[Nicolas06]

With short register distance you can design lenses significantly faster that Pentax pancakes without the lenses getting bigger.

Samsung 10/3.5 a pancake fisheye lens
Samsung 16/2.4 is half the size of Pentax DA 15/4
Samsung 20/2.4 is the same size of Pentax DA 21/3.2
Samsung 30/2 faster pancake than any Pentax.

But there FA35 f/2 that is equivalent to 24mm f/1.3 on APSC and FA43 that is tiny and that is equivalent to 30mm f/1.2. The f/2.4 apperture of the APSC lenses aren't that impressive anymore really. The FA20 f/2.8 match a 13mm f/1.8 and again samsung has nothing to match. And none of theses K-mount lenses are big and when you factor you'd want a tele or 2, the long registration distance mount more than make it for itself.

The reason for me to get a mirrorless system is because they can give advantages not possible not possible on a K-mount camera. It's not that I want to replace my DSLR system with it.

I think most people don't care mirrorless or DSLR but they care of quality, size and echosystem. K-mount mirrorless could give you 80% of the size benefit with 100% of the echosystem. The quality would be unnafected still great.

Some people will go only mirroless, some only DSLR, some both. Having the same mount for both is a huge asset but I agree this might be harder. For an FF sensor still this isn't really a problem has I shown with FA20, and FA35 or FA43.

With an EVF sticking out of the back of a FF Pentax K-mount camera, I would expect it to be more the size on Sigma Quattro than Sony A7 II. Compact Camera Meter

This is purely a design choice than a technical constraint. An Olympus EM10 has an EVF too. As long as you don't put the EVF in the axis of the K-mount box, you don't have any constraint on added deph/height. That purely a design choice for what you think is best.

---

Last edited by Nicolas06; 10-10-2016 at 12:11 AM.

[Digitalis]

The reason for me to get a mirrorless system is because they can give advantages not possible not possible on a K-mount camera.

And the examples you gave us from the Samsung system are consistently crappier than the pentax equivalents. You aren't making a compelling argument for optical quality here, you're only making an argument for cheaply constructed, optically under-performing lenses that happen to be lighter than the SLR equivalents....and that in the end is really the only thing going for them. There isn't much point in having a 16mm f/2 lens if you have to stop the blasted thing down to f/11 to get the corners to look decent.

Leica is a bit expensive and that's the only other manufactuer that has an FF mirorless

you don't have to buy Leica RF lenses, Voigtlander make some small high performance primes, Zeiss does too...at a higher price point, but still less than what Leica is asking. There is also a plethora of second hand RF lenses on the open market, and RF lenses are built to last like Takumars.

[Tatouzou]

Well, I agree with Nicolas06:

Pentax cannot success in a "me too" strategy by entering an already crowded market with another APS-C mirrorless with a new mount with a shorter flange sistance and and its range of new lenses: this would be a big investment, both in money, engineering and marketing, and would probably ruin the K-mount system, just like M4/3 has ruined the 4/3 DSLR system. And it would need to be priced under 600 $/€ body alone, which is too low to get enough returns on investment.

IMO, the only opportunity for Pentax to add a mirrorless offering is to design it for FF and using the KAF4 mount with full compatibility with all the existing K-mount lenses. Which means also an in-body screwdrive AF capability for the FA and DA limiteds (best existing lenses to attract enthusiasts), the new D-FA zooms (best existing lenses to attract pros), and the existing DA lenses (to attract existing APS-C users).

The only competing camera would be the Sony A7, the size and form factor would be roughly the same, the price could be in the same 1000-2400 $/€ range, depending the features and performances, and the current lens line-up would be attractive to many enthusiast or pro photographers. IMO, it could also be a more appealing complement to the K1 than another FF DSLR with different features.

Yet, this would need a big investment for Pentax engineers, as it would require to design a performing on-sensor PDAF+CDAF, with a competitive AF-C tracking performance.

Compared to the K1, it could offer all the features of a EVF, a higher burst rate, a much better video performance, better subject tracking thanks to the ability of covering a large part of the sensor area and much more XYZ available informations on the target position.
Whith APS-C lenses or different croppings (like 16/9 or 1/1), the user could choose between showing the whole sensor area, with a frame around the selected cropping, or a full size image of the captured scene. This would appeal to users heavily invested in APS-C, which would not need to immediately buy new lenses to enjoy the best experience, but could do it progressively.

