[Anvh]

Well you have a few problems in your search.

- Pentax auto 110 is smaller filmsize, only 4/3th sensor of Olympus would fit with a hight of 13mm.
- Pentax auto 110 lenses don't go that far into the mount then Leica-M lenses do. Giving more room for a mirror.

So My position is that M-mount and any sensor aps-c or bigger won't work with an oldschool mirror.

- I know that's why i need to see how much room there is for improvement, we are talking about mm's here
- So you can't use most lenses then... but i never claimed it work with all...

[monochrome]

Well, Olympus have stated they are not dropping the 4/3 line. Don't be offended, but I pay more attention to them than to a poster on a Pentax forum.

I think Eddie means Olympus has to survive as a company in order to keep making anything, much less cameras. IOW, they have to avoid bankruptcy liquidation.

[lammie200]

Before everyone is thinking that Ricoh is rich:

Ricoh - RICOY - Fortune Global 500 Top Companies

I think the global economy is taking hard on everyone (except oilcompany's) and Pentax has to be profatable.

Righto!

And you (not you personally) think that they are (or should be) contemplating a new mount system, or even a FF body for that matter? They don't even have an EVF to go with their mirrorless strategy, whatever that is.

It is going to be a slow uphill struggle. We have seen two bodies so far. The K-01 doesn't appear to be a big seller. The K-30 might help start the climb, but it is too early to say. And if it does, it will only be taking baby steps.

[RonHendriks1966]

Righto!

And you (not you personally) think that they are (or should be) contemplating a new mount system, or even a FF body for that matter? They don't even have an EVF to go with their mirrorless strategy, whatever that is.

It is going to be a slow uphill struggle. We have seen two bodies so far. The K-01 doesn't appear to be a big seller. The K-30 might help start the climb, but it is too early to say. And if it does, it will only be taking baby steps.

I don't see any money for a new mount experiment.

I do see a place for a Full Frame camera to boost the brand into the serieous camerabrand section.

[lammie200]

I do see a place for a Full Frame camera to boost the brand into the serieous camerabrand section.

I agree. But I think first we will see a 24mp K-5 replacement for the semi-serious. I am thinking that the next interesting thing to see is if they will go FF or develop their MILC strategy further. Maybe both FF and MILC, but they are already in the MILC game. I wonder if their MILC strategy is to morph into dSLR-type products. (Similar to Sony, I guess.) If so, they need that EVF.

[Kunzite]

Like i said i believe 10 times already i said Pentax should get a new mount for APS-C IF they don't make a FF camera but want to compete with nikon and canon FF with the APS-C.

And no matter how many times you will say it, it's still a bad idea. And Pentax has better things to do than pursue bad ideas.
I tried to explain to you why it can't possibly work, why it could hurt them badly yet bring no advantage - but you're so fixating on your bad idea any attempt of reasoning with you is futile. Good bye.

[Anvh]

Kunzite take a look at yourself will you.

You're claiming it's the end of the world and that it will happen and must be stop at any cost while i only give it as an option "if" they decide to do something.
Really, you're barking at the wrong tree here getting mad about a speculation, option an idea, how silly is that?

What i'm discussing is an option what pentax could do if they want to use APS-C to compete with FF, nothing more nothing less.
I'm pretty sure myself Pentax won't do it but it doesn't mean we can't speculate about it.

So really what are you so mad about?

Anyway there is an advantage in using a mount with smaller register and larger diameter, i already explained why but you haven't explained why not.
I asked you to explain it but you only got mad at me so don't come to me that i can't be reasoned with...
So do your best why are there no advantage in a mount with a smaller register and larger diameter forget about marketing, market share, legacy lenses just a technical reason why it isn't better.

[ElJamoquio]

Anyway there is an advantage in using a mount with smaller register and larger diameter, i already explained why but you haven't explained why not.

Huh? 50 1.2 and 85 1.4 are already straightforward. The mount has a larger diameter than Nikon, and I don't see Nikon hurting for fast glass.

The downside to making registers smaller and larger is larger weight (larger diameter tube), larger weight (lenses are longer, if you're carrying more than one of them, at least). Not enough mirror clearance. And of course...

...less than perfect backwards compatibility. Right now Pentax's biggest asset is the rabid Pentax fans, and they're already a little ticked with the Hoya years and now Pentax pricing. Let's not kill the brand by pushing all the existing users to Nikon.

[Chex]

Anyway there is an advantage in using a mount with smaller register and larger diameter, i already explained why but you haven't explained why not.
I asked you to explain it but you only got mad at me so don't come to me that i can't be reasoned with...

