[BigMackCam]

One possibility would be two different adapters - my concern with that is the certainty that some who want the one providing mechanical aperture control would undoubtedly complain about the higher price

Yep, that's a good solution. And, for the lower-cost adapter, it's easy enough to provide a manual rotary aperture control ring (my Fotodiox K-to-E-mount adapter has this).

[johnmflores]

I wonder what % of camera buyers actively and regularly use adapters? When I first bought a Micro Four-Thirds camera, one of the first things I did was buy some adapters for my old M glass and other K-mount lenses. I played around for a while, but as soon as I got native lenses in the same focal lengths the adapters were put in boxes and have not been used for years.

[reh321]

I wonder what % of camera buyers actively and regularly use adapters? When I first bought a Micro Four-Thirds camera, one of the first things I did was buy some adapters for my old M glass and other K-mount lenses. I played around for a while, but as soon as I got native lenses in the same focal lengths the adapters were put in boxes and have not been used for years.

Over two years after getting my Q-7, I still use adapters because Pentax still has not produced lenses of some of the focal lengths I use with it.

The truth in some negative comments here is that Pentax seems to have a limited ability to design and produce new lenses {look at the limited FF collection}. They might create 18-55mm and 55-300mm lenses fairly soon, but I wouldn't expect much more - and those two might be enough for most MILC purchasers, but a full-function adapter would provide a certain amount of security for the rest of us.

[wed7]

I'm in the latter group. Backwards compatibility can often mean great things but it intrinsically means compromise. We have to use old AF systems; we have us old data connect systems; we have to use the old flange distance; etc.

A new mount means clean slate. It can be designed to do anything a designer wants with minimal restrictions.

The most obviously is the flange distance. Using the K-mount means incorporating the same physical body characteristics, like the flange distance, into the body of the camera body. A new mount means you can redefine the flange distance and thus physical body characteristics.

A new mount also means much more potential for new electrical contract design. For example, panasonic uses a combination of in-body and in lens image stabilization to do incredible things. This would require more data transfer between lens and camera body.

If Pentax put accelerometers in the end of the lens that could mean more accurate measurements on the movement of the camera body and ultimately more accurate SR compensation. This would require more data to be transferred.

Imagine re-tuning the AF to be more accurate. Have dual systems, 1 to do large focus range changes and a second to do micro focus changes. This means more data has to be transferred.

In my opinion, if pentax does a mirrorless, they should go all-in instead of half-hearted trying to hold on to lens compatibility. They should absolutely make an adapter to use k-mount lenses but should make a new mount.

You mean like Fujifilm but only with SR (Sony) ? Not bad. Problem is, Pentax is now committed and just starting to roll-in their FF lenses for their catch up product (K-1). Better to look elsewhere I guess.

MILC + OVF/EVF + SR

[monochrome]

IMO this is all dependent on whether Ricoh would provide fresh capital to Pentax for rapid development of a camera, full set of lenses and adapter(s). That means hiring and acculturating engineers for cameras and lenses, and probably means outsourcing (at lower margins) all or most of the lenses to Cosina or maybe Tamron (or asking for even more capital for new P&E). Aside from the fact that the entire staff seems occupied with existing platforms (and a major 645 project could be in the works) there isn't enough cashflow (I don't think) to rapidly develop an entire MILC system internally.

Fuji has Instax cash flow and Sony has first-mover advantage. Pentax has . . . . nothing - and who knows whether the ROIC on an MILC project would be attractive To Ricoh.

[Mr Bassie]

Well I imagine they have to be working on something interesting in the camera division. How difficult is it to iterate an evolutionary update to the existing DSLR & MF line? I guess their biggest challenge might be 4K. A MILC with an EVF would be very attractive to me. I'm not worried about the size reduction, I like the immediate feedback of an EVF.

The lens department has their hands full with the K1 so I personally don't feel it makes sense to start a 4th type of lens mount in the current market.

[mecrox]

IMO this is all dependent on whether Ricoh would provide fresh capital to Pentax for rapid development of a camera, full set of lenses and adapter(s). That means hiring and acculturating engineers for cameras and lenses, and probably means outsourcing (at lower margins) all or most of the lenses to Cosina or maybe Tamron (or asking for even more capital for new P&E). Aside from the fact that the entire staff seems occupied with existing platforms (and a major 645 project could be in the works) there isn't enough cashflow (I don't think) to rapidly develop an entire MILC system internally.

Fuji has Instax cash flow and Sony has first-mover advantage. Pentax has . . . . nothing - and who knows whether the ROIC on an MILC project would be attractive To Ricoh.