[Fogel70]

And the examples you gave us from the Samsung system are consistently crappier than the pentax equivalents. You aren't making a compelling argument for optical quality here, you're only making an argument for cheaply constructed, optically under-performing lenses that happen to be lighter than the SLR equivalents....and that in the end is really the only thing going for them. There isn't much point in having a 16mm f/2 lens if you have to stop the blasted thing down to f/11 to get the corners to look decent.

I have not tested the Samsung 16/2.4 but judging by the reviews it seems to perform quite well compared with FI Pentax 15/4.
It's basically only on distortion that the Samsung lens perform much worse. But I believe that can be taken care of without making the lens much larger and much slower.
Pentax smc DA 15 mm f/4 ED AL Limited review - Introduction - LensTip.com
Samsung NX 16 mm f/2.4 review - Image resolution - LensTip.com

[RonHendriks1966]

Yet, this would need a big investment for Pentax engineers, as it would require to design a performing on-sensor PDAF+CDAF, with a competitive AF-C tracking performance.

Since they have not yet any experience in the field on this....... This is not coming this year or in 2017. They could bring a first experimental aps-c model or try to make it work on the K-70 for stills in liveview.

[Fogel70]

But there FA35 f/2 that is equivalent to 24mm f/1.3 on APSC and FA43 that is tiny and that is equivalent to 30mm f/1.2. The f/2.4 apperture of the APSC lenses aren't that impressive anymore really. The FA20 f/2.8 match a 13mm f/1.8 and again samsung has nothing to match. And none of theses K-mount lenses are big and when you factor you'd want a tele or 2, the long registration distance mount more than make it for itself.

A 30/1.2 APS-C lens don't necessary have to be very large. For instance not much larger than the Voigtländer 35/1.4 for FF. 35 mm / F 1,4 Nokton
http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/.a/6a00df351e888f88340120a554165a970b-800wi

Another advantage of short register mount is the ability to use "lens turbo" adapters on a APS-C mirrorless camera and you can convert FI a 20/2.8 FF lens to a 13/1.8 APS-C lens.
It's very nice to be able convery you APS-C camera to a FF equivalent camera.

I think most people don't care mirrorless or DSLR but they care of quality, size and echosystem. K-mount mirrorless could give you 80% of the size benefit with 100% of the echosystem. The quality would be unnafected still great.

Some people will go only mirroless, some only DSLR, some both. Having the same mount for both is a huge asset but I agree this might be harder. For an FF sensor still this isn't really a problem has I shown with FA20, and FA35 or FA43.

I think most people care more of the form factor of the camera, than if it's a mirrorless or DSLR (most people buying a camera probably don't even know the difference between the two).
A problem with a K-mount FF mirrorless is that there is not that many compact lenses in production today. Is FA 35/2 still produced?
So they would need to design many new lenses for K-mount too. But for DSLR it seems like large heavy high performance lenses is preferred, which also the FF lens road map show.

This is purely a design choice than a technical constraint. An Olympus EM10 has an EVF too. As long as you don't put the EVF in the axis of the K-mount box, you don't have any constraint on added deph/height. That purely a design choice for what you think is best.

The EVF has to stick out of the back of the camera, otherwise you won't reach it with your eye. That's one reason why some users prefer to have a detachable EVF as it can make the camera more pocket friendly with it off.

[mecrox]

Well, I agree with Nicolas06:
Pentax cannot success in a "me too" strategy by entering an already crowded market with another APS-C mirrorless with a new mount with a shorter flange sistance and and its range of new lenses: this would be a big investment, both in money, engineering and marketing, and would probably ruin the K-mount system, just like M4/3 has ruined the 4/3 DSLR system.

IMO, the only opportunity for Pentax to add a mirrorless offering is to design it for FF and using the KAF4 mount with full compatibility with all the existing K-mount lenses. Which means an in-body screwdrive AF capability for the FA limiteds (best existing lenses to attract enthusiasts), the new D-FA zooms (best existing lenses to attract pros), and the existing DA lenses (to attract

The way to look at this is to stop thinking "mirrorless" is some kind of forbidding Mount Everest that Pentax may struggle to climb. In fact there are scores of different mirrorless ideas and formats. Pentax could do one, several or none of them. They could do in "mirrorless" any of ... a K-mount FF, a K-mount APS-C, a brand-new mount perhaps under the Ricoh brand, a replacement for the Q series perhaps using a 1" or M43 mount, fixed-lens cameras like the Ricoh GR, etc, etc. In fact, these ideas would conflict with the classic K-mount DSLR only if they were launched with the idea of replacing it.

