[Ash]

when CDAF reaches that point it will be dominate simply because it costs less than half as much

It is not about cost. The whole reason we gear heads invest so much money into these eventually disposable electronic items is that they do the job and do it well. We are paying the price for performance, which is what PDAF technology is currently achieving. If the proposed FF camera has an AF system as responsive and accurate as a good functioning D800/D4, would that not be great?

It has been 12 years since a new FA Limited was introduced. It has already been half abandoned

Time is irrelevant when talking about legacy AF lenses. Cameras come and go but lenses are forever, especially the FA Limiteds. They are still being sold, so they are not half, quarter or otherwise abandoned.

Yes, it will p*ss off legacy users, but that is such a small group

Disagree. There is a fair contingent of these users, and Pentax has consistently supported legacy lenses when other brands haven't for good reason.
The fact that Olympus and Fuji has switched mounts is not an example for Pentax to follow. Success is not determined by growth alone. Neither is the rate of support from third party lens manufacturers. If Pentax keeps churning along at the same rate with practical and relevant gear, and continued K-mount and legacy lens support and development, it isn't to its demise in the environment of rival companies' growing economic wealth.
Oh, and please mind your language.

[IchabodCrane]

Am I really misrepresenting viewpoints?

In the sense that is *seems* your posts are trying to dispel the notion that K-mount must die. I'm not reading arguments that it should.

What you're missing is that there is no single kind of "professional photographers". But, indeed, some of them gladly embraced the immediacy of the still immature digital, and to make this possible cameras like the Kodak DCS420 were born.
I do not understand your requirement, that I should name technologies different from "digital", which appeared in a DSLR before anywhere else. Of course it has to be the "digital", otherwise a DSLR is nothing more than a single lens reflex camera - a mature product. And appearing there first or not is not really relevant (the EVF concept appeared way before this MILC movement).

My point is the professional camera segment is not what launched digital photography. It bubbled up to the pro segment and eventually displaced film almost completely.

At the very least, MILC fans are saying that Pentax should put some serious efforts into those silly gadgets. Do you think Pentax would have resources not only to do that, but also to further develop and grow the K-mount? Come on... of course, K-mount would be seriously affected, maybe even phased out (how did Kitazawa-san called it? Cutting the ties with their customers? It would be extremely dangerous to skip some camera & lenses launches because they're busy with MILCs).

It kind of depends on the market. If people ultimately want something else then I can imagine Pentax phasing it out. Otherwise, I doubt they would. And Pentax must not have called MILCs "silly gadgets" otherwise they wouldn't have spent time and effort developing two of their own.

No, I won't compare a mainstream MILC system with the low cost Q, nor with the low volume 645D.
OTOH, I am definitely against Pentax simply making incremental updates to their APS-C DSLR, but strongly against it; you are misrepresenting my viewpoints. The K-mount can and will grow, and so will the other 2 systems.

Well, Pentax have done little but make incremental upgrades to K-mount. Ultimately, few stay in business with low single digit market share unless it's a truly boutique product (think Bang + Olufson). Don't they have to do *something* different? Few here would say the K-01 or Q is that something.

What Winder claimed was (and I'm quoting his exact words): "CDAF will eventually be faster and have better tracking than PDAF". Now you are talking about on-sensor PD-AF + CD-AF hybrid systems? You're actually contradicting him, and confirm my words.

I must have missed what you said. What did I confirm? Regardless, whether we're talking about CDAF alone or on-sensor PDAF + CDAF, it's a mirrorless system. Who thinks that Nikon isn't going to ultimately bubble up the focusing technology they developed for the V and J? If they can make it work as fast (or faster) and more accurate as off-sensor PDAF, what's going to stand in its way? You said professionals will embrace new technology so that won't be a limitation.

[Laurentiu Cristofor]

They obviously had a plan, they wanted to be a serious player on the camera market and Pentax offers them this opportunity.

Pentax offers them several good things, but to become a serious player on the camera market, Ricoh has to do something else besides just letting Pentax operate as they did so far. I doubt they made the move to buy Pentax without having any idea what to do with them.

Let's revisit Kitazawa-san's interview:

Let's not. Why do you expect they would broadcast plans for a new product a year before they can put it in customer hands? You unveil a product when you're ready to start its mass production, otherwise you give time to your competitors to react and if you give them a year, they might release a better product while you're still struggling to deal with unexpected issues. So don't expect Pentax staff to start spilling the beans about what will be their next major project.

