[patarok]

Sure. But if in so doing they downgrade us to 'Other' user status we/re not interested. Consequently 100% of their potential target market is 'Other."

They need to figure out a way to make a Pentax FF camera 100% backward compatible with Pentax AF K-mount lenses and also adaptable to other lenses.

Completely agree with that one.

[noser]

They need to figure out a way to make a Pentax FF camera 100% backward compatible with Pentax AF K-mount lenses and also adaptable to other lenses.

You lost me, but that's probably more me than you

Why wouldn't it be 100% compatible? I mean I have a bunch of m42 and K AF FF glass, so it's 'just another k-mount', right?

Or do you mean on the adapter side... like adapters that move the registration distance a bit forward/backward...

Or do you mean like a DX type of system, with an auto-crop for APS-C glass?

Or do you mean the whole aperture lever / crippled k-mount thing?

[monochrome]

You lost me, but that's probably more me than you

No, it's probably me.

I mean that @Winder suggests Pentax should make an A7 style mirrorless with a new mount that accepts an adapter for K-mount, so that people who shoot Canon and Nikon could also use the Pentax with an adapter for their own lenses.

I replied I wouldn't want to use Pentax AF lenses in MF on a Pentax camera with an adapter. I can just buy an A7 if I want to do that. Why would anyone buy a Pentax under those circumstances?

@Winder replied Pentax needs to find new buyers - IOW, the K-mount users they already have don't matter.

I replied fine, so long as they make an adapter that allows me to shoot AF Pentax Lenses (screwdrive and IFM) AF and also make adapters that allow other brand users to shoot their lenses. I don't care whether the other brand users can AF or not.

Which will never happen.

[Winder]

No, it's probably me.

I mean that @Winder suggests Pentax should make an A7 style mirrorless with a new mount that accepts an adapter for K-mount, so that people who shoot Canon and Nikon could also use the Pentax with an adapter for their own lenses.

I replied I wouldn't want to use Pentax AF lenses in MF on a Pentax camera with an adapter. I can just buy an A7 if I want to do that. Why would anyone buy a Pentax under those circumstances?

@Winder replied Pentax needs to find new buyers - IOW, the K-mount users they already have don't matter.

I replied fine, so long as they make an adapter that allows me to shoot AF Pentax Lenses (screwdrive and IFM) AF and also make adapters that allow other brand users to shoot their lenses. I don't care whether the other brand users can AF or not.

Which will never happen.

"Why would anyone buy Pentax under those circumstances?" For the same reason people are buying the A7. Pentax actually makes better cameras than Sony, and if they made a FF mirrorless like the A7 I think they would do a better job. The success of the A7 body has lead to higher demand for native FE mount lenses and increased 3rd party support.

If you don't think Pentax can make a better camera than Sony, then I see your point. I happen to think Pentax can do a better job.

[monochrome]

Pentax absolutely can not make a better FF mirrorless camera than Sony at the price point. Maybe at any price point. I don't think Ricoh Imaging has the process engineering skill, manufacturing skill, tooling nor culture (not saying Ricoh doesn't).

I don't believe Pentax can manage a fourth mount and native lenses. They're having a hard time keeping air in the lungs of three mounts as it is.

How would people find out a Pentax is a better A7. Pentax doesn't market.

Sony has no legacy users to worry about.

I wonder whether Sony makes any money making A7's.

[philbaum]

"Why would anyone buy Pentax under those circumstances?" For the same reason people are buying the A7. Pentax actually makes better cameras than Sony, and if they made a FF mirrorless like the A7 I think they would do a better job. The success of the A7 body has lead to higher demand for native FE mount lenses and increased 3rd party support.

If you don't think Pentax can make a better camera than Sony, then I see your point. I happen to think Pentax can do a better job.

Well said and i agree that Pentax can do a better job of making a camera body than Sony. But for some reason, Pentax seems to be determined to follow Canon and Nikon into what i feel will be a disaster situation. All 3 companies refuse to build a mirrorless APS camera that would compete with their APS DSLRs. They prefer to decide the issue for their customers rather than to let the customers purchase the one they want. So far, Sony has the APS and FF mirrorless camera field to themselves.

Its my plan to wait till the next generation of A7 cameras, and then buy one of those if Pentax hasn't produced a similar one first. Pentax had an opportunity by making a simple follow-up to the K01, but they decided not to. Supid decisions have consequences, and corporations are as prone to stupid decisions as much as the average individual. Course i could be wrong - but i don't think so

To respond a little to monochrome's post, Ricoh has made mirrorless aps models under their label prior to buying Pentax, i would hope they can lend their expertise to Pentax's mirrorless cause. And Pentax has already made 2 mirrorless models, the Q mount and the K01. Plus they can learn from Sony's successes and mistakes. No big deal to me anymore - I'll end up with a Sony FF if Pentax doesn't show signs of life - soon i hope :-)

[Winder]

Pentax absolutely can not make a better FF mirrorless camera than Sony at the price point. Maybe at any price point. I don't think Ricoh Imaging has the process engineering skill, manufacturing skill, tooling nor culture (not saying Ricoh doesn't).

Pentax already makes better cameras than Sony at a competitive price. The K-3 is a better camera than the A77. I haven't had my hands on an A77II, so the A77II might be different.

