[Anvh]

No, no, no. Don't ask "why not use X", explain why they should use X. But first, explain why the mount should be changed.

I already explained that in previous comments and you had nothing against that actually, and i'm not going to repeat myself for once.

As for why use the M mount and not a completely new mount, i already explain that as well.
You're the one constantly saying it's technically not posiable to put any contacts on the M mount, i'm simply asking why you think that?

[Blue]

Look at Sony, I happily use E, PK, M and M42 all on the same body. The latter three requiring simple adapters.

How fast is af with those adapters?

[Anvh]

- a strong, compelling argument for adapting a rangefinder mount and "hacking" it to support most basic modern features, instead of creating a modern mount.

You're sugesting here a completely new mount is better then an modified one.
An modified M mount is still an M mount, so technically speaking it's not new, just updated/modified.

Now instead of going on about these minute details, can we go back to the topic please...

[Anvh]

How fast is af with those adapters?

AF with m42 and M mount???
Please tell me how fast the AF is on those...

[Kunzite]

You explained nothing.

I never claimed it's technically not possible, not even once; I'm just asking why are you so sure it is possible (and that it's a better idea than a new mount), in the context of making a fully K-mount compatible adapter possible.
But before thinking how to change the mount, the question "why to change the mount" needs to be answered. Guess what, it still isn't.

There are reasons why a new mount would be technically better, e.g. electronic contacts could surely be put inside (is that possible with Leica M?), it can have the registration distance and diameter Pentax thinks it's better and so on. Legacy support means constraints, and in this case there is no

That's some update, keeping only the bayonet itself - while getting rid of the rangefinder-related mechanisms and adding electronic contacts.

And, if you want us to get back on topic, answer this: how would the adoption of a heavily modification of the Leica M mount + fully K-mount compatible adapter (instead of readily available K-mount) help Pentax in getting that FF out faster?

[Anvh]

What did i not explain then?

Yes you did, you said there was not enough room for the contacts so that it technically was not posiable.
About the question how i can be sure, well i ain't 100% sure, how can I, how can you?
But i pointed out that many mounts with the same design also started out without contacts and those are added over time, including for example the K mount. That's why i think it won't be much of a problem, since it's already been done before.
(I've already said this before and you didn't go into that then...)

Why do the contacts need to be inside the mount?
About a new mount, i already explained my views earlier. What you said does not change that.

Yes and? You're still building on top of an excisting product so it can not be a new product. Sure it's a big change but i never said it wasn't.

I think you know perfectly well what i meant with that.

[Kunzite]

Let's start with the necessity to change the mount. There are two kinds of reasons to do that, technical and business; you're offering neither.
In the first case, you would have to show how the K-mount is technically inadequate, and be aware that I'd apply the same logic to the F-mount, since they're quite similar. Without that, we shouldn't even talk about "which mount" (no, few people desiring to use non-Pentax lenses is not a technical inadequacy of the K-mount).
The second case is even more interesting; with a DSLR market several times that of MILCs and with a higher average value, with both DSLR and MILC markets being highly competitive I'd like to see you explaining how a built-from-scratch system would be easier and more profitable than adding a DSLR to an already existing system (with a non-negligible user base). Good luck with that.

Are you talking about

I'm not saying it doesn't, I'm asking what makes you so sure it does. It would need room for several contacts, and in a place where it wouldn't interfere with legacy M-mount lenses (probably not inside).

?
Different from your interpretation.

Interesting enough, the power contacts are inside, for K-mount (and other mounts); maybe there is a problem with shorting them, or exposing them to dirt? I cannot simply accept the assumption that it would work, sorry.

And again, you are avoiding the difficult questions. How would the adoption of a heavily modification of the Leica M mount + fully K-mount compatible adapter (instead of the readily available K-mount) help Pentax in getting that FF out faster?

[Anvh]

Again... i've already explained all that already actually and like i said you said nothing about it in your respond to those comments.
If you've read over it than i'm sorry for you, i'm not going to repeat it again sepcially for you. It's easy enough to read back.

Yes that's the sentance preciesly.
You're clearly saying you're concerned about the room needed for the contacts in that sentance after that.
With your latest coments you're also talking about the contacts all the time, making it clear you think it won't work.

There is as far as i know; no power on those contacts till the point the camera read that the lens has powerzoom or in lens focusing.
So the camera is at that point so good as fully mounted meaning any change of shortening would be very minimal.
As for dirt... not a big deal if you ask me.

Again?
You only asked that question once you know so don't make the asumption i'm not asnwering your questions.
As for the firs time i didn't answer, i thought your question was hetorical.

Actually it's not a dificult question to answer, the amount of research and development that needs to go into that would be a lot so it won't help brining out a product faster. Just for the record i never said it would.
As you will notice with discusion, the matter of subject change over time, i was talking about this because others, including you, also were talking about it.
So why do i think an modified M mount might be nice, i've already explained that in previous comments.