Of course, the possibility that they don't have any major project in the works can hold just as well. I am willing to trust Ricoh because of their bet with the GXR.

But how long where Fuji working on the XPro1? It's not like a company would develop a product, and only after its announcement on the market they would start working on the next one.

Yes, but you can count the GXR, Q, and K-01 as learning experiences on the way of building this new product line. It's not like either company is starting from scratch in this area. What might be tricky is if Ricoh wants to build another modular system like the GXR, but maybe with some improvements, like a swappable sensor-mount module, so lenses aren't tied to the sensor (something that film was offering) - I would love to see such product and it would make rather irrelevant all discussions about formats - you could pick whatever format you wanted and you could combine bodies, sensors, and lenses depending on your application (think of SD adapters for micro-SD cards, but applied to sensor-mount modules). This would take considerably more time, as they would need to define the interfaces between these modules and give themselves enough space for future improvements. Coming up with a new mount and a camera and a few lenses using it is much simpler by comparison.

Wow. I couldn't conceive a more dissatisfying approach to my photography hobby.

That *istDS still going strong, eh? It's your hobby, so you can set your satisfaction criteria as you wish.

Everyone is still ignoring the main problem Pentax could come out with the best camera ever made and they would still struggle as long as the only presence is internet based and they are not in your local store for people to actually handle and see in person they will never sell enough to gain market share.

The main problem is that even if they were in stores, they wouldn't sell enough extra cameras to offset the cost of being in stores. But build a product that enthusiasts are getting online and then spread the word about it to other guys that then go in stores and ask about it, and then you do have a good reason to put those products in stores. But it has to start with a product that people are interested in.

There is nothing wrong with the K-mount and there never has been

The K mount is a hodge-podge of changes made over several decades. On one hand you have electronic contacts that appear inside the mount as well as on the mount surface itself (I don't think there is any other modern mount that has its contacts on the actual mount surface). On the other hand you get mechanical levers for aperture control and the lack of one of these (the K mount crippling) is breaking full backward compatibility. If you want to see how a modern mount looks, check what Pentax did for the Pentax Q (it's similar to the Canon EF and the MFT mounts - all electronic contacts inside the mount); the 645D looks similarly as well, although it had to keep an aperture lever for backward compatibility; even the Nikon mount has its contacts inside. The K mount is serviceable, but it's not the perfect choice and it is not the mount that Pentax would build if they would start their camera business now.

But it's not the K-mount that it's killing their products, it's the idea that their products have to rotate around the K mount. Ricoh can build K mount cameras for centuries, I couldn't care less, but I don't think they can survive by building *only* K mount cameras and I don't think their K mount cameras will be their main moneymaker in the decades to come.

If CDAF is so good, why are they putting on sensor PDAF?

Because it helps with tracking moving subjects (note that Winder's statement was referring to static ones). Even on sensor PDAF might disappear in the future once the performance of CDAF gets good enough for tracking.

[Ash]

That *istDS still going strong, eh? It's your hobby, so you can set your satisfaction criteria as you wish.

That is not a fair, nor humble response. The corollary of being quickly or constantly dissatisfied by technological advances shows more about our unreasonable expectations than it does the extent of our skill and technique.

it's not the K-mount that it's killing their products, it's the idea that their products have to rotate around the K mount. Ricoh can build K mount cameras for centuries, I couldn't care less, but I don't think they can survive by building *only* K mount cameras and I don't think their K mount cameras will be their main moneymaker in the decades to come.

I'm yet to read a valid argument as to why the K-mount cannot be designed to incorporate all of the necessary contacts and functionalities necessary for all these modern advances, and why only new mounts can achieve this.

[hangman43]

Pentax offers them several good things, but to become a serious player on the camera market, Ricoh has to do something else besides just letting Pentax operate as they did so far. I doubt they made the move to buy Pentax without having any idea what to do with them.



Let's not. Why do you expect they would broadcast plans for a new product a year before they can put it in customer hands? You unveil a product when you're ready to start its mass production, otherwise you give time to your competitors to react and if you give them a year, they might release a better product while you're still struggling to deal with unexpected issues. So don't expect Pentax staff to start spilling the beans about what will be their next major project.

