Anvh:
I am annoying?
A. Do that little drawing exercise, then we'll talk. Seeing with your own eyes is better than some number you'll quickly dismiss/ignore, anyway.
B. How do you know they don't plan to make one, ever? Even if they would currently have no such plans, how would they know that in few years the market conditions would change? Then, weakened by the just-because mount change, also without being able to adapt... it wouldn't be pretty.
You're very inconsistent, one of the reasons
you are terribly annoying.
Decide on a size, FFS!
I'm sure your 27mm DSLR won't possibly work, not with decent results - but I won't stop you trying. Just... try a little harder than your usual, please; don't completely waste our time.
By the way, why are you assuming the mirror's length is sqrt(2*frame_height^2)?
Now you're showing a different technology (while claiming it's the same) and which apparently is based on liquid crystals and can't work as a switchable mirror, but as an opaque glass. It does seem to switch quite fast for a window, but a SLR mirror can "switch" in less than 50ms, and I'm
very generous here.
pingflood: I thought Anvh was talking about an OM-G like camera as a pro FF competitor, as that's the only way to have a significant reduction in registration distance but it seems I was wrong; it's in fact a camera like the E-5 just with fewer lenses
I'm using Olympus as an example because they tried to go "pro" with 4/3, and they aren't with their best m4/3. If they couldn't/can't do it, why would Pentax?
You'll have to get used with me calling it the OM-G. Sorry
About the M mount, it seems we agree; there is a market but nowhere near big enough for Pentax. Not to go as far as doing something as stupid as adopting the M mount (forgetting that's technically impossible with a SLR)