[Ash]

OK, so we agree that nothing suggested so far will bring the FF camera closer to fruition. Forget about the new mount.
The FF camera *will* come out when development is complete and marketing have chipped in on how it will sell. Nothing we can do (so far) will change that. So we can go easy and just wait.

[Anvh]

You see that the 135 market is dominated by Nikon and Canon.
Sony tried with their DSLR, it was quite good from what i heard but it never got on, they are now trying with their SLT.
I wonder how that one is doing... somehow I think the 645 will be a more profitable market for Pentax then the 135 one.

[Kunzite]

Anvh, we could go on forever with no result. Re-read my posts if you wish, yours as well and others' and you can see neither you nor Clavius can make a strong argument for a mount change, the only thing shown being the assumption that many people would want to adapt all kind of lenses, specifically on a Pentax camera with an M mount. After so many posts and no progress, I think we can safely say it's pointless to continue.
If we all agree that a new (or heavily modified) mount would make things more difficult and would push the FF farther out, we can leave it there.

The FF camera *will* come out when development is complete and marketing have chipped in on how it will sell. Nothing we can do (so far) will change that. So we can go easy and just wait.

Yes, Pentax should be looking now at market data and discuss product positioning, the mount being decided long ago (1975, I would guess ).

[Clavius]

Anvh, we could go on forever with no result. Re-read my posts if you wish, yours as well and others' and you can see neither you nor Clavius can make a strong argument for a mount change, the only thing shown being the assumption that many people would want to adapt all kind of lenses, specifically on a Pentax camera with an M mount. After so many posts and no progress, I think we can safely say it's pointless to continue.
If we all agree that a new (or heavily modified) mount would make things more difficult and would push the FF farther out, we can leave it there.

Is Pentax FF the one and only true goal then? Shouldn't it be designed in a way that it would also hold up against the user's modern demands? Shouldn't the AF, flash, mount, etc all be at least looked at before marketing it? Wow, if the flash system is labelled as outdated because it wasn't updated in the last 6 years, then how does that logic work with the 38 year old mount and even older VF system?

Yes, Pentax should be looking now at market data and discuss product positioning, the mount being decided long ago (1975, I would guess).

I guess then that Pentax took the same conclusion as the 3 party lens manufacturers who are all dropping the K-mount support one by one. Because even Pentax themselves seem to have reluctant in updating their K lens lineup.

[lytrytyr]

the 3 party lens manufacturers who are all dropping the K-mount support one by one.

This is not true.
Schneider-Kreuznach, for example, is producing new lenses for the K-mount:

Photokina 2012: Novelties from Jos. Schneider Optische Werke GmbH

"DSLR: Two Xenons, a Makro-Symmar and a Super-Angulon lens for full frame single-lens reflex cameras
Macro lens Makro-Symmar 2,4/85
Wide-angle lens PC-TS Super-Angulon 4,5/28 HM Aspheric
Wide-angle lens Xenon 1,4/35
Universal lens Xenon 1,4/50

With these four newly recalculated lenses Schneider-Kreuznach meets ever increasing demands resulting from a continuous decrease in pixel size. They have been optimized for maximum performance for the latest sensor sizes and feature outstanding imaging performance.

All lenses are available with bayonet mounts for Canon EOS, Nikon-F, Sony Alpha and Pentax-K."

[Kunzite]

Is Pentax FF the one and only true goal then? Shouldn't it be designed in a way that it would also hold up against the user's modern demands? Shouldn't the AF, flash, mount, etc all be at least looked at before marketing it? Wow, if the flash system is labelled as outdated because it wasn't updated in the last 6 years, then how does that logic work with the 38 year old mount and even older VF system?

On this topic yes, it's the one and only true goal. Just read the title.
And the solution to the K-mount being 38 years old (which is not an issue, actually - unless you can prove it is; can you?), is to adopt a 59 years old mount? You don't know how to give up.

I guess then that Pentax took the same conclusion as the 3 party lens manufacturers who are all dropping the K-mount support one by one.

That's untrue, and FUD. Sorry for being blunt, but that's what it is. Major 3rd-party K-mount products were announced at Photokina, and there is no sign they were the last.
Having limited support, by the way, is better than having no support whatsoever because you started all over from scratch.

[Clavius]

And the solution to the K-mount being 38 years old (which is not an issue, actually - unless you can prove it is; can you?),

See your post:

Yes, Pentax should be looking now at market data and discuss product positioning, the mount being decided long ago (1975, I would guess ).

is to adopt a 59 years old mount? You don't know how to give up.

My solution was to create an entirely new one, remember? Pentax FF is an entirely new class, deserving of all updated modern features.

That's untrue, and FUD. Sorry for being blunt, but that's what it is. Major 3rd-party K-mount products were announced at Photokina, and there is no sign they were the last.

Sigma didn't even think of issuing their WR lens for PK!