Of course, the possibility that they don't have any major project in the works can hold just as well. I am willing to trust Ricoh because of their bet with the GXR.



Yes, but you can count the GXR, Q, and K-01 as learning experiences on the way of building this new product line. It's not like either company is starting from scratch in this area. What might be tricky is if Ricoh wants to build another modular system like the GXR, but maybe with some improvements, like a swappable sensor-mount module, so lenses aren't tied to the sensor (something that film was offering) - I would love to see such product and it would make rather irrelevant all discussions about formats - you could pick whatever format you wanted and you could combine bodies, sensors, and lenses depending on your application (think of SD adapters for micro-SD cards, but applied to sensor-mount modules). This would take considerably more time, as they would need to define the interfaces between these modules and give themselves enough space for future improvements. Coming up with a new mount and a camera and a few lenses using it is much simpler by comparison.



That *istDS still going strong, eh? It's your hobby, so you can set your satisfaction criteria as you wish.



The main problem is that even if they were in stores, they wouldn't sell enough extra cameras to offset the cost of being in stores. But build a product that enthusiasts are getting online and then spread the word about it to other guys that then go in stores and ask about it, and then you do have a good reason to put those products in stores. But it has to start with a product that people are interested in.



The K mount is a hodge-podge of changes made over several decades. On one hand you have electronic contacts that appear inside the mount as well as on the mount surface itself (I don't think there is any other modern mount that has its contacts on the actual mount surface). On the other hand you get mechanical levers for aperture control and the lack of one of these (the K mount crippling) is breaking full backward compatibility. If you want to see how a modern mount looks, check what Pentax did for the Pentax Q (it's similar to the Canon EF and the MFT mounts - all electronic contacts inside the mount); the 645D looks similarly as well, although it had to keep an aperture lever for backward compatibility; even the Nikon mount has its contacts inside. The K mount is serviceable, but it's not the perfect choice and it is not the mount that Pentax would build if they would start their camera business now.

But it's not the K-mount that it's killing their products, it's the idea that their products have to rotate around the K mount. Ricoh can build K mount cameras for centuries, I couldn't care less, but I don't think they can survive by building *only* K mount cameras and I don't think their K mount cameras will be their main moneymaker in the decades to come.



Because it helps with tracking moving subjects (note that Winder's statement was referring to static ones). Even on sensor PDAF might disappear in the future once the performance of CDAF gets good enough for tracking.

I just have one question if Pentax does not offer anything for you why are you here?
I take that back I have a few.
Which camera company have you consulted with and made them millions and saved them from going under?
Can I get one of those crystal balls you are using to predict what I and others want are need in the future? You should really let these camera companies borrow it that way they will also know.
What are the limitations of the K-mount so what if it is not like others it works and where the contacts are have not effected its performance are you just against being able to use the old and new on the same mount.

[Kunzite]

In the sense that is *seems* your posts are trying to dispel the notion that K-mount must die. I'm not reading arguments that it should.

Oh, that was it? Well, maybe you are indeed thinking they can develop 2 mainstream systems at full-speed, or just don't care - but I don't think they can. A new mount MILC means the K-mount must suffer, at least in their current state.

My point is the professional camera segment is not what launched digital photography. It bubbled up to the pro segment and eventually displaced film almost completely.

I would say it was the professional camera segment (a certain part of it) who allowed for it to start. Not from the consumer market upwards.

It kind of depends on the market. If people ultimately want something else then I can imagine Pentax phasing it out. Otherwise, I doubt they would. And Pentax must not have called MILCs "silly gadgets" otherwise they wouldn't have spent time and effort developing two of their own.
Well, Pentax have done little but make incremental upgrades to K-mount. Ultimately, few stay in business with low single digit market share unless it's a truly boutique product (think Bang + Olufson). Don't they have to do *something* different? Few here would say the K-01 or Q is that something.

I am calling MILCs "silly gadgets", indeed.

What about people who want Pentax to stay true to their K-mount? Like, you know, most of their customers?

There were the occasional jumps, e.g. the K10D and even the K-5, with its much improved sensor. However, let's not forget that right after the K10D, they suffered from a hostile takeover - and Hoya wasn't interested in developing the K-mount, as much as margins.
Again, it is a mistake to assume a change must be a new system. The first change we'll see is Pentax starting to really push their K-mount and other systems. How about higher end products? How about marketing? How about better services and sales network? Much can be achieved, without dropping everything and starting again, from scratch.