I would guess there are still some years of plenty left before it has to be done or else. It gets harder to hit the right standards with a MILC the higher up the market you go. All the DSLR makers have the problem that people are not going to chuck very costly high-end glass (think $5K or 10K telephoto lenses) just because of a MILC. What the high end will want is a MILC with the same mount which works every single bit as well as their current DSLR. They want the quality and they can afford it too.

The MILC technology works well lower down the scale but I'm not sure it is good enough yet for the best, but the best is where all the most loyal and lucrative DSLR customers are. Look at the sticker price of a Canon 5D Mark IV, a 5DS or a 1DX. That's where the money is if you're a camera-maker. I still think Pentax would be crazy not to make a start fairly soon at the lower end, as Canon have done with the EOS M system. Otherwise they will eventually be plagued with the catch-up situation which has affected them for years. At some stage, though not yet, Canon will probably start issuing better M series cameras which really are a full alternative to a decent DSLR, at least up to mid-tier. Rival DSLR brands with nothing in the locker would be horribly exposed. Not yet, but it's coming. Canon are a steamroller, imho.

---

Last edited by mecrox; 04-05-2017 at 03:10 AM.

[THoog]

How difficult is it to iterate an evolutionary update to the existing DSLR & MF line? I guess their biggest challenge might be 4K.

On the contrary, 4K is no challenge at all, because Pentax doesn't do anything with video except provide hooks to whatever SocioNext builds into the image processor. SocioNext finally implemented 4K in the latest version of the Milbeaut, so all Pentax has to do is call it "PRIME V" and build a camera with it. However, that means the timing of upgrades depends on their supplier. It seems like it takes Pentax at least a year to adopt a new processor - that is, the time between a new Milbeaut being listed and Pentax launching a body with added video features that match those specs. It's been about a year and a half since the MB86S27 came out, so I wouldn't be surprised to see 4K in the next Pentax body.

[grahame]

I wonder what % of camera buyers actively and regularly use adapters?

Almost 2.5 years after I bought A7, I didn't have any native FE lens for it. All the lenses I used on it need adapters, or were converted to fit Emount.
I just started to buy more full frame E lenses only because the issues I had with K1 and want to sell my FF AF K lenses.
But I still plan to keep K01. and I can foresee if a Pentax mirror-less camera is available, I will use MF lenses on it quite often.

[Kunzite]

all Pentax has to do is call it "PRIME V" and build a camera with it

Several R&D departments would have something to say about that...

[THoog]

Several R&D departments would have something to say about that...

Yeah, I realized that sounded pretty flippant after writing it. I know building a new body takes many months. The point was that Pentax depends heavily on their vendors for critical components like the sensor and image processor, and a lot of what people think Pentax engineers spend time on (like implementing new video features) is actually done by a completely different company.

[stevebrot]

I wonder what % of camera buyers actively and regularly use adapters?

I do! I do!


Steve

[reh321]

Fuji has Instax cash flow and Sony has first-mover advantage. Pentax has . . . . nothing - and who knows whether the ROIC on an MILC project would be attractive To Ricoh.

If I were involved in Ricoh/Pentax management, I would view developing MILC as a defensive measure - having a viable product being important if/when the lower-tier DSLR market takes a sudden turn towards MILC; I'm guessing Canon views the EOS-M line as insurance to protect their place in the "Rebel" market.

[GlassJunkie]

If I were involved in Ricoh/Pentax management, I would view developing MILC as a defensive measure - having a viable product being important if/when the lower-tier DSLR market takes a sudden turn towards MILC; I'm guessing Canon views the EOS-M line as insurance to protect their place in the "Rebel" market.

I have a K-01, use it as the "eBay" listing camera with a DA 18-135. Dependable and low cost. I am a DSLR gy, not into EVFs. So I ask (in an attempt for me to learn on this thread), If they took a K-01, added an EVF and put a K-3 sensor in it, better AF, keeping the K mount for versatility, would that hit the mark?

[UncleVanya]

I have a K-01, use it as the "eBay" listing camera with a DA 18-135. Dependable and low cost. I am a DSLR gy, not into EVFs. So I ask (in an attempt for me to learn on this thread), If they took a K-01, added an EVF and put a K-3 sensor in it, better AF, keeping the K mount for versatility, would that hit the mark?

I'm not sure. The problem is that with that thick body why not just put an optical viewfinder on. What is the advantage of the EVF over OVF - some would say the instant exposure viewing but most OVF users just use the LCD for that. EVF lovers might like it. Perhaps a less complex full frame without the extra mirror motion to avoid hitting lenses rear elements might be worth it.