As MANY have stated.. changing their mount at this point in time would be disastrous.. forcing people to a new mount would only push them to Canikon systems (Canon for those who want to easily use their Pentax glass on them, Nikon for those who are fine with a mount change to upgrade). Not many people would want to want to have to buy a Pentax Camera, then buy a Pentax PK adapter to use PENTAX glass..

IN THEORY your shorter registration distance via new mount sounds great and probably would look good on paper... Maybe this is something they should look at marketing via Ricoh.. but Pentax users have stuck steadfast with Pentax because of their backwards compatibility... how many percent of Canon shooters do you think have an FD to EOS mount, I bet it's under 10%... I think Pentax has learned to not rock that boat... especially when your trying to GAIN market-share, not alienate your loyal following.

I personally think most will end up in the same boat as myself.. sick of waiting for an upgrade path and simply jump ship.. But I was also semi-forced into replacing my K-5, so I opted for the upgrade.. Let the VISA bleed!

[ElJamoquio]

Personally I want to wait until the mount is actually prohibiting some glass before I say the mount is stopping us. Right now there isn't any Pentax glass where the glass path is up against the limits of the mount IMO. Where's our 85 1.4? Where's our 50 1.2? 35 1.4?

We're at least 1/3 stop and a lot of the time more than a stop away from the mount limits.

[pingflood]

IN THEORY your shorter registration distance via new mount sounds great and probably would look good on paper... Maybe this is something they should look at marketing via Ricoh.. but Pentax users have stuck steadfast with Pentax because of their backwards compatibility... how many percent of Canon shooters do you think have an FD to EOS mount, I bet it's under 10%... I think Pentax has learned to not rock that boat... especially when your trying to GAIN market-share, not alienate your loyal following.

You are making some curious assumptions and a poor comparison here. Canon's EF mount has a longer registration distance than the FD one, making an adapter require corrective optics and introducing a crop factor.

Tell me this, if Pentax sold a camera, adapter included and, hell, even MOUNTED for you, offering the same K mount functionality as a K5, but giving you the option to remove the adapter and mount smaller lenses in a new mount, how is that possibly a bad thing?

[Kunzite]

But how is that possibly a good thing?

Below I was assumed it's about a MILC, but still these are valid points for a DSLR.

- the mere presence of an adapter. It means added bulk and complexity, more than if integrating the same technologies into the body; and the shape of the camera is changed not in the best way.
- adapters aren't for free. Having to pay to get your lens working is a limitation.
- perfect compatibility via an adapter is not a given (yet you suppose it is). The Sony LA-EA2, for example, doesn't support teleconverters and of course, image stabilization is lost (missing on the NEX). Yes, the bodies can also introduce limitations an adapter can't "fix".
- losing two way compatibility: you can use your old lenses with the new body with this adapter, but you cannot use new lenses with your old cameras.

I'm with ElJamoquio, we don't even have lenses as fast as the mount allows.

[twitch]

What problem are we trying to even solve? Is it worth solving? At what cost? Is there another way to solve it?

Solving a lack of equiv fast lenses for APS-C by introducing a new mount so a whole new set of very fast APS-C only lenses can be built is, IMHO, completely and utterly insane. There is a far easier way to solve it, and it <hint> <hint> involves changing the size of the sensor.

[Chex]

What problem are we trying to even solve? Is it worth solving? At what cost? Is there another way to solve it?

Solving a lack of equiv fast lenses for APS-C by introducing a new mount so a whole new set of very fast APS-C only lenses can be built is, IMHO, completely and utterly insane. There is a far easier way to solve it, and it <hint> <hint> involves changing the size of the sensor.

Well that would simply be the smarter, cost effective, crowd pleasing way of doing things.. BUT as it seems the Pentax FF has been a perpetual stillborn effort.. I wonder if they have people like Anvh working in their midst...

[unfocused]

Right now there isn't any Pentax glass where the glass path is up against the limits of the mount IMO. Where's our 85 1.4? Where's our 50 1.2? 35 1.4? We're at least 1/3 stop and a lot of the time more than a stop away from the mount limits.

If I remember rightly, one of the excuses for switching from M42 to K-mount was to enlarge the throat for an f1.2 standard lens. But Yashica was already selling a 55/f1.2 in M42 for their TL Electro-X. Chinon also had one, possibly from the same source (Tomioka), so that argument didn't really wash. The K-mount's width would probably allow Pentax to go beyond f1.2, and it would be interesting to speculate how far. As far as the Canon 7's f0.95 'Dream'? Or the f1 Noctilux?

Question is, who really wants this speed of glass, and can they pay for it? Would the numbers justify it? For most people 85/f2 is plenty fast enough, and so is 35/f2. A 'refreshed' 50/1.2 would be nice though. And so would an 85/1.4... Hmmm, dammit ElJam, you're right!