I must have missed what you said. What did I confirm? Regardless, whether we're talking about CDAF alone or on-sensor PDAF + CDAF, it's a mirrorless system. Who thinks that Nikon isn't going to ultimately bubble up the focusing technology they developed for the V and J? If they can make it work as fast (or faster) and more accurate as off-sensor PDAF, what's going to stand in its way? You said professionals will embrace new technology so that won't be a limitation.

That CDAF by itself could be a limiting factor, and mirrorless AF systems started to mimic the dedicated SLR ones in order to improve. I'm still waiting for the first -3EV MILC AF system, by the way.
I said professionals will gladly embrace new technologies, if they offer a significant enough advantage. Let's see that... it will be a long wait, though.

[hangman43]

I'm yet to read a valid argument as to why the K-mount cannot be designed to incorporate all of the necessary contacts and functionalities necessary for all these modern advances, and why only new mounts can achieve this.

I have not seen one either all I have seen is they need a new mount to succeed in the future. I have never heard a person say the reason they did not get a Pentax was because it has that old K-mount that makes it possible to use there older lens.

[Winder]

It is not about cost. ......... If the proposed FF camera has an AF system as responsive and accurate as a good functioning D800/D4, would that not be great?

Olympus CDAF with the 12mm, 45mm, & 75mm is already as fast as the D4 for static subjects. It is already more accurate. The only area where CDAF struggles is in tracking moving subjects, but that is an issue of processing power. If the OM-D had a separate dedicated processor for AF like the D4 it would have much better AF tracking. It is about cost and trade offs. The AF performance of the OM-D ($1,200) is very, very good even compared to the D4 ($5,000).

Lenses designer for CDAF are very, very fast.

Disagree. There is a fair contingent of these users, and Pentax has consistently supported legacy lenses when other brands haven't for good reason.
The fact that Olympus and Fuji has switched mounts is not an example for Pentax to follow. Success is not determined by growth alone. Neither is the rate of support from third party lens manufacturers. If Pentax keeps churning along at the same rate with practical and relevant gear, and continued K-mount and legacy lens support and development, it isn't to its demise in the environment of rival companies' growing economic wealth.

I would have to disagree. I think 3rd party support is an excellent indicator of market demand. Zeiss and VL both abandoned K-mount because there was a lack of high end buyers and Tamron and Tokina abandoned it because of a lack of low-end customers. Sigma only supports the core products.

I see several people who own the 31mm, 43mm, & 77mm and have not bought a new lens in 5+ years. Pentax isn't going to lose any money because their core customers already own all the lenses they need and won't buy anything anyway. 50% of the existing customer base are Luddites who only shop at estate sales hoping to score a $25.00 lens. Pentax could change mounts and half the user base wouldn't know it for 10 years.

[hangman43]

I think 3rd party support is an excellent indicator of market demand. Zeiss and VL both abandoned K-mount because there was a lack of high end buyers and Tamron and Tokina abandoned it because of a lack of low-end customers. Sigma only supports the core products.

What makes you think that the listed 3rd parties would support a new mount I do not believe it is the mount they quit supporting I do believe it is Pentax they quit supporting mend those fences and they would support the k-mount just as easily.

[lytrytyr]

Zeiss and VL both abandoned K-mount because there was a lack of high end buyers and Tamron and Tokina abandoned it because of a lack of low-end customers.

The case of Tokina is a little different, since several of their lenses (12-24, 16-50, 50-135, 35 Macro) were done in parallel with Pentax.

[Kunzite]

Pentax offers them several good things, but to become a serious player on the camera market, Ricoh has to do something else besides just letting Pentax operate as they did so far. I doubt they made the move to buy Pentax without having any idea what to do with them.

And who said Pentax will operate as they did so far? We know (or should) that's not the case; they don't have the same constraints, their strategy was changed from "margins" to "growth" and so on.

Let's not. Why do you expect they would broadcast plans for a new product a year before they can put it in customer hands? You unveil a product when you're ready to start its mass production, otherwise you give time to your competitors to react and if you give them a year, they might release a better product while you're still struggling to deal with unexpected issues. So don't expect Pentax staff to start spilling the beans about what will be their next major project.

