[jeffkrol]

Ah, the other way around, dude. I hear Samsung wasn't too crazy about the k mount....

Samsung really doesn't need (nor probably wants) the "backward compatibility" of the KAF mount. The K part is completely free, the A and F parts are probably still protected property. Manual aperture linkage is a liability in general. An electronic aperature control and the elimination of "A" contacts are not a plus to Pentax (currently) but would favor Samsung who would probably prefer to sell all new lenses. I'm sure this causes some division of purpose. Thus the talk from Samsung.
Samsung could use the K mount (I think they will) with all new AF and AP coupling, crippling a lot of lenses but there new micro camera will need an adapter anyways because of the short registration distance.
Then again a larger hole doesn't hurt. Maybe they can use a revamped 645 mount..

I heard that before the actual design project of the NX was initiated, Samsung decided not to go with the K mount. I guess this was a necessity considering the structural implication in terms of catering the distance to the sensor and so forth. This apparently took Hoya by surprise, not to mention other manufacturers. Many in the industry, like some of your opinions on other posts, thought that this was not such a good idea. Why go without a line of lenses with such a fine reputation? Why taking risks developing their own line of lenses? They think they have the know-how to produce fine lenses. To me, manufacturing "fine" lenses(whatever the definition of that is) is not that difficult, but to design a line of lenses that match the characteristics not apparent by the specs is very difficult. Some manufactures still have not got it. I guess we will see how this turns out.

I don't know how old you are, but in the late 50's, Ford introduced the Edsel to TREMENDOUS marketing buzz. The car failed so dismally that a major marketing failure is now called "an edsel". I hope that Pentax hasn't created an edsel, and not being a marketing wonk, I have no idea on how to cash in on the buzz. But I will say that I am happy about the buzz. All I can say is that Whamo toys changed the name of their "Pluto Platter" to "Frisbee" also in 1957.

NaCl(lets hope the K7 (K-7?) emulates the Frisbee and not the Edsel)H2O

I still remember the giddy excitement when model T came out

[falconeye]

This apparently took Hoya by surprise

I still don't get it.

Of course, one could use the K-mount even for the shorter registration distance. But this doesn't make sense really (except for available tooling). K-mount lenses don't work on NX w/o adapter whatever be its mount.

So, all we talk about is an NX-Kmount adapter. Not less, not more.

And if the NX has a decent enough spec, i.e., if signals and diameters are 1:1 enough, this shouldn't be a problem to do for Samsung or Pentax.

So, how can there be any irritations between the two companies?

Samsung kept Hoya in the dark during the initial stages of design project, and apparently Hoya found out about this not directly from Samsung. And, this Canon business....

[RBellavance]

And, this Canon business....

Ok, I'll bite: what Canon business ?

I once saw a thread in one of the Japanese Blogs called 2Ch about it. This dude got crucified for it(as some do here), and I didn't think anything of it, but then I again read somewhere about Canon lenses in regards to NX. I think someone on this forum also said that somewhere. I seriously doubt it, but the relations between Japanese and Korean corp can be tenuous at best considering the past history between these two cultures.

[Philippos]

Most likely, Sigma will develop lenses for the NX.

[lol101]

I once saw a thread in one of the Japanese Blogs called 2Ch about it. This dude got crucified for it(as some do here), and I didn't think anything of it, but then I again read somewhere about Canon lenses in regards to NX. I think someone on this forum also said that somewhere. I seriously doubt it, but the relations between Japanese and Korean corp can be tenuous at best considering the past history between these two cultures.

I think all this Canon rumor stemmed from the fact that the NX mount looks like a Canon one with the lock in the same position and looking similar.

The only thing is that a Canon EF mount wouldn't make any more sense on the NX than a K one because no actual Canon lens would have the correct registration distance either.

[falconeye]

I hear this has something to do with K mount and their NX and things of that nature.

Samsung kept Hoya in the dark during the initial stages of design project, and apparently Hoya found out about this not directly from Samsung. And, this Canon business....

Nubi, I am still refering to the quote above, i.e., that the irritations are K mount related. Which I don't get.

Of course, beyond this, there can be plenty of reasons for irritation

Nubi, I am still refering to the quote above, i.e., that the irritations are K mount related. Which I don't get.

Of course, beyond this, there can be plenty of reasons for irritation

I understand. I can see what went wrong here. What I meant was that Hoya, when found out about NX, naturally expected, you know, K mount to be it. But it wasn't. From technical standpoint, much of which I don't understand too well, it is not a big deal. But what was thought to be a fairly cordial working relationship was not all that warm and cozy afterall. Maybe Hoya, rightfully so or not, expected more exclusivity. I will openly admit, this is ALL speculation in my part, but I did hear that the sticking point was in relation to the mount. Perhaps it was not so much about the mount, but what was perceived to be cordial business practices, depending on which side one is on.

Sorry for confusion.

Maybe I am still not getting it though.

[falconeye]

that Hoya, when found out about NX, naturally expected, you know, K mount to be it.

Ok, from the bits you heard and mentioned here, it sounds like this (just trying to make it logically sound):

Hoya feels cheated that Samsung ventured into a non SLR (read: non K mount) APS-C camera w/o telling Hoya about it.

Hoya has a point here, of course. However, what stupefies me is that this caught Hoya management by surprise. We here at pentaxforums knew about this well before from an intervew given by a Samsung executive.

Maybe, Hoya should read pentaxforums

Ok, from the bits you heard and mentioned here, it sounds like this (just trying to make it logically sound):

Hoya feels cheated that Samsung ventured into a non SLR (read: non K mount) APS-C camera w/o telling Hoya about it.

Hoya has a point here, of course. However, what stupefies me is that this caught Hoya management by surprise. We here at pentaxforums knew about this well before from an intervew given by a Samsung executive.

Maybe, Hoya should read pentaxforums

Yep, just like you put it. It's my French.

I also get it now.

I think the timing of these events probably needed to be clarified. When you and I and everybody else heard about the Samsung interview was not when Hoya found out. It may have been years ago. This had to be spilled fairly early phase of the design project, I am sure.

[Mark D]

What I don't get is why we have to wait for a Pentax mount or Pentax badged version of the excellent 11-16 f2.8 Tokina zoom. You would think Hoya would want a more coordinated approach for their companies.
Pentax need more FAST lenses..... Whats with all this f4 stuff?

What I don't get is why we have to wait for a Pentax mount or Pentax badged version of the excellent 11-16 f2.8 Tokina zoom. You would think Hoya would want a more coordinated approach for their companies.
Pentax need more FAST lenses..... Whats with all this f4 stuff?

Have you looked at the line-up lately?