Besides, people likely want different things from "mirrorless". Some want small and stylish. Others want the latest technical wizardry from on-sensor PDAF, well-featured EVFs, powerful processor chips and fast frame rates, etc, etc. These markets are by no means the same.

At the end of the day, Pentax aren't going to have much choice over what happens anyway. If there is a marked shift in the market then in will be dictated by what Canon, Nikon and Sony do. And Pentax is entirely dependent on buying in parts from others. If all the best sensors and processor chips available from Sony and co. become predicated on mirrorless, then what happens? As a small player, Pentax's basic position is to wait for a market to be established by others and their marketing millions. When that market is established, Pentax then enter it with their classic proposition: good honest gear, not the very best, but made with seasoned photographers in mind and offering excellent value for money. Hence the K-1. I suspect that is exactly what Pentax may eventually do with large-format mirrorless.

[Simen1]

The reason for me to get a mirrorless system is because they can give advantages not possible not possible on a K-mount camera.

Since this advantage only are with WA, UWA and fisheye, I take it that you prioritize wide FoV before narrow FoV.
Tele lenses will in general just get an extension equal to the shortening of the register distance. If you have more tele lenses in your bag then wide angles, they will in sum take more space.

If we get a K mount mirrorless in stead, and a few of specially designed wide angles that retract into that empty space, we can get the same compactness from a K mount camera. Keeping the much loved native K mount and still get WA the size advantage with a few lenses that only would fit mirrorless K mount. Zooms in the normal or wide range could also be retractable into the camera.

[Fogel70]

Since this advantage only are with WA, UWA and fisheye, I take it that you prioritize wide FoV before narrow FoV.
Tele lenses will in general just get an extension equal to the shortening of the register distance. If you have more tele lenses in your bag then wide angles, they will in sum take more space.

If we get a K mount mirrorless in stead, and a few of specially designed wide angles that retract into that empty space, we can get the same compactness from a K mount camera. Keeping the much loved native K mount and still get WA the size advantage with a few lenses that only would fit mirrorless K mount. Zooms in the normal or wide range could also be retractable into the camera.

I use all type of lenses (focal length), but if I can find a camera that give me an advantage over another I like that.
I don't believe there is one type of camera that are best on everything. I like DSLR because it gives me a through the lens optical viewfinder, but that design has some disadvantages when it comes to lens design.
Had there been an affordable digital RF system I would have got that, but now mirrorless systems can offer the same advantages as RF.


Retractable lenses will only look smaller once mounted on the camera, but not in the bag.
And the rear lens element has to be small on this type on lens so you can't put the rear element very close to the sensor, and the limited space for lens elements inside the mirror box will limit it to very slow lenses.
I could maybe work on a slow kit zoom, but but to design lenses that can't be mounted on all K-mount cameras seems like a strange idea, and totally against the point of using an existing mount.

[Nicolas06]

I use all type of lenses (focal length), but if I can find a camera that give me an advantage over another I like that.
I don't believe there is one type of camera that are best on everything. I like DSLR because it gives me a through the lens optical viewfinder, but that design has some disadvantages when it comes to lens design.
Had there been an affordable digital RF system I would have got that, but now mirrorless systems can offer the same advantages as RF.


Retractable lenses will only look smaller once mounted on the camera, but not in the bag.
And the rear lens element has to be small on this type on lens so you can't put the rear element very close to the sensor, and the limited space for lens elements inside the mirror box will limit it to very slow lenses.
I could maybe work on a slow kit zoom, but but to design lenses that can't be mounted on all K-mount cameras seems like a strange idea, and totally against the point of using an existing mount.

This Samyang 16mm f/2



This is Samsung 16mm f/2.4:



None have big rear element. That would fit very easily inside the camera. As of the final size basically that's the Samsung with a bit longer part of the lens narrow behind the mount, a bit less bigger after the mount. if you do it fully, for 45mm to 25mm you have to shift things by 2cm but then if you could manage that the lens would be exactly the same size.

As the Samsung mount is a bit narrower and put lot of contacts in the inner diameter, this mean that basically any NX mount lens HAVE TO have a narrow rear element that would easily fit inside a K mount hole.

As we can agree that some lenses may be too big to move the rear of the lens by as much as 2cm to get exactly the registration distance of Samsung NX, we may move only by say 1.5cm and adapt a bit the design and as the result the lens may end up a bit bigger, but not that much and remain many time smaller than the classical DSLR designs.

of course the last aspect is that theses Samsung NX lenses don't perform as well as the Samyang. There no free lunch.

Samsung NX performance on photozone (20MP Samsung APSC body).


Samyang 14mm f/2.8 on photozone (on a 15MP APSC Canon body), didn't found the 16mm f/2:


The Samyang has much much better border at f/2.8 than the Samsung at f/3.2 and the Samyang look to be have lot of margin for more resolution body while the Samsung look to be already very limited by its optical performance.

Not all is said on this mirrorless vs DSLR body, the size difference in lenses comes more as different standard in quality as registration distance.

[Nicolas06]

I use all type of lenses (focal length), but if I can find a camera that give me an advantage over another I like that.
I don't believe there is one type of camera that are best on everything.

Like there isn't a lens that good at everything. But that's nice if you can switch lenses or camera to get the best combo for the outing you envision. This work best if the mount the same or eventually if the adapter is perfect (full support for all lenses) and easy to handle.

[surfar]

Samsung 20/2.4

This lens doesn't exist.

---------- Post added 10-11-16 at 07:26 AM ----------

And the examples you gave us from the Samsung system are consistently crappier than the pentax equivalents.

So the Pentax images from the K-01 are far superior to NX500?....that's comparing the 2 latest(no EVF, mirrorless) bodies from each brand.

[Fogel70]

This Samyang 16mm f/2



This is Samsung 16mm f/2.4:



None have big rear element. That would fit very easily inside the camera. As of the final size basically that's the Samsung with a bit longer part of the lens narrow behind the mount, a bit less bigger after the mount. if you do it fully, for 45mm to 25mm you have to shift things by 2cm but then if you could manage that the lens would be exactly the same size.

As the Samsung mount is a bit narrower and put lot of contacts in the inner diameter, this mean that basically any NX mount lens HAVE TO have a narrow rear element that would easily fit inside a K mount hole.

The K-mount is quite narrow inside the lens mount too. An APS-C camera like K01 probaby can't accept any bigger diameter than 25 mm on the protruding part, at least if it longer than ~10 mm. And this tube need to fit more than just the rear lens element. It may need to fit more lens elements, parts that hold the lens elements in place, focusing/zooming mechanism and maybe even the aperture mechanism.

As we can agree that some lenses may be too big to move the rear of the lens by as much as 2cm to get exactly the registration distance of Samsung NX, we may move only by say 1.5cm and adapt a bit the design and as the result the lens may end up a bit bigger, but not that much and remain many time smaller than the classical DSLR designs.

of course the last aspect is that theses Samsung NX lenses don't perform as well as the Samyang. There no free lunch.

Samsung NX performance on photozone (20MP Samsung APSC body).


Samyang 14mm f/2.8 on photozone (on a 15MP APSC Canon body), didn't found the 16mm f/2:


The Samyang has much much better border at f/2.8 than the Samsung at f/3.2 and the Samyang look to be have lot of margin for more resolution body while the Samsung look to be already very limited by its optical performance.

Not all is said on this mirrorless vs DSLR body, the size difference in lenses comes more as different standard in quality as registration distance.

It's not possible to say which has better border performance. In absolute number the Samsung lens has higher score at f/3.2 on the borders than the Samyang lens at f/2.8.
That may change if the Samyang lens was tested on a higher resolution sensor, or not. If it's the lens or sensor resolution that is the limiting factor is not possible to say by this test.

[surfar]

It's very nice to be able convery you APS-C camera to a FF equivalent camera.

Plenty of these around for K mount lenses but none ive come across for Pentax bodies?

[Fogel70]

Plenty of these around for K mount lenses but none ive come across for Pentax bodies?

Pentax has never manufacture any camera usable for this type of adapter. A short register mount camera with large sensor would be needed (m43 or APS-C).