Of course, the possibility that they don't have any major project in the works can hold just as well. I am willing to trust Ricoh because of their bet with the GXR.

Kitazawa-san was careful enough not to spill the beans, yet there were some very interesting hints about their intentions. Should we ignore them, and everything else Pentax Ricoh said, and blindly speculate instead?
The possibility that they don't have any major project in the works does not exists.

Yes, but you can count the GXR, Q, and K-01 as learning experiences on the way of building this new product line. It's not like either company is starting from scratch in this area. What might be tricky is if Ricoh wants to build another modular system like the GXR, but maybe with some improvements, like a swappable sensor-mount module, so lenses aren't tied to the sensor (something that film was offering) - I would love to see such product and it would make rather irrelevant all discussions about formats - you could pick whatever format you wanted and you could combine bodies, sensors, and lenses depending on your application (think of SD adapters for micro-SD cards, but applied to sensor-mount modules). This would take considerably more time, as they would need to define the interfaces between these modules and give themselves enough space for future improvements. Coming up with a new mount and a camera and a few lenses using it is much simpler by comparison.

It doesn't matter much.
They can make (let's say) about 5-8 "serious" lenses per year, and 3-4 cameras; a camera is typically made into 20.000 units/month at first (but we're not talking about simultaneously producing 4x20.000), the lens production capacity was build accordingly.
A niche MILC should be easier, though - but why?

The main problem is that even if they were in stores, they wouldn't sell enough extra cameras to offset the cost of being in stores. But build a product that enthusiasts are getting online and then spread the word about it to other guys that then go in stores and ask about it, and then you do have a good reason to put those products in stores. But it has to start with a product that people are interested in.

And... the DSLR market is a product that people are interested in, about 4 times more than the MILCs.

The K mount is a hodge-podge of changes made over several decades. On one hand you have electronic contacts that appear inside the mount as well as on the mount surface itself (I don't think there is any other modern mount that has its contacts on the actual mount surface). On the other hand you get mechanical levers for aperture control and the lack of one of these (the K mount crippling) is breaking full backward compatibility. If you want to see how a modern mount looks, check what Pentax did for the Pentax Q (it's similar to the Canon EF and the MFT mounts - all electronic contacts inside the mount); the 645D looks similarly as well, although it had to keep an aperture lever for backward compatibility; even the Nikon mount has its contacts inside. The K mount is serviceable, but it's not the perfect choice and it is not the mount that Pentax would build if they would start their camera business now.

That's true for the F-mount, as well. Should Nikon desperately drop it, or at least start an APS-C + FF MILC system?

But it's not the K-mount that it's killing their products, it's the idea that their products have to rotate around the K mount. Ricoh can build K mount cameras for centuries, I couldn't care less, but I don't think they can survive by building *only* K mount cameras and I don't think their K mount cameras will be their main moneymaker in the decades to come.

I won't attempt to guess what will sell after several decades; however, right now their products are rotating around the K-mount, including the 645D (which was made possible by borrowing technologies).

I have not seen one either all I have seen is they need a new mount to succeed in the future. I have never heard a person say the reason they did not get a Pentax was because it has that old K-mount that makes it possible to use there older lens.

Indeed.
And I'm not sure that, if Pentax were to launch such a MILC system, they would actually buy. There's no guarantee they would like it better than the others.

I see several people who own the 31mm, 43mm, & 77mm and have not bought a new lens in 5+ years. Pentax isn't going to lose any money because their core customers already own all the lenses they need and won't buy anything anyway. 50% of the existing customer base are Luddites who only shop at estate sales hoping to score a $25.00 lens. Pentax could change mounts and half the user base wouldn't know it for 10 years.

Now, now, don't make up things.

[Laurentiu Cristofor]

That is not a fair, nor humble response. The corollary of being quickly or constantly dissatisfied by technological advances shows more about our unreasonable expectations than it does the extent of our skill and technique.

And wasn't that my point as well? I was just stating a matter of fact - what pleasure you derive from your hobby is up to you and has no relevance to other people that may share your hobby but not necessarily derive pleasure from it in the same way. cfraz was dissatisfied with the picture I was painting about camera upgrades - well, it's not my preference either, but unlike him, I know that my preferences are not necessarily shared by others and that they're not supposed to shape the way that the industry works.

