[reh321]

What I just don't understand is why use a DSLR mount, and then remove all the major advantages that a long register distance mount bring?

Which advantages are you thinking of?

[Fogel70]

FI through the lens OVF, dedicated PDAF sensor, longer battery life...

[konraDarnok]

FI through the lens OVF, dedicated PDAF sensor, longer battery life...

Battery life, yes. All that other stuff, not really. But people keep looking at this from a consumer standpoint, when they need to look at this from a manufacture's stand point. Mirrorless systems are just dead simple. It's flange in front of a PCB. That's it.

A DSLR has no less than 5 optical light paths that all have to be perfectly aligned. The reflexing mirrors, AF module, the metering module, the focusing screen, and the digital overlay. If any one of those is messed up, it becomes a pain to use. Getting it right makes it more expensive to design and manufacture.

Mirrorless has one. As long as the distance from the sensor to the flange is correct, everything else is done in software.

[Fogel70]

Well, it is all connnected. The TTL OVF is the reason for better battery life, and a dedicated PDAF is often much better for low light AF performance.
Even Pentax DSLR AF performs much better compared to many mirrorless cameras in low light.

[konraDarnok]

Well, it is all connnected. The TTL OVF is the reason for better battery life, and a dedicated PDAF is often much better for low light AF performance.
Even Pentax DSLR AF performs much better compared to many mirrorless cameras in low light.

Sometimes, sometimes not. The other -3 and -4 EV cameras like the GM1 use contrast detect. It doesn't even have phase detect. The GM1 does a really nice job in low light. But you're not going to be tracking objects in that kind of light anyway, no matter what AF system you use, which is why focus peaking and digital zoom are nice features for low light and manual glass.

I got a really good deal on a A7 awhile back, and the only drawback is battery life. Which sux, but battery life in my K-01 is just fine. So it's not the mirrorless per se, just how well power consumption and battery density is designed.

[Nicolas06]

He means if the mirrorless has a K-mount, K-mount lenses will not work because of the shorter registration distance. Nothing would be in focus.

K01 is mirrorless. It is K-mount. i think all K-mount lenses work well with it except KAF4 because it was not existing at that time.

[D1N0]

K01 is mirrorless. It is K-mount. i think all K-mount lenses work well with it except KAF4 because it was not existing at that time.

sigh! I know that. I excluded the K-01 and the Sigma Quattro SD in an earlier post.

[Nicolas06]

Yes, but there's a difference:
- option A's drawback is permanent (or long-term, if you wish); they would fight with it as long as that system is maintained
- option B's drawback is temporary (or short-term); worst in the beginning, lessening as they're launching new lenses. Adapters would alleviate the issue somewhat (but can't replace new lenses).

With enough resources, I'd go with B.

Clients would have absolutely no reason to choose that Pentax branded gear mirrorless camera instead of one of the many others. The pentax would be the less attractive mirrorless with the worst echosystem while a nice K-mount mirrorless would instantly put Pentax at the mirrorless system with the most solid and interresting mirrorless echosystem.

Me as a K-mount user I would also to see an APSC or FF body release by Pentax that would be K-mount. I would consider seriously that K-mount mirrorless would never come I'll consider very seriously to go to Fuji X or m4/3... That will have better echosystem much more experience on mirrorless body and no sign of wanting to destroy my investment at the first occasion.

Also technically, I don't see much benefit of a shorter registration distance mount, in particular for FF. Making it shorter would only really help a fast 24mm prime design and that's all. It would make all other lenses past 50mm bigger... And that many on an FF.

[Kunzite]

Your logic is not without merit, but once again it only holds on the short term. It's once again the "let's do some odd product for the few Pentaxians who might want such a thing" versus "let's enter the MILC market and develop a serious system". I'm not certain which they would try in their next mirrorless attempt, but the first option they already tried - and it failed.
Of course, K-mount takes priority

Technically, the same mount can and should be shared between APS-C and FF cameras; the size advantage is more obvious with the former. However, I'll claim the reverse: there's absolutely no benefit in having a longer than necessary registration distance.
No, the camera design doesn't have to be thin with almost no grip; not for all models anyway.

[Simen1]

What I just don't understand is why use a DSLR mount, and then remove all the major advantages that a long register distance mount bring?

The most important reason to reuse an existing mount, is to avoid the need to start designing new lenses all over. Lens designing and production starting are time consuming and expensive for the manufacturer. Selling more of the same is much more cost effective then starting from scratch designing a similar but incompatible product.

The secondary reasons are about both price and market segmentation. Removing some of the guts obviously cuts costs. An LCOS EVF probably adds less cost, so its a net cost cut. Batteries don't need to be increased because lower battery time are considered an acceptable property of EVF cameras and selling extra batteries are profitable. Personally I love TTL OVF, this being one of many reasons I'm still a Pentaxian, but people are different. Some prefer EVF and I can understand some of the reasons they make. Like no mirror slap vibration, histogram in the VF and instant review of images without chimping. Making EVF an option to OVF would bring the K mount lenses and features to a broader audience.

