2021 CP+ going online only

reh321 · 03-07-2021, 06:42 AM

Originally posted by Pål Jensen

That would be a very short sighted approach for what in effect will be brand new MF system. You need a new lens series for the shorter flange distance. The old mechanical protocols will be completely pointless for a new system. And since there will be no older lenses that could be used without a adapter anyway there's little sense of using the old mount.

My point is they do not need a shorter flange distance.
Flange distance is not chained to format like framing and perspective are chained together for prime lenses.
They can use a smaller flange distance, thereby gaining a smaller body and often larger lenses.
The point to using the same flange distance by Pentax is that right now there is a limit to their ability to develop new lenses, and they seem to be at that limit already.

Looking at Pentax's development of K-mount lenses over the last few years, developing even more lenses would be a problem, and I don't see any benefit of requiring that purchasers use an adapter with every lens.

You continue to make your point over and over again, but it really is immaterial.
I have made my point, and will stick to it.

Last edited by reh321; 03-07-2021 at 07:04 AM.

**Pål Jensen** · 03-07-2021, 07:20 AM

Originally posted by reh321

My point is they do not need a shorter flange distance..

Isn't that the argument for mirrorless? Smaller size. Smaller flange distance that can yield smaller wide angle lenses. The bump of the prism isn't going to make or break it size wise. Just as well stick to DSLR if are going to keep the mount and flange distance.

house · 03-07-2021, 08:27 AM

Originally posted by Pål Jensen

It is possible to make a FF DSLR smaller than the K-1. Besides if small size were a very strong selling factor, Nikon and Canon would have been out of business long time ago and everyone would have switched to Pentax and Olympus 40+ years ago

.

With large lenses a camera can be to small. It seems that the k-1 is about right but the mirrorbox and prism don't help with the ergonomics. The R5 is about as long as the k-1 and so is the gfx 100s. The 645 is a lot bigger than this "ideal" size.

This means the gfx competes with FF for portability and 645 for IQ. Those looking for exceptional speed should obviously look elsewhere.

**ThorSanchez** · 03-07-2021, 08:39 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by reh321

MILC does not require a new mount. It simply allows a new mount, because a shorter flange distance allows the camera to be even smaller.

Pentax could use a different mount if they went MILC, but they could always use the same mount if they chose - they would simply have slightly larger cameras {and smaller lenses for certain focal lengths}.
It would be their choice which way to go.

While you are technically correct, a mirrorless system could use a existing DSLR mount, the experience of the real world is that no one thinks this is a good idea. As far as I know the K-01 is the only mirrorless camera produced with a DSLR mount and flange distance, and it was short-lived and commercially unsuccessful. I would think that if this was a good idea someone, somewhere in the last decade+ would have made a successful mirrorless camera with a DSLR mount.

There are cases where all the companies in a field were completely wrong about a basic technology for years, but the simplest explanation here is that no camera company sees the business case or advantages of mirrorless with a permanent adapter.

texandrews · 03-07-2021, 09:52 AM

Originally posted by Pål Jensen

Isn't that the argument for mirrorless? Smaller size.

Originally that seemed to be the main argument, and it still is one. But MILC zealots quickly found out that the lenses didn't get smaller, and so much of the size argument became irrelevant. And in fact we know that there is such a thing as too small. MILC cameras have some other advantages, though, that especially seem to help with video, and a good EVF can very much aid in low light (although one that's not so great is a problem). So here I agree that Pentax could do a MILC camera w/o changing the mount at all----and they could trim a little size off the camera if they wished, just not depth, and possibly some weight.

lytrytyr · 03-07-2021, 10:08 AM

Originally posted by ThorSanchez

While you are technically correct, a mirrorless system could use a existing DSLR mount, the experience of the real world is that no one thinks this is a good idea.

Shareholders don't think it's a good idea, but customers having to buy new lenses for adapterless convenience may well beg to differ!

Kunzite · 03-07-2021, 10:14 AM

Originally posted by lytrytyr

Shareholders don't think it's a good idea, but customers having to buy new lenses for adapterless convenience may well beg to differ!

The customers might actually prefer simpler, better and less expensive wide angle lenses.

Once the reason for that long register distance disappears, so should the long register distance.
OTOH, the next 645 might still be a DSLR, or maybe a hybrid.

reh321 · 03-07-2021, 10:18 AM

Originally posted by Pål Jensen

Isn't that the argument for mirrorless? Smaller size. Smaller flange distance that can yield smaller wide angle lenses.

Size is a strawman.
Yes, wide-angle lenses can be made smaller, but telephoto lenses are longer.
The real advantages are in mechanical simplicity and in what can be added to the {electronic} viewfinder.
Pentax seems to be adding to the viewfinder.

reh321 · 03-07-2021, 10:26 AM

Originally posted by ThorSanchez

While you are technically correct, a mirrorless system could use a existing DSLR mount, the experience of the real world is that no one thinks this is a good idea. As far as I know the K-01 is the only mirrorless camera produced with a DSLR mount and flange distance, and it was short-lived and commercially unsuccessful.

When I joined here, I was a Canon DSLR user exploring options.
Canon had an EOS-M camera, but it too was LCD only, much to the disappointment of non-Oriental Canon users.
I considered the K-01, but using a Q-7 convinced me i would be unhappy with that arrangement.
There has been a lot of discussion in 'mirrorless' section here about the "failure" of the K-01.
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/138-pentax-k-01/399746-k-01-why-did-not-suceed.html
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/147-pentax-mirrorless-cameras/408705-ric...visit-k01.html
Various reasons have been proposed - I remain convinced that lack of an EVF was a major shortcoming.

Kunzite · 03-07-2021, 10:29 AM

Originally posted by reh321

There has been a lot of discussion in 'mirrorless' section here about the "failure" of the K-01.
Ricoh should revisit K01 - PentaxForums.com
Various reasons have been proposed - I remain convinced that lack of an EVF was a major shortcoming.

The K-01 was lacking an EVF in a time where most mirrorless were lacking an EVF.

reh321 · 03-07-2021, 10:35 AM

Originally posted by Kunzite

The K-01 was lacking an EVF in a time where most mirrorless were lacking an EVF.

and MILC's in general did not succeed.
Sony's first success was the A6000, which came about the time I joined here, and it did have an EVF, for example.
Canon's EOS-M2 was an Orient-only model - they started seeing general success only after they added an EVF to later M-line models.

MMVIII · 03-07-2021, 10:37 AM

Originally posted by texandrews

Originally that seemed to be the main argument, and it still is one. But MILC zealots quickly found out that the lenses didn't get smaller, and so much of the size argument became irrelevant. And in fact we know that there is such a thing as too small. MILC cameras have some other advantages, though, that especially seem to help with video, and a good EVF can very much aid in low light (although one that's not so great is a problem). So here I agree that Pentax could do a MILC camera w/o changing the mount at all----and they could trim a little size off the camera if they wished, just not depth, and possibly some weight.

Well, who would be waiting for a Pentax branded MF or FF video camera?

angerdan · 03-07-2021, 12:09 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by reh321

There has been a lot of discussion in 'mirrorless' section here about the "failure" of the K-01.
K-01 - why did it not suceed? - PentaxForums.com
Ricoh should revisit K01 - PentaxForums.com

Good word.

@Admin:
Since the discussion is far away from the thread title and CP+ is over, should there be a rest/close?

house · 03-07-2021, 01:09 PM

Originally posted by lemono

DFA21 have some minor problems, but I can not get more details about "problems", although I repeated inquiries.The confidentiality of dfa21 is much higher than I expected.

Pentax used to be pretty a pretty tight ship. Recently it seems, perhaps I'm wrong, that they leak/communicate a little bit more. Perhaps this is a necessity when products are relatively far apart, just to let people know they are working away.

I'd love to know about the DFA21 problems. It would reveal something about their ambitions with the lens.

**Pål Jensen** · 03-07-2021, 01:25 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by house

Pentax used to be pretty a pretty tight ship. Recently it seems, perhaps I'm wrong, that they leak/communicate a little bit more. Perhaps this is a necessity when products are relatively far apart, just to let people know they are working away.

I'd love to know about the DFA21 problems. It would reveal something about their ambitions with the lens.

Actually, I think they are now tighter than ever....

03-07-2021, 08:27 AM	#183
house Pentaxian Join Date: May 2015 Photos: Albums Posts: 3,306	Originally posted by Pål Jensen It is possible to make a FF DSLR smaller than the K-1. Besides if small size were a very strong selling factor, Nikon and Canon would have been out of business long time ago and everyone would have switched to Pentax and Olympus 40+ years ago. With large lenses a camera can be to small. It seems that the k-1 is about right but the mirrorbox and prism don't help with the ergonomics. The R5 is about as long as the k-1 and so is the gfx 100s. The 645 is a lot bigger than this "ideal" size. This means the gfx competes with FF for portability and 645 for IQ. Those looking for exceptional speed should obviously look elsewhere.