I'm yet to read a valid argument as to why the K-mount cannot be designed to incorporate all of the necessary contacts and functionalities necessary for all these modern advances, and why only new mounts can achieve this.

The K mount can work, no one said that it cannot - I even said it's not the K mount that is the problem in itself. But if you're going to shorten the registration distance for a MILC system, you have two choices - a micro-K-mount solution or building a new mount from scratch. The micro-K can offer some advantages in terms of backward compatibility - it would be straightforward to make an adapter for it, for example. But I would prefer if they took the opportunity to create a clean new mount design.

That's true for the F-mount, as well. Should Nikon desperately drop it, or at least start an APS-C + FF MILC system?

Actually, not all of it is true for the F mount and I pointed that in the comment you were replying to.

As for Nikon's future, they have a considerable DSLR customer base to worry about, so not all my thoughts about Ricoh/Pentax do apply to them, but I do believe they will also have a hard time transitioning to MILCs, as they have no real system to offer. In some ways, Ricoh has an easier choice because they have less customers to lose. Look at how Nikon and Canon are handling MILCs and you'll see why Canon is #1 in photo business - or maybe you won't see it now, you'll see it in a few years.

[Ash]

Olympus CDAF with the 12mm, 45mm, & 75mm is already as fast as the D4 for static subjects. It is already more accurate. The only area where CDAF struggles is in tracking moving subjects, but that is an issue of processing power. If the OM-D had a separate dedicated processor for AF like the D4 it would have much better AF tracking. It is about cost and trade offs. The AF performance of the OM-D ($1,200) is very, very good even compared to the D4 ($5,000).

Lenses designer for CDAF are very, very fast.



I would have to disagree. I think 3rd party support is an excellent indicator of market demand. Zeiss and VL both abandoned K-mount because there was a lack of high end buyers and Tamron and Tokina abandoned it because of a lack of low-end customers. Sigma only supports the core products.

I see several people who own the 31mm, 43mm, & 77mm and have not bought a new lens in 5+ years. Pentax isn't going to lose any money because their core customers already own all the lenses they need and won't buy anything anyway. 50% of the existing customer base are Luddites who only shop at estate sales hoping to score a $25.00 lens. Pentax could change mounts and half the user base wouldn't know it for 10 years.

I don't believe other photographic companies' journeys are for Pentax to emulate. You seem to suggest that new mounts to make customers keep buying new gear is the way forward. You do not see a future market in producing new DFA lenses? Perhaps existing sale numbers of DA and DFA lenses might dispel any myth that Pentaxians aren't buying any more lenses and Pentax will suffer if it doesn't create a new mount.

[Kunzite]

Actually, not all of it is true for the F mount and I pointed that in the comment you were replying to.

As for Nikon's future, they have a considerable DSLR customer base to worry about, so not all my thoughts about Ricoh/Pentax do apply to them, but I do believe they will also have a hard time transitioning to MILCs, as they have no real system to offer. In some ways, Ricoh has an easier choice because they have less customers to lose. Look at how Nikon and Canon are handling MILCs and you'll see why Canon is #1 in photo business - or maybe you won't see it now, you'll see it in a few years.

Only some details are different, but in terms of capability they're equal, and they followed a similar evolution path.

Pentax also have a considerable DSLR customer base to worry about - as a percentage, that's most of their ILC users.

I don't see how Canon's EOS M has anything to do with their (almost entirely DSLR) ILC market share.

[Laurentiu Cristofor]

Pentax also have a considerable DSLR customer base to worry about - as a percentage, that's most of their ILC users.

Worries need to be scaled down proportionally, was my point. You worry about Pentax's customer base as if it was Canon's, but sadly, it just isn't.

Besides, they seem to be doing fine holding some users with products like K-5II - they can do this for the rest of this decade with little effort. By the time they would figure out the trick, they would also figure out that they belong to a minority of the ILC users.

I don't see how Canon's EOS M has anything to do with their (almost entirely DSLR) ILC market share.

It hints to how they will respond if their customers start demanding MILC equipment. The EF-M is a micro EF-S and if they need to build a professional camera, they'll introduce a micro EF mount and build a 5D-whatever around it faster than Pentax gets reorganized by Ricoh. Nikon may be able to do the same, but I am wondering if mounts with mechanical levers actually work that well for short registration distances where space is at a premium.