[ogl]

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.
.

DA25/4 is discontinued.

[zapp]

Pentax vintage mirrorless camera rumors | Pentax Rumors

This would be a signe for a Pentax strategy for the future. Nonone should expect that three DSLR lines will continue for ever: APSC-FF-MF. APSC is most likely to go as K mount is oversized for this sensor size. Any change will require a bunch of new lenses and we are currently waiting for more lenses, so it will not happen tomorrow. I would expect a last APSC-DSLR as technology carrier for FF, but only D-FA lenses.

[Simen1]

Zapp: APS-C are a great entrance point to the K-mount system. And K mount isn't that much oversized for APS-C. I think every mount could have two sensor sizes that are a factor ~1,5x from each other. Just like Q and 645 has.

If they make a new short focal flange mirrorless camera mount the next decade I think the right range for sensor size should be 1" to APS-C and that they should have two sensor sizes for that system. Maybe 1" and FT, maybe FT and APS-C. But both ranges are quite crowded with competitors so I don't see an imminent migration to a mirrorless camera system like that. I think APS-C K-mount will continue for quite some time in stead. Including lens upgrades (HD, PLM, KAF4) and brand new lenses.

But many people want an EVF in stead of OVF. Even though good OVF are a large part of the Pentax DNA, I think we will see twin models in the entry level APS-C range. One with OVF, and one with EVF. This way, Pentax will investigate the demand for EVF vs OVF.

[Kunzite]

"For ever" is too far away in the future to make predictions
However, I'd say K-mount needs both APS-C and FF - it cannot survive and grow only with the more expensive and low volume FF (definitely not with a K-1 made in 7,000 units per year!). The only manufacturer who can do that is Leica, for Leica prices.

I will also challenge the assumption that K-mount it "oversized" for APS-C; which looks to me like a remnant of Olympus' marketing (from back when they had 4/3, happily spewing nonsense about "dinosaurs" - guess who disappeared?). Yes, the K-mount was made for 35mm film cameras; this, however, doesn't make it "oversized" for APS-C now. Note that in order to have a point, "oversized" must be significant; changing an entire system is not done for a mm or two.

There are two aspects of "size": mount diameter and mount registration distance. Let's discuss them both.
1. Mount diameter; is the K-mount oversized for APS-C? Nope. The K-mount's diameter is actually similar to the 4/3 (i.e. a smaller than APS-C format). Make it too small and you'd have problems - designing fast lenses, with the image circle required for SR, and so on. Next question: does it make the cameras too large? Nope, again; the K-S2/70 compares favorably with the E-420 despite having a 100% pentaprism viewfinder made for another format (we're discussing length in the next paragraph... but even here, registration distance makes for a small part of the difference; SR and the articulated LCD takes up most of it).
2. Registration distance: is it too long for APS-C? One might argue that the K-mount's registration distance is made for a FF SLR, which is not optimal for APS-C, end of discussion. We all know this fact, right? Not quite: things are different now, 100% viewfinders requires larger mirrors, and the SR takes up space, too (requiring the shutter moved forward, and the mirror, as well). For the K-1, the Ricoh Imaging/Pentax engineers had to design a new mirror mechanism (a "Floating Mirror Structure") because a classical one wouldn't fit. See: Challengers | PENTAX K-1 Special site | RICOH IMAGING

From a technical point of view, the best candidate to be re-made as a mirrorless is the medium format - practically eliminating lots of bulk and the large mirror's vibrations. I remember an interview with a Ricoh Imaging official saying the same thing.

[asahi man]

DA25/4 is discontinued.

Correct,cause of the death of a specialized lens company.
And it was never designed for Crop 645.
Best regards

[Simen1]

From a technical point of view, the best candidate to be re-made as a mirrorless is the medium format - practically eliminating lots of bulk and the large mirror's vibrations. I remember an interview with a Ricoh Imaging official saying the same thing.

Medium format would have the same dilemma about where to position the empty space. In the camera like K-01 or in the lens like Sony EF. However this may be solved in a good old fashion way: Using a fold out and bellow mechanism. This trick may reintroduce pocketable medium format and outmaneuver Fujifilm GFX and Hasselblad X1D (that uses the Sony EF strategy). Pentax could even use the usual 645 mount and full frame 645 sensors for this. Then introduce a thin and affordable D-FA 645 35mm f/5,6 XS landscape lens and I would sell everything but my underpants to get one.



Actually this is 6x9 so a 6x4,5 would need a smaller bellow and back, making it even more pocketable.

[Nicolas06]

and I would sell everything but my underpants to get one.

And honestly I am not sure you find that many buyers for it Or a good price !

[ogl]

Correct,cause of the death of a specialized lens company.
And it was never designed for Crop 645.
Best regards

will we see bigger sensor 100 MP in new 645 camera from Ricoh?

[Zygonyx]

Yes, as already hinted 6 months ago by kenspo.

Back to mirrorless, it has been so true that FF impatients could migrate to Canikon for the last 15 years before K-1 ; than it is so true that ML addicts can go and chose whatever SoPaOlyFuLeica do propose in this respect (if they are not satisfied with Q and K-01).

So, please ML addicts, stop whining and mouning in every PF thread, take there your lap-top, and good-bye.

[D1N0]

Maybe they should make the integrated digital back a bit smaller in the next body.

Huge difference with a full frame camera: Compact Camera Meter

[Kunzite]

Medium format would have the same dilemma about where to position the empty space.

Nope, there's no dilemma but a solution: a new mount (and adapters for existing lenses); then there would be no "empty space". But we're not there yet, there's no indication that Ricoh Imaging are actually pursuing this path.

---------- Post added 02-10-16 at 03:12 PM ----------

Maybe they should make the integrated digital back a bit smaller in the next body.

Yes, they might be able to design a new, significantly smaller body. I'd like to see that - though I won't buy it, the K-1 is already overkill for my needs (and skills!).

[Simen1]

Maybe they should make the integrated digital back a bit smaller in the next body.

There are a lot of space between the sensor and screen, but it would look really weird if they moved that away without doing something to the viewfinder. One solution is to remove it altogether. Another is to replace it with an EVF. A third option is to choose a waist level VF. A fourth to make a rangefinder VF.

Actually the K-1 also have quite some space in between the screen and sensor, mostly caused by the SR raft and tilt screen mechanism. Also here the VF must be changed to reduce the total thickness.

[Kunzite]

A fifth is to use different viewfinder optics.
Regarding the K-1, an eyepiece which slightly protrudes beyond the back LCD is a good thing, IMO.

[Simen1]

Nope, there's no dilemma but a solution: a new mount (and adapters for existing lenses); then there would be no "empty space". But we're not there yet, there's no indication that Ricoh Imaging are actually pursuing this path.

The dilemma are there for all except large aperture wide angle lenses.

[Kunzite]

I'm only counting the unused space inside the camera as "empty"; the space inside a lens is part of its optical design.
For example, I wouldn't say that Pentax had a dilemma when designing the DA 560mm: to put "empty space" in the lens, or to increase the registration distance of the K-mount to match the lens