03-07-2021, 10:26 AM	#189
reh321 Pentaxian Join Date: Nov 2014 Location: South Bend, IN, USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 23,177	Originally posted by ThorSanchez While you are technically correct, a mirrorless system could use a existing DSLR mount, the experience of the real world is that no one thinks this is a good idea. As far as I know the K-01 is the only mirrorless camera produced with a DSLR mount and flange distance, and it was short-lived and commercially unsuccessful. When I joined here, I was a Canon DSLR user exploring options. Canon had an EOS-M camera, but it too was LCD only, much to the disappointment of non-Oriental Canon users. I considered the K-01, but using a Q-7 convinced me i would be unhappy with that arrangement. There has been a lot of discussion in 'mirrorless' section here about the "failure" of the K-01. https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/138-pentax-k-01/399746-k-01-why-did-not-suceed.html https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/147-pentax-mirrorless-cameras/408705-ric...visit-k01.html Various reasons have been proposed - I remain convinced that lack of an EVF was a major shortcoming. Last edited by reh321; 03-07-2021 at 10:30 AM. Reason: K-01 discussions

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Ottawa -- Camera Trading Company closing early 2021	c.a.m	Photographic Industry and Professionals	8	02-25-2021 04:43 PM
"There are two new DSLR bodies to be released in 2021." according to nikonrumors	mee	Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands	20	11-26-2020 10:35 AM
Pentax medium format 2021	grantsarichev	Pentax Medium Format	16	10-20-2020 08:21 AM
planning ahead, country music festival and an airshow Topeka KS late June 2021	aslyfox	Travel, Events, and Groups	2	09-29-2020 11:59 AM
Nature Going, Going, Going, Gone	Kerrowdown	Post Your Photos!	10	07-25-2018 01:32 PM

03-07-2021, 06:42 AM	#181
reh321 Pentaxian Join Date: Nov 2014 Location: South Bend, IN, USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 23,177	Originally posted by Pål Jensen That would be a very short sighted approach for what in effect will be brand new MF system. You need a new lens series for the shorter flange distance. The old mechanical protocols will be completely pointless for a new system. And since there will be no older lenses that could be used without a adapter anyway there's little sense of using the old mount. My point is they do not need a shorter flange distance. Flange distance is not chained to format like framing and perspective are chained together for prime lenses. They can use a smaller flange distance, thereby gaining a smaller body and often larger lenses. The point to using the same flange distance by Pentax is that right now there is a limit to their ability to develop new lenses, and they seem to be at that limit already. Looking at Pentax's development of K-mount lenses over the last few years, developing even more lenses would be a problem, and I don't see any benefit of requiring that purchasers use an adapter with every lens. You continue to make your point over and over again, but it really is immaterial. I have made my point, and will stick to it. Last edited by reh321; 03-07-2021 at 07:04 AM.

03-07-2021, 07:20 AM	#182
Pål Jensen Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Norway Photos: Albums Posts: 4,371	Originally posted by reh321 My point is they do not need a shorter flange distance.. Isn't that the argument for mirrorless? Smaller size. Smaller flange distance that can yield smaller wide angle lenses. The bump of the prism isn't going to make or break it size wise. Just as well stick to DSLR if are going to keep the mount and flange distance.

03-07-2021, 08:39 AM - 1 Like	#184
ThorSanchez Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2012 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,806	Originally posted by reh321 MILC does not require a new mount. It simply allows a new mount, because a shorter flange distance allows the camera to be even smaller. Pentax could use a different mount if they went MILC, but they could always use the same mount if they chose - they would simply have slightly larger cameras {and smaller lenses for certain focal lengths}. It would be their choice which way to go. While you are technically correct, a mirrorless system could use a existing DSLR mount, the experience of the real world is that no one thinks this is a good idea. As far as I know the K-01 is the only mirrorless camera produced with a DSLR mount and flange distance, and it was short-lived and commercially unsuccessful. I would think that if this was a good idea someone, somewhere in the last decade+ would have made a successful mirrorless camera with a DSLR mount. There are cases where all the companies in a field were completely wrong about a basic technology for years, but the simplest explanation here is that no camera company sees the business case or advantages of mirrorless with a permanent adapter.

03-07-2021, 09:52 AM	#185
texandrews Moderator Join Date: Apr 2014 Location: Baltimore Photos: Albums Posts: 3,390	Originally posted by Pål Jensen Isn't that the argument for mirrorless? Smaller size. Originally that seemed to be the main argument, and it still is one. But MILC zealots quickly found out that the lenses didn't get smaller, and so much of the size argument became irrelevant. And in fact we know that there is such a thing as too small. MILC cameras have some other advantages, though, that especially seem to help with video, and a good EVF can very much aid in low light (although one that's not so great is a problem). So here I agree that Pentax could do a MILC camera w/o changing the mount at all----and they could trim a little size off the camera if they wished, just not depth, and possibly some weight.