I don't believe Pentax can manage a fourth mount and native lenses. They're having a hard time keeping air in the lungs of three mounts as it is.

How much more can they do with the Q? How many lenses can the Q system realistically use?
The same can be said for the 645 system. You don't need 100 different lenses for the 645 system. The 645 system needs to be updated, but its a mature system.
The same question applies to a FF mirrorless. How many lenses do you need? These are not currently sports and wildlife cameras, so you can eliminate those. Realistically you need 5 primes and 2 zooms and then you can look at niche lenses and applications.
The DSLR system is the Swiss army knife of systems, and it requires 50 different lenses. Other systems don't, which is why a FF mirrorless is not a replacement for K-mount.

How would people find out a Pentax is a better A7. Pentax doesn't market.

Different discussion

Sony has no legacy users to worry about.

I wonder whether Sony makes any money making A7's.

No legacy users? A-mount is a legacy mount. It's Minolta. They have a larger base than Pentax.

---------- Post added 09-06-14 at 11:35 PM ----------

Well said and i agree that Pentax can do a better job of making a camera body than Sony. But for some reason, Pentax seems to be determined to follow Canon and Nikon into what i feel will be a disaster situation. All 3 companies refuse to build a mirrorless APS camera that would compete with their APS DSLRs. They prefer to decide the issue for their customers rather than to let the customers purchase the one they want. So far, Sony has the APS and FF mirrorless camera field to themselves.

Its my plan to wait till the next generation of A7 cameras, and then buy one of those if Pentax hasn't produced a similar one first. Pentax had an opportunity by making a simple follow-up to the K01, but they decided not to. Supid decisions have consequences, and corporations are as prone to stupid decisions as much as the average individual. Course i could be wrong - but i don't think so

To respond a little to monochrome's post, Ricoh has made mirrorless aps models under their label prior to buying Pentax, i would hope they can lend their expertise to Pentax's mirrorless cause. And Pentax has already made 2 mirrorless models, the Q mount and the K01. Plus they can learn from Sony's successes and mistakes. No big deal to me anymore - I'll end up with a Sony FF if Pentax doesn't show signs of life - soon i hope :-)

I'm in the same position. I think the 1st generation of the A7r is pretty rough around the edges. Sony still is more of a consumer electronics manufacturer than a manufacturer of professional cameras. If Pentax would make a Pentax version of the A7r with In-body IS, DNG support, & better ergonomics and menus I would have bought one. Right now I'm just waiting.

[GoremanX]

I can't be bothered to go over all 19 pages of this thread, so here are my guesses as to how Pentax could be "different", even if someone else already mentioned them.

APS-H has been brought up frequently recently. This would allow Pentax to use sensor-shift stabilization with older FF lenses (FF sensor shift might move out of the usable imaging circle on some lenses).

In keeping with the whole sensor shift theme, perhaps we could see some kind of pixel quadrupling, same as on some high end medium format cameras. The technology is already built into Pentax cameras, it's only a matter of harnessing the possibilities. They did just that with the AA filter simulation.

Both of those options are reasonably feasible in the existing K-3 body, there's no radical changes needed. Imagine an APS-H camera the size of a K-3 that can shoot portraits and landscapes at 80mp with fantastic image quality or sports and candids at 20mp with amazing low light performance. Not only is that truly unique, but it's actually likely.

[Ratmagiclady]

I can't be bothered to go over all 19 pages of this thread, so here are my guesses as to how Pentax could be "different", even if someone else already mentioned them.

Off-topic, but hey, you're back! Hi, there.

[Fogel70]

I can't be bothered to go over all 19 pages of this thread, so here are my guesses as to how Pentax could be "different", even if someone else already mentioned them.

APS-H has been brought up frequently recently. This would allow Pentax to use sensor-shift stabilization with older FF lenses (FF sensor shift might move out of the usable imaging circle on some lenses).

In keeping with the whole sensor shift theme, perhaps we could see some kind of pixel quadrupling, same as on some high end medium format cameras. The technology is already built into Pentax cameras, it's only a matter of harnessing the possibilities. They did just that with the AA filter simulation.

Both of those options are reasonably feasible in the existing K-3 body, there's no radical changes needed. Imagine an APS-H camera the size of a K-3 that can shoot portraits and landscapes at 80mp with fantastic image quality or sports and candids at 20mp with amazing low light performance. Not only is that truly unique, but it's actually likely.

They can do all these thing with a FF sensor too, so there is no reason for Pentax to try to use APS-H to compete on the FF segment. Maybe it will be difficult to get a FF sized sensor with SR in a K-3 sized body.

[monochrome]

Pentax already makes better cameras than Sony at a competitive price. The K-3 is a better camera than the A77. I haven't had my hands on an A77II, so the A77II might be different.

Read Roger Cicala's paragraphs about Sony's process engineering, design and manufacturing expertise (learned in consumer electronics). That's the key. It isn't just making and selling a better mirrorless camera. It's making a profit doing it in the modern, machine-assembly world.

[GoremanX]

They can do all these thing with a FF sensor too, so there is no reason for Pentax to try to use APS-H to compete on the FF segment. Maybe it will be difficult to get a FF sized sensor with SR in a K-3 sized body.

Nope, they can't. You must've missed this part of my post :

(FