to do that with a 1" sensor with 2 lenses lines: tiny Q line and great performance 1" line... Or maybe All primes covering 1" + some high end zooms and cheap zooms covering Q size.

[reh321]

Yep that why nobody buy K1... Some lenses that you can put on it are only APSC, that's unacceptable and so K1 doesn't sell at all... Isn't it?

Nobody buying K-1???
What evidence do you have of nobody posting pictures taken with K-1???
What evidence do you have of K-1 inventory piling up???

[Nicolas06]

People would just be complaining about wasting sensor space and "pentax is too cheap to make decent lenses for the format" and adapt larger lenses to the mount in order to use the entire sensor.

Pentax does make lenses for full frame. Are you are either stupid or disrespectful posting such an idiotic remark.

This was not to be taken at first degree... I think it was obvious as we all know K1 sell well.

So what do we see people complaining that all APSC lenses are wasting sensor space and that pentax is too cheap to make decent lenses ?

Not at all. Some people still have lot of APSC lenses, use them on their K1. Some are buying FF lenses and use them on their APSC body. Even if many see the goal to have FF sensor + FF lenses as the nirvana, people are actually using lenses design for different sensor format on both APSSC and FF Pentax sensor. This has been for years.

What I see indeed is many very happy people that discover that their mere APSC lenses almost cover the FF image circle or cover it entirely and that sometime they just need to remove the hood... People are quite happy, creative and think of different crop format to use. Pentax recent just put back square format crop...

The shift in marketing is indeed quite small. Once FF sensor are in all camera bodies anyway because they are at the same price (maybe 5 years from now ?) one can market FF as the pro high quality line and APSC as the small/light/trips/practical line. But just the lenses really. Not the body.

And as far as body size is concerned, you can put an FF sensor on a A5000 that is basically QS1 size and you can put an m4/3 sensor on a GH4 or 1" sensor on XS1... Body size is more for ergonomics, electronics than to fit the sensor... As long as you don't have a mirror box in they way, of course.

That's even better this way because people would buy from both line potentially building 2 line up of lenses instead of 1. Indeed some today are already in that situation; they didn't sold they APSC lenses or even body, kept all and invested heavily in K1 + DFA lenses too.

[Nicolas06]

Nobody buying K-1???
What evidence do you have of nobody posting pictures taken with K-1???
What evidence do you have of K-1 inventory piling up???

You guy always read first degree... I should have put a smilley... I was thinking the sentence looked so stupid that everybody would understand that was irony and the "isn't it" was here to help. But I failled. Sorry. This show how must is lost with written words vs speaking... And also asynchronous discussion were you can't correctly misunderstanding instantly...

[reh321]

This was not to be taken at first degree... I think it was obvious as we all know K1 sell well.

So what do we see people complaining that all APSC lenses are wasting sensor space and that pentax is too cheap to make decent lenses ?

Not at all. Some people still have lot of APSC lenses, use them on their K1. Some are buying FF lenses and use them on their APSC body. Even if many see the goal to have FF sensor + FF lenses as the nirvana, people are actually using lenses design for different sensor format on both APSSC and FF Pentax sensor. This has been for years.

What I see indeed is many very happy people that discover that their mere APSC lenses almost cover the FF image circle or cover it entirely and that sometime they just need to remove the hood... People are quite happy, creative and think of different crop format to use. Pentax recent just put back square format crop...

The shift in marketing is indeed quite small. Once FF sensor are in all camera bodies anyway because they are at the same price (maybe 5 years from now ?) one can market FF as the pro high quality line and APSC as the small/light/trips/practical line.

That's even better this way because people would buy from both line potentially building 2 line up of lenses instead of 1. Indeed some today are already in that situation; they didn't sold they APSC lenses or even body, kept all and invested heavily in K1 + DFA lenses too.

You guy always read first degree... I should have put a smilley... I was thinking the sentence looked so stupid that everybody would understand that was irony and the "isn't it" was here to help. But I failled. Sorry. This show how must is lost with written words vs speaking... And also asynchronous discussion were you can't correctly misunderstanding instantly...

Thank you for the clarification.

I won't be buying a K-1 because it fits neither my shooting style nor my budget.
But that is just me.
I believe the people who have been demanding FF are putting their money where their mouths have been, just as I would buy an EVF-equipped APS-C/"Q" MILC in the unlikely occasion that Pentax produced one..

[Kunzite]

But where would Sony be today if they only had A-mount?

Where would they be today if they kept and developed the A-mount DSLRs? The A-mount, IMO, had potential to sell in at least as large volume as the current sales of E-mount (which means a DSLR market share in the low 10%).
There are too many factors to consider so I'm not saying that was guaranteed to happen "if only Sony did this and that"; all I'm saying is that, IMO, a well developed DSLR system which is not Canon's nor Nikon's can break into low 10% market share.
But Sony decided not to do it, so it will be Pentax.

[reh321]

Where would they be today if they kept and developed the A-mount DSLRs? The A-mount, IMO, had potential to sell in at least as large volume as the current sales of E-mount (which means a DSLR market share in the low 10%).
There are too many factors to consider so I'm not saying that was guaranteed to happen "if only Sony did this and that"; all I'm saying is that, IMO, a well developed DSLR system which is not Canon's nor Nikon's can break into low 10% market share.
But Sony decided not to do it, so it will be Pentax.

I don't think I agree with that.
Not with the DSLR qualification.
I believe they would be where they are today if all their MILC's were A-mount (*), but a major part of their position is their position as dominant provider of APS/FF MILC's. Sony's technological edge has helped them provide leading-edge EVF's. and so they have scooped up most of the customers willing to pay their prices for what is essentially the only game in that town.

(*) I'm not familiar with A-mount, so in making this statement I'm assuming that the A-mount lenses provided for MILC's were electronic, not partly or mostly mechanical like Pentax's KAF-2 mount lenses.

[Kunzite]

Getting 10% on a market where there are 3 significant players and an also-ran (that would be Pentax, before Ricoh Imaging started to fix things) is nothing special. Being a market leader on the competitive MILC market is. The two are comparable in terms of volume, due to the 3:1 ratio in terms of sizes.
But that would be a different Sony, playing a different game than they're used to - Minolta's game.

I'm not saying that what Sony did was wrong; on the long term it might play out well for them; though I'm sad to see Minolta's heritage withered away. The problem is, we're looking at Sony as an example of what Ricoh Imaging/Pentax could do. And for Pentax, the 10% vs. market leadership scenario might be very real; and then, there's only one choice.
If we want to guess how Ricoh Imaging might enter the MILC market, I'd say we should rather look at Canon, than Sony.

[D1N0]

So what do we see people complaining that all APSC lenses are wasting sensor space and that pentax is too cheap to make decent lenses ?

Yeah you still don't get it. Pentax will not be making lenses that cover the entire frame in the new q Simen0 proposes (at least none that fit the q-mount without an adapter). They do make Full frame lenses for the K-1. So your point is invalid.

[Nicolas06]

If Sony didn't do E mount at all, not Nex, not A7 serie, then m4/3 would have took more share of the mirrorless market, maybe Samysung would still be there and would now be growing and successfull. Maybe this would have make K-01 a huge success and now half of the Pentax line would be mirrorless bodies and Sony replacing Pentax...

Sure we would have more A mount users, but many that invested into some E-mount body were not potential A-mount user. Or any big heavy DSLR users.

To me the sum of current A mount user + E/FE mount users signficantly exeed what A mount would have been by itself.