03-07-2021, 10:08 AM	#186
lytrytyr Pentaxian Join Date: Nov 2011 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 4,310	Originally posted by ThorSanchez While you are technically correct, a mirrorless system could use a existing DSLR mount, the experience of the real world is that no one thinks this is a good idea. Shareholders don't think it's a good idea, but customers having to buy new lenses for adapterless convenience may well beg to differ!

03-07-2021, 10:14 AM	#187
Kunzite Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Romania Posts: 15,132	Originally posted by lytrytyr Shareholders don't think it's a good idea, but customers having to buy new lenses for adapterless convenience may well beg to differ! The customers might actually prefer simpler, better and less expensive wide angle lenses. Once the reason for that long register distance disappears, so should the long register distance. OTOH, the next 645 might still be a DSLR, or maybe a hybrid.

03-07-2021, 10:18 AM	#188
reh321 Pentaxian Join Date: Nov 2014 Location: South Bend, IN, USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 23,177	Originally posted by Pål Jensen Isn't that the argument for mirrorless? Smaller size. Smaller flange distance that can yield smaller wide angle lenses. Size is a strawman. Yes, wide-angle lenses can be made smaller, but telephoto lenses are longer. The real advantages are in mechanical simplicity and in what can be added to the {electronic} viewfinder. Pentax seems to be adding to the viewfinder.

03-07-2021, 10:29 AM	#190
Kunzite Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Romania Posts: 15,132	Originally posted by reh321 There has been a lot of discussion in 'mirrorless' section here about the "failure" of the K-01. Ricoh should revisit K01 - PentaxForums.com Various reasons have been proposed - I remain convinced that lack of an EVF was a major shortcoming. The K-01 was lacking an EVF in a time where most mirrorless were lacking an EVF.

03-07-2021, 10:35 AM	#191
reh321 Pentaxian Join Date: Nov 2014 Location: South Bend, IN, USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 23,177	Originally posted by Kunzite The K-01 was lacking an EVF in a time where most mirrorless were lacking an EVF. and MILC's in general did not succeed. Sony's first success was the A6000, which came about the time I joined here, and it did have an EVF, for example. Canon's EOS-M2 was an Orient-only model - they started seeing general success only after they added an EVF to later M-line models.

03-07-2021, 10:37 AM	#192
MMVIII Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: EU Posts: 1,121	Originally posted by texandrews Originally that seemed to be the main argument, and it still is one. But MILC zealots quickly found out that the lenses didn't get smaller, and so much of the size argument became irrelevant. And in fact we know that there is such a thing as too small. MILC cameras have some other advantages, though, that especially seem to help with video, and a good EVF can very much aid in low light (although one that's not so great is a problem). So here I agree that Pentax could do a MILC camera w/o changing the mount at all----and they could trim a little size off the camera if they wished, just not depth, and possibly some weight. Well, who would be waiting for a Pentax branded MF or FF video camera?

03-07-2021, 12:09 PM - 1 Like	#193
angerdan Pentaxian Join Date: Feb 2015 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,639	Originally posted by reh321 There has been a lot of discussion in 'mirrorless' section here about the "failure" of the K-01. K-01 - why did it not suceed? - PentaxForums.com Ricoh should revisit K01 - PentaxForums.com Good word. @Admin: Since the discussion is far away from the thread title and CP+ is over, should there be a rest/close?

03-07-2021, 01:09 PM	#194
house Pentaxian Join Date: May 2015 Photos: Albums Posts: 3,306	Originally posted by lemono DFA21 have some minor problems, but I can not get more details about "problems", although I repeated inquiries.The confidentiality of dfa21 is much higher than I expected. Pentax used to be pretty a pretty tight ship. Recently it seems, perhaps I'm wrong, that they leak/communicate a little bit more. Perhaps this is a necessity when products are relatively far apart, just to let people know they are working away. I'd love to know about the DFA21 problems. It would reveal something about their ambitions with the lens.

03-07-2021, 01:25 PM - 1 Like	#195
Pål Jensen Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Norway Photos: Albums Posts: 4,371	Originally posted by house Pentax used to be pretty a pretty tight ship. Recently it seems, perhaps I'm wrong, that they leak/communicate a little bit more. Perhaps this is a necessity when products are relatively far apart, just to let people know they are working away. I'd love to know about the DFA21 problems. It would reveal something about their ambitions with the lens. Actually, I think they are now tighter than ever....