So it's hard - work it out, they aren't going to compete in their industry by just taking the easy routes. A FF without SR would make me think twice - it's one of the biggest strong points for Pentax in my book.

Then they have to get rid of several functions which used with SR. Even Olympus have better SR(not exact name but...) but Pentax have lots of functions with SR. Shake reduce, AA filter, vertical and horizontal something, dust remove, and other thing.

[jeffshaddix]

Then they have to get rid of several functions which used with SR. Even Olympus have better SR(not exact name but...) but Pentax have lots of functions with SR. Shake reduce, AA filter, vertical and horizontal something, dust remove, and other thing.

Why would they need to get rid of any of it?

[k5astro]

Then they have to get rid of several functions which used with SR. Even Olympus have better SR(not exact name but...) but Pentax have lots of functions with SR. Shake reduce, AA filter, vertical and horizontal something, dust remove, and other thing.

I don't think your source is very well informed. There's no reason to have to get rid of anything. There's no reason in this world why a new FF body could not be designed around a FF sensor with SR, etc., and the K-mount for lens attachment. With all due respect, I think argument provided by your source is just ridiculous.

[DogLover]

If I'm not mistaken, on the other forum, AsahiMan, as accurate a source as we have on the goings-on at Pentax, stated pretty clearly that the FF will come in 2014, and it will be in the K-3 body. That that body was developed to be able to handle both formats. While that doesn't necessarily mean that it will have SR, it's kind of hard to imagine that it wouldn't, and it seems extremely unlikely that it wouldn't be k-mount. Losing either would be a huge negative for me personally.

[RobA_Oz]

It appears to be something of a packaging problem. Just take a look at the SR assembly that Pentax has been using in their marketing.

and then with the associated surrounding installation / support package

Then picture this slid into a K body. The sensor will be twice as large, and will need to maintain the same location with respect to the mount.

So, to me - it appears that it comes primarily down to packaging - and finding the amount of room for the assembly to need to move around within. Also, the supporting structure is going to need to be a bit larger to accommodate the larger sensor. I get the feeling that Pentax is trying to maintain a similar body size - which is making things a bit difficult to accommodate the increased sensor size along with the necessary room in which to allow it to move to support SR.

We are going over fairly well-trodden ground here. However, I agree that the packaging around the actual sensor material needs primary consideration, when it comes to fitting the K-3 body with a 35mm sensor, because that's a threshold design issue, as well as being one of cost. Obviously, if you can fit the larger sensor on the same carrier, it means not only that it will go into the same body space, but that you can probably use the same carrier for both. The larger sensor will undoubtedly be heavier, so the force required to move it will be greater, but it may be that the existing transducers are adequate for the job. Only the designers know that.

The bigger sensor requires something of the order of a 50% increase in both dimensions (not twice) over the APS-C one. There appears to be sufficient room available on the carrier as shown, because the 35mm sensor would roughly occupy the area marked by the second outermost line on the sensor housing (relative to the lines of connecting pins). If you add the same packaging area again, this leaves plenty of room on that carrier on the sides and bottom, and runs fairly close to the two registration or mounting holes at the top. I'd say you could make the larger sensor fit the existing carrier without too much trouble, based on that.

After that, we're back to the argument about whether or not the existing lens base can provide a big enough image circle to allow for sensor movement. If it isn't (and the best information available to us says it is for some lenses and possibly not for others) then it becomes a matter of determining whether or not losing your existing installed lens base is going to damage your sales enough to justify moving to a new mount, or whether people just don't care that much if you have to crop the image slightly to allow SR. Given that the most extreme case of cropping is purported to be about 2mm, that means you'd have to put up with an image that was 20 x 31, which is still considerably larger than APS-C, which is 15.5 x 23.6, or even larger than APS-H (thank you, Ron) at 19.1 x 28.7. Personally, I think that cropping for SR would be even less than that, as I haven't seen any convincing evidence that the effects of SR is of that magnitude, but I'm happy to be proven wrong on that score. Even so, I'd be happy to accept a mildly cropped image in order to benefit from SR, especially if I had the choice of cropping post-capture, so that, in the worst scenario I could choose between a 24 x 31 and a 20 x 36 final image.

[Kunzite]

RobA_Oz, but if not all lenses would have an image circle large enough, the solution would be to simply launch new, SR compatible lenses - right? This should not be seen as a reason to change the mount.
Anyway, it's just an unproven supposition. The K-mount has about the same internal diameter as the Alpha/Minolta AF mount...

Well since I get some information from Pentax related worker, He said they have trouble about FF. Keep the K-mount or make new mount like A-mount. For keeping K-mount, since the FF sensor is bigger than Crop-sensor, the SR functions would be limited and limited functions will cause the low image quality(idk how does it but it's true). On the other hand, make new mount A-mount or using Medium lens(rumor). The problem would be abandon K-mount users.

Do you prefer to keeping K-mount or New mount for FF?

I have this feeling that he read about it on Pentaxforums

[calsan]

I think they may go K mount = APS-C. New mount = FF.
This opens up more opportunities than it closes off.

Really, the only risk they run is annoying owners of FF wide angle lenses - designs which are now more than a decade old at minimum.
The opportunity to have much faster, wider and higher quality lenses should attract more new users to Pentax and possibly convert the long term K mount fan base. They won't have abandoned K mount (just made it APS-C) and they will have a new mount superior to all the other brands. Win - win!

[Kunzite]

Right, they would only upset:
+ K-mount users waiting for a FF K-mount camera
+ APS-C K-mount users who would like to use newly launched FF lenses (won't be possible)
+ APS-C K-mount users who would want to go to FF in the future (no easy migration path)
+ everyone who would want a Pentax FF DSLR.

It's a win, indeed!

[fyby]

I think new mount is not a good idea.Too many fa lenses around. I have already two fa lenses in use on apsc. But if its a question to have sr or to have kmount, I prefer kmount. But sadly its not up to me to decide :-). I hope aa simulating should not be affected because of only small sensor movements.

[Clavius]

Hasn't this been discussed before? LOL...

It's the difference between:

- having customers buying your camera and slapping on their existing film lenses, and customers buying your camera and also needing lenses to go with it.

- having your customers use old glass that weren't even designed for digital, or giving them a whole new line up specifically designed for the new system.

- having all the official reviewers measurebating with a old FA 35-70 or FA 50 1.4 on that brand new Pentax digital FF, or with a completely new lens that gets the best out of that new camera.

So, pretty much a no-brainer if you think from the company's point of view.

Of course existing K-mount users are going to be dissapointed they're not getting an FF DSLR that magically works perfectly with their 30+ year old glass and gives them stellar IQ. That's going to happen anyway if the FF is going to be K-mount or not.

[Parry]

Abandon the K-mount and Pentax would be no more. The customer base is only K-mount users. Pentax cannot compete with Nikon and Canon professional support, hell you can hardly find any Pentax lenses or kit for sale in SE Asia even though that's where they're made! Marketing and distribution is near non-existent even though the demand for Pentax DSLR's is there.

There's 25 million Pentax K-mount lenses out there stretching back to the 1970's, which many of the owners want to mount on a full frame camera.

A full frame Pentax would sell in bucket loads if the K-mount is retained. Then sales of new full frame K-mount lenses would also increase. But without the springboard of the K-mount a FF Pentax stands no chance.

[Clavius]

Abandon the K-mount and Pentax would be no more.

Pentax already is no more, it's a product line now. Maybe a Ricoh FF camera would be and entirely new product line?

The customer base is only K-mount users.

...And Q mount, and 645 mount. And if those decades old lenses are THAT important then maybe 110 lenses need to join in too.

There's 25 million Pentax K-mount lenses out there stretching back to the 1970's, which many of the owners want to mount on a full frame camera.

True... So no lens sales to these people then? Maybe a kit lens, but that's it. Not really enough to make marketing an FF DSLR interesting at all.


I think the real reason most K-mount lens collectors might be upset is that the value of their legacy-lenses won't skyrocket when the FF DSLR turns out not to have K-mount. They saw it as an investment, thinking Pentax would eventually build that K-mount FF DSLR sooner or later.

[rawr]

K-mount is a big part of Pentax's identity. And Ricoh have publicly said they are committed to it (in one of the other 9 million threads where this issue has been pored over).

Plus why isn't anyone mentioning the simple 'no-additional-space-required' solution to fitting electro-mechanical SR into a FF K-mount: they can just use digital SR

[Clavius]

K-mount is a big part of Pentax's identity. And Ricoh have publicly said they are committed to it (in one of the other 9 million threads where this issue has been pored over).

Adding a fourth mount especially for the FF system doesn't automatically mean discontinueing K-mount for their APS-C system.

Plus why isn't anyone mentioning the simple 'no-additional-space-required' solution to fitting electro-mechanical SR into a FF K-mount: they can just use digital SR

What's that?

[RobA_Oz]

RobA_Oz, but if not all lenses would have an image circle large enough, the solution would be to simply launch new, SR compatible lenses - right? This should not be seen as a reason to change the mount.
Anyway, it's just an unproven supposition. The K-mount has about the same internal diameter as the Alpha/Minolta AF mount...

I have this feeling that he read about it on Pentaxforums

Oh, I agree totally. Image cropping of the (I think, unlikely) size predicted by some would be a small price to pay for having a 35mm sensor in a body the size of the K-3, which you can use with legacy lenses. If, in this case, you didn't want cropping, new lenses should be available at some time, which are designed to avoid that effect.

The final point I was making was that there is no Golden Ratio involved in the 24 x 36 frame size, which was an accident of history as much as anything, limited as the height was by the 35mm cine film dimensions, and the choice of the 1:1.5 aspect ratio allowing a greater image size in the other direction. It could have been anything that was considered to look "right" or give acceptable image size versus film use at the time. The crop scenarios I described give aspects ratios of nearly 1:1.5 (20 x 31), 1:1.3 (24 x 31) or 1:1.8 (20 x 36).

However, on the basic point, it seems from the evidence we have, that it is possible to have a 35mm sensor in a K-3 sized body that uses the K-mount, which is fitted with IBIS, and that's very encouraging.