Originally posted by Kunzite I don't think Pentax cares much about selling other manufacturers lenses
Ratmagiclady:
1. One of the reasons people bashed the K-01 was its size. Well, that was basically a brick - IMO it can be made smaller, and ergonomically better (e.g. a better grip).
The MILC market seems to ask for cheap, small cameras; why not give them exactly that, only in K-mount?
When size is irrelevant, a regular DSLR would do.
Well, considering this was about someone's mention of making a Pentax *full frame* MILC, ...size is only going to get so small, anyway. The K-01 isn't something they were ever going to build a whole new lens lineup around, anyway, ...and it rather defeats the purpose of a cheap body if you have to buy lots of new glass. Full frame's only going to get so small, anyway, ...and in general, whether you put the bulk of the camera around a 'mirror box' area or off in some other direction's just a matter of design. I'm not really in the market for a teeny teeny camera to begin with, mind you, but I'm also not seeing a need for Pentax to go off sideways just for the sake of a 'Me, too,' MILC and whole new lens mount.
If they wanted to, later, there'd be nothing stopping them from just inserting another lens mount in the same place it would have been all along, and retain functionality via an adapter, anyway.
I'm figuring the brick design always was more to be funky than to minimize size, anyway, If they'd wanted to, they could have put plenty of that bulk into a handgrip where it'd do more good, but hey.
Like I was saying, no one really complains about the registration distance making an ME Super too big, do they?
Consider that a lot of the stuff that makes a DSLR so thick is likely to be going away very soon: for one, the tech for ultra-thin and super-durable LCDs
is pretty much on the way, if you even really needed one if, say, they got creative enough about a big-enough EVF finder.
Quote: 2. It's f/1.2, actually (there was the 50mm f/1.2 lens); I'm not sure how things could change if elements gets inside the mount.
Ah, right, misspoke, there. I think there are limitations for other focal lengths of that speed, but, same difference. Pretty sure the optical design for a lens that fast either gets through the mount or not: it's not like there's a gap with extra space between the mount and some wider piece of glass, anyway.
Again, you're at the point of 'how small is glass like that going to get, anyway,' and will people pay to buy a system around that when it's really only helpful for a couple of lens types.
Quote: 3. I see this K-mount MILC idea rather working for an entry level product, it could be made quite cheaply by the exclusion of the mirror/OVF and PDAF systems (I think an optional EVF should be provided).
The K-01 didn't work, but I think they can do it better, smaller and cheaper.
I suppose it depends, too. For full-frame, if it knocks a grand off the price and some off the size and weight to not have so many moving parts, you know, they could be making something like that Olympus OM-D on appropriate scale for full-frame (after, say, an LX with a grip or a K-5,) and you know people would be going for it. (I heard a rumor that Olympus is going to have to reintroduce their full-size 4/3rds mount if they want to go with a bigger than 2x crop sensor anyway: the reason they had to go micro in the first place was because the 4/3rds dead-ended as a full size system: the size advantage was negligible, sensor tech went the opposite way they predicted, and the peepy little viewfinders weren't so nice, either.
)
So I mean, why not keep it simple, only have to keep one mount on the market (and aligned on each camera) use the K-mount compatibility, (Uncripple the K-mount, even) and make accessible what Pentax has going for em, instead of trying to catch up with what everyone else is doing. Sell some XS-style lenses for smallness, and there you are.