Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
07-13-2012, 10:40 PM   #3091
Pentaxian
mecrox's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Oxford, UK
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,914
QuoteOriginally posted by Ben_Edict Quote
Keeping the well-established K-mount (in whatever re-incarnation) is not a technical decision. It is not about the technical limits of registration distances or lens design. It is a simple question of survival for Pentax.

If Pentax abolishes the K-mount the company will loose a large part of what is the most valuable assett to any company: its wealth of loyal long-term customers.

There are some basic rules in marketing which you need to consider, if you want to be a successful competitor on the market. And the single most important one is, to keep your existing customers happy! The reason is simple: making business with existing customers is four times cheaper, than winning new customers. So, if they switch the mount, Pentax would need to invest four times as much money into marketing and sales over their current investment - and that would be only the minimum to keep the poor status quo of the company. Does that sound being a vital option for a company that has been promising a simple AF tele converter for the last 6 years but was not able to deliver?

Leaving behind the K-mount is economical suicide, whatever technical reasons might be lurking in the dark... Just remember Betavision or the Picture Disc! Oh, you don't remember - well, that were fantastic technologies with shining technical advancements and advantages - just, that the majority of buyers did not want it.

Ben
I don't have the impression it's a question of keeping the K-mount but whether the K-mount is enough. The K-mount is a highly successful mount for traditional DSLRs and changing it without a compelling reason would be crazy. But if the market moves away from traditional DSLRs then where does that leave the K-mount? Of course there will always be some folks who need or want a bigger camera with all the trimmings and for them the K-mount may continue to prove an excellent choice. But supposing there are no longer enough of them to return the big numbers behind growth and profitability? Pentax may well never abandon the K-mount but there may come a time when they can't afford not to develop a new mount for a new generation of camera-buyers. By that stage the K-mount may be for high-end customers only or gradually fade away. Who knows.

The focus has to remain on the customer. And since developing and selling any item of consumer electronics is an expensive business for a world-wide brand, you need to ensure you are reaching plenty of customers with your product. Setting the K-mount in stone when in reality you are trying to sell to a shifting target doesn't sound very wise to me. Pentax need to keep their options open. It may never happen but it would be pretty silly to be completely unprepared it if did happen.


Last edited by mecrox; 07-13-2012 at 10:45 PM.
07-14-2012, 04:22 AM   #3092
Senior Member




Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Nottingham
Posts: 172
QuoteOriginally posted by mecrox Quote
I don't have the impression it's a question of keeping the K-mount but whether the K-mount is enough.
Pentax already have a smaller mount, the Q. (They also have a larger mount, but I don't think that's where you're going with this.) The first Q-mount camera has a small sensor, but I'd be astonished if the mount couldn't support a larger one. For people who care more about small size than image quality, the Q-mount is well-placed. If the market shift you talk about happens in future, Pentax can put more resources into the Q-mount range.

(Maybe you think Pentax got it wrong with the Q, but if so, there's no reason to think they get it right if they tried yet again.)
07-14-2012, 06:34 AM   #3093
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Romania
Posts: 8,428
mecrox, lots of suppositions in your post.
You're asking if the K-mount "is enough". Is the Nikon F-mount enough? They're similar in what they can do; but I don't see Nikon (nor Canon) panicking. OTOH, how are the MILC makers doing? Olympus is the best example on how the MILC is not the miraculous solution.
You're talking about the lack of DSLR customers, while the DSLR market is increasing.
And in the end you're saying that Pentax should be "prepared" for something that "may never happen" (i.e. your suppositions), but isn't it much better to be prepared for things that will happen?
07-14-2012, 07:11 AM   #3094
Pentaxian
Mistral75's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Paris
Posts: 2,781
QuoteOriginally posted by fuent104 Quote
(...)

I understand that it is technically more difficult to make a quality wide lens for aps-c. That is why I am lamenting. And I never said the old 28mm lenses were the best thing in the world, I simply said I wish there was something available that is analogous for aps-c. Something that would do a similar job to what my M28 2.8 does. As far as I am aware, there is no such lens for under $250. If there is, I would be very glad to hear about it.
It is not the sensor size per see. It's the conjunction of the sensor size and the flange to sensor distance (register).

APS-C reflex cameras use 24x36 mounts with a 24x36 register around 45mm, thus making it difficult to design cheap wide angle lenses.

If their register were around 30mm it would be much easier to design such lenses: an APS-C 18mm f/2.8 with a 30mm register mount would cost even less than a 24x36 28mm f/2,8 with a 45mm register mount.

Think of the Samsung 20mm f/2.8 for NX for instance (NX mount's register is 25.5mm). Its European price corresponds to US$ 249.


Last edited by Mistral75; 07-14-2012 at 07:22 AM.
07-14-2012, 07:14 AM   #3095
Pentaxian
mecrox's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Oxford, UK
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,914
QuoteOriginally posted by Kunzite Quote
mecrox, lots of suppositions in your post.
You're asking if the K-mount "is enough". Is the Nikon F-mount enough? They're similar in what they can do; but I don't see Nikon (nor Canon) panicking. OTOH, how are the MILC makers doing? Olympus is the best example on how the MILC is not the miraculous solution.
You're talking about the lack of DSLR customers, while the DSLR market is increasing.
And in the end you're saying that Pentax should be "prepared" for something that "may never happen" (i.e. your suppositions), but isn't it much better to be prepared for things that will happen?
Lol, "isn't it much better to be prepared for things that will happen?" is what the French said when they built the Maginot Line. But I'm not being drawn into an argument. I guess the surprise is that some folks are surprised that not everyone sees the K-mount - or any other mount - in exactly the same way.
07-14-2012, 08:20 AM   #3096
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Romania
Posts: 8,428
However, the K-mount is not a Maginot line - and I won't be convinced by such analogies. The discussion was about wild suppositions vs. things that are actually happening, not about static defences in WW2.
By the way, the Maginot line was successful in forcing the Germans to attack through Belgium