[Simen1]

Your logic is not without merit, but once again it only holds on the short term. It's once again the "let's do some odd product for the few Pentaxians who might want such a thing" versus "let's enter the MILC market and develop a serious system". I'm not certain which they would try in their next mirrorless attempt, but the first option they already tried - and it failed.

By your logic, since the K110D wasn't a huge success, Pentax should give up on DSLRs in general? It wasn't the concept that was bad with K-01. Actually it was a success in Japan. But in the west it was often considered weird and brick-like design. As explained earlier, a K-02 with a different design could make a whole different impression in the west and make this concept a success here too.

The concept is brilliant and much more cost effective then starting a new mount from scratch. Low overall costs will enable Pentax to play much more with pricing then any competitor. They could start out with very high margin low volume and if necessary transition towards medium margin, higher volume. Most profits come from lens sales, so a cheap starting point is just excellent.

Regarding size, test sites all over the world would put on a limited lens, place it besides a comparable Sony camera and lens and prove to the public that its not all about the registration distance. Sony just haven't played their size-card very well, so in most comparisons it should be an easy match for Pentax.

[reh321]

What I just don't understand is why use a DSLR mount, and then remove all the major advantages that a long register distance mount bring?

Which advantages are you thinking of?

FI through the lens OVF, dedicated PDAF sensor, longer battery life...

These can be advantages, but not of long register distance. You lose these in any MILC, but many people still prefer
(1) EVF which shows what the sensor sees rather than what the wide-open lens
(2) histogram in the viewfinder
(3) simpler mechanism
(4) avoiding noise/vibration caused by mirror motion.

If Pentax were to produce this kind of camera, they would have a product for each preference, rather than depending on DSLR market remaining healthy at all price points.

[Kunzite]

@Simen1:
That's not my logic, but a strawman. Which means you have no argument against my actual ideas.

No, the concept is not brilliant; it's just a "DSLR" with the dedicated AF and the viewfinder system removed. There are AFAIK two cameras/lines of cameras using this concept: the K-01 and Sigma Quattro. 'nuff said.

I see no reason to assume that a "K-01" with an EVF, different design and some updates would be much more successful than the K-01. It's not like putting a fake pentaprism housing on top of the K-01 would make it an instant success.

I already touched the idea of short term savings by reusing the existing K-mount; I won't repeat myself.

[mecrox]

By your logic, since the K110D wasn't a huge success, Pentax should give up on DSLRs in general? It wasn't the concept that was bad with K-01. Actually it was a success in Japan. But in the west it was often considered weird and brick-like design. As explained earlier, a K-02 with a different design could make a whole different impression in the west and make this concept a success here too.

The concept is brilliant and much more cost effective then starting a new mount from scratch. Low overall costs will enable Pentax to play much more with pricing then any competitor. They could start out with very high margin low volume and if necessary transition towards medium margin, higher volume. Most profits come from lens sales, so a cheap starting point is just excellent.

Regarding size, test sites all over the world would put on a limited lens, place it besides a comparable Sony camera and lens and prove to the public that its not all about the registration distance. Sony just haven't played their size-card very well, so in most comparisons it should be an easy match for Pentax.

Pentax will have their work cut out to make any impression now in the market for mirrorless cameras. The more recent mirrorless cameras are several generations in the field by now and have both incredible technology inside them - see the newly announced Sony a6500, Olympus EM1 Mark II, Fuji X-T2, e.g. - and a very well supported ecosystem in most cases. That's a very tough nut to crack, especially as Sony and Canon are now dusting off the big $$$ guns to see who can dominate the sector. Where is modestly-resourced Pentax going to fit in? They need a niche that isn't too costly and too exposed to onslaught by their competitors.

[Simen1]

That's not my logic, but a strawman. Which means you have no argument against my actual ideas.

Yes, its a strawman that tells why your logic fails. You judge the whole concept based on one single camera model. Just like the strawman.

No, the concept is not brilliant; it's just a "DSLR" with the dedicated AF and the viewfinder system removed. There are AFAIK two cameras/lines of cameras using this concept: the K-01 and Sigma Quattro. 'nuff said.

No, its not just something less, like in removed. Its something different as in replaced by another set of advantages and disadvantages. Neither the K-01 or Sigma Quattro would be a success if they had a mirror, prism and OVF. They would still be niche products with weird design. Thats the differentiating factor, not the long register distance concept. This concept done with a different design, like the K-02 I described, would be a success.

I see no reason to assume that a "K-01" with an EVF, different design and some updates would be much more successful than the K-01. It's not like putting a fake pentaprism housing on top of the K-01 would make it an instant success.

You forget to see the advantages. Advantages that quite a lot of people prefer. Fake pentaprism are a strawman. Make that an EVF with features like I have mentioned so many times now. Nicolas06 too.