[Nicolas06]

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.

The future is always incertain but I agree because honestly the most likely future for Q line is death. At least if the past is any indication they did let Q system down. That is purely regardless of what Q provide. Q is the only mount that didn't see a real new body or real new lenses in the past years. There no need to see further than that.

But Pentax is doing just what we say with Simens1 on K-mount. They started with their first digital body years ago putting FF lenses to APSC sensors and also FF 645 lenses to cropped 645 sensors. They extended that with putting back FF bodies that accept both APSC and FF lenses.

Not all manufacturer do that. Canon after all prevent APSC lenses to work on their FF body. This show different design decision and different way to use the system. This is not because we take it for granted and not think of it that it is not there.

[reh321]

....
If we want to guess how Ricoh Imaging might enter the MILC market, I'd say we should rather look at Canon, than Sony.

Yes ... I was half-expecting Pentax's Photokina Surprise (*) to be a K-02 based on the K-70.
However, what Pentax does will be partly controlled by limits in contracts with Sony.

(*) However, it turns out that their surprise was that they had nothing new to show.

---------- Post added 10-01-16 at 09:02 AM ----------

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....

I'm not convinced that any MILC can be a "huge success" without an EVF.
Part of Sony's strength is that they can engineer both the sensors and the viewing devices needed.

[D1N0]

The future is always incertain but I agree because honestly the most likely future for Q line is death. At least if the past is any indication they did let Q system down. That is purely regardless of what Q provide. Q is the only mount that didn't see a real new body or real new lenses in the past years. There no need to see further than that.

But Pentax is doing just what we say with Simens1 on K-mount. They started with their first digital body years ago putting FF lenses to APSC sensors and also FF 645 lenses to cropped 645 sensors. They extended that with putting back FF bodies that accept both APSC and FF lenses.

Not all manufacturer do that. Canon after all prevent APSC lenses to work on their FF body. This show different design decision and different way to use the system. This is not because we take it for granted and not think of it that it is not there.

Pentax did not develop the K-1 for aps-c. Crop mode is legacy support. Canon doesn't allow it because They're Canon, They can! All other brands allow aps-c lenses on their full frame bodies.

[reh321]

Pentax did not develop the K-1 for aps-c. Crop mode is legacy support. Canon doesn't allow it because They're Canon, They can! All other brands allow aps-c lenses on their full frame bodies.

My understanding is that the EF-S mount differs from the EF mount because those lenses may intrude into the body to such an extent that a FF mirror would hit the lens. That may have been a design decision on their part.

[Nicolas06]

My understanding is that the EF-S mount differs from the EF mount because those lenses may intrude into the body to such an extent that a FF mirror would hit the lens. That may have been a design decision on their part.

But they started with FF lenses and SLR bodies. They had all the required information to design APSC lenses that would not do that when they gone digital. They took that liberty on purpose. And we can't say they didn't have plan to go back to FF. Canon was the first to have an actually working and massively sold FF body in digital.

It was a design decision and as I don't think Canon engineers and marketing guys are completely stupid, they knew well the consequences

It is not like Canon APSC lenses are MUCH superior to the competition offering to justify the compromize they took.

[Mistral75]

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.

You know that cinema/video cameras and lenses are huge and their 'original' mount, the PL mount, has a register (52mm) which is bigger than SLR mounts, don't you?

[fuent104]

You know that cinema/video cameras and lenses are huge and their 'original' mount, the PL mount, has a register (52mm) which is bigger than SLR mounts, don't you?

I'm aware of the PL mount. RED and ARRI both make cameras that weigh 4 pounds. I'm not sure I'd call that huge. But I get what you're saying, I think.

I still look at my ZX-5N, and I don't think it would be hard to make a mirrorless camera around that size.

[Nicolas06]

I'm aware of the PL mount. RED and ARRI both make cameras that weigh 4 pounds. I'm not sure I'd call that huge. But I get what you're saying, I think.

I still look at my ZX-5N, and I don't think it would be hard to make a mirrorless camera around that size.

So why don't you create a company doing this? If everybody miss that and that obvious good idea in high demand you'd make lof of money. Seriously. Manufactuers don't own us anything, they can make what they want like we don't have to buy their product, they choose what they produce.

If you find an obvious lack with a market, go for it! More than an empire was built that way.

[Simen1]

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.

So you did see the analogy to the Q after all? The 5-15mm zoom will most likely cover a 1/1,5" sensor corner to corner in 80% of the shooting scenarios. Dont you want us to be able to have an advantage in those 80% of shooting scenarios because you are afraid some will complain about the 20% rest? Even it the camera are default at auto crop?

The primes might not have a notably larger image circle then the 9,5mm diagonal of the Q7, but with a larger sensor you could get a 16:9 or 1:1 image with the same 9,5mm diagonal. Maybe more with some apertures. If you want 16:9 or 1:1 with the Q7 you will use a lot smaller sensor area, with all that means for resolution, aberrations and noise.

[Simen1]

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

Sony bosses agree with you.

"Mr. Maki made the point that both lens mounts have their own distinct customer bases, as well as their own advantages, and that both remain important to Sony's business."

[clackers]

I'm not convinced that any MILC can be a "huge success" without an EVF.
Part of Sony's strength is that they can engineer both the sensors and the viewing devices needed.

IIRC, they just buy Epson EVFs don't they? No different from the other manufacturers.

[Kunzite]

I still look at my ZX-5N, and I don't think it would be hard to make a mirrorless camera around that size.

Indeed, it's easy when you look at it - but much harder when you actually try to do it

[Simen1]

Pentax did not develop the K-1 for aps-c. Crop mode is legacy support.

Legacy support are an important feature. Just like a 1/1,5" Q would have legacy support. They might also throw in a couple of new lenses as well, just like the DA 645 25mm and 28-45mm are specially designed for the 44x33 format.

Some day I will upgrade from K-5 to K-1 or a successor. But I will most likely keep some APS-C lenses and use them in FF mode for a number of reasons. One of them being able to choose the 1:1 or 19:6 crops without cropping as much as Id have to with K-5. A second reason is to avoid heavy FF counterparts. A third one are that in many scenarios the APS-C lenses fill the full frame anyway. Or maybe a 1,2x crop in stead of the 1,5x my current K-5 are limited to.

[reh321]

....
It is not like Canon APSC lenses are MUCH superior to the competition offering to justify the compromize they took.

I'm not sure about the dawn of the digital age, ... but
at the dawn of the AF age, Canon lenses were seriously superior to the competition, which is why I switched from Pentax to Canon back then.

[D1N0]

Dont you want us to be able to have an advantage in those 80% of shooting scenarios

That's right.