I'm in no way surprised many people likes MILCs; I do not understand, though, why they believe all the world should follow. IMO, both can happily coexist; and Pentax can continue with its K-mount, for the foreseeable future.
I'm surprised - looking at your sig - how you spent so much on a system that should wither and die
07-14-2012, 09:15 AM   #3097
Site Supporter




Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,892
QuoteOriginally posted by Mistral75 Quote
If their register were around 30mm it would be much easier to design such lenses: an APS-C 18mm f/2.8 with a 30mm register mount would cost even less than a 24x36 28mm f/2,8 with a 45mm register mount.
It would be difficult to fit an APS-C mirror in a 30mm register distance.
07-14-2012, 09:27 AM   #3098
Pentaxian
Mistral75's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Paris
Posts: 2,781
QuoteOriginally posted by ElJamoquio Quote
It would be difficult to fit an APS-C mirror in a 30mm register distance.
Not more difficult than to fit a 24x36 mirror in a 45mm register distance.

APS-C is roughly 16x24mm and 4530 = 2416 = 3624 = 1.5 .

Remember that Pentax mount's register distance is 45.46mm, Canon EF's (the shortest of all 24x36 DSLR mounts) is 44mm and Alpa's (the shortest of all 24x36 SLR mounts) is 37.8mm.

07-14-2012, 10:11 AM   #3099
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Romania
Posts: 8,428
As I've said several times, you can't scale down everything. Is the shutter thinner? How about the lens protruding part, is it shorter? And the tolerances, smaller?
By the way, what's the exact size of let's say the K-5's mirror? (did anyone cared to measure it?) How about the Apla's? Without knowing, your calculations are just guessing. Or at least, visually check Falk's image:
Falk Lumo: Pentax K-5 Preview
Go on, rotate that mirror 45 degrees - how much space will be left? Don't forget, the lens protrudes inside the mount.
07-14-2012, 11:27 AM   #3100
Pentaxian
RonHendriks1966's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2009
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,557
QuoteOriginally posted by Mistral75 Quote
Not more difficult than to fit a 24x36 mirror in a 45mm register distance.

APS-C is roughly 16x24mm and 4530 = 2416 = 3624 = 1.5 .

Remember that Pentax mount's register distance is 45.46mm, Canon EF's (the shortest of all 24x36 DSLR mounts) is 44mm and Alpa's (the shortest of all 24x36 SLR mounts) is 37.8mm.
what about a different aproach to that mirror. Sliding doors, is that an option to win space?


You need a different camera design to make room for the sliding mirror.
07-14-2012, 11:37 AM   #3101
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Romania
Posts: 8,428
QuoteOriginally posted by RonHendriks1966 Quote
what about a different aproach to that mirror. Sliding doors, is that an option to win space?
I'd say it's an option to add space (bulk). I can't think of a sensible camera design which could accommodate such a mechanism - there's always something important in the way.
By the way, there's not one mirror but two: primary (who diverts some light to the viewfinder) and secondary (directing the rest to the AF sensors).
07-14-2012, 12:23 PM   #3102
Pentaxian
RonHendriks1966's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2009
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,557
QuoteOriginally posted by Kunzite Quote
I'd say it's an option to add space (bulk). I can't think of a sensible camera design which could accommodate such a mechanism - there's always something important in the way.
By the way, there's not one mirror but two: primary (who diverts some light to the viewfinder) and secondary (directing the rest to the AF sensors).
Well just hire a famous designer when you want something groundbraking
07-14-2012, 12:33 PM   #3103
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Romania
Posts: 8,428
Enter the jackhammer-shaped cameras! (well, that was the first truly groundbreaking thing I could think off...)
07-14-2012, 12:51 PM   #3104
Site Supporter
markku55's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Hanko, Finland
Posts: 195
QuoteOriginally posted by richard balonglong Quote
I agree with that too!
In my field in photography and my style of photographing my subjects, a rugged full-weather-sealed full-frame Pentax dslr with big bright viewfinder and a quality sensor is what I need, and of course with matching quality wr zoom/prime lenses...
Could it be even with out video and display?
07-14-2012, 01:06 PM   #3105
Site Supporter
markku55's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Hanko, Finland
Posts: 195
QuoteOriginally posted by Mistral75 Quote
It is not the sensor size per see. It's the conjunction of the sensor size and the flange to sensor distance (register).

APS-C reflex cameras use 24x36 mounts with a 24x36 register around 45mm, thus making it difficult to design cheap wide angle lenses.

If their register were around 30mm it would be much easier to design such lenses: an APS-C 18mm f/2.8 with a 30mm register mount would cost even less than a 24x36 28mm f/2,8 with a 45mm register mount.

Think of the Samsung 20mm f/2.8 for NX for instance (NX mount's register is 25.5mm). Its European price corresponds to US$ 249.
Why are nearly all m4/3 lenses so so dam dark and expencive?
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
aps-c, bodies, body, dslr, full-frame, lenses, lineup, pentax, system, users
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Full frame pentax cem.kumuk Pentax DSLR Discussion 11 11-12-2010 03:13 PM
Pentax and Full Frame... Shutter-bug Photographic Technique 60 11-03-2010 10:03 AM
Pentax A 50/1.2 on Full Frame aegisphan Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 23 10-28-2010 04:16 PM
News Regarding Advertising on PentaxForums.com: An Official Statement Adam Site Suggestions and Help 5 03-24-2010 07:37 PM
Official: New DSLR Body is Coming; Full Frame Model is Under Planning! RiceHigh Pentax News and Rumors 78 08-04-2008 06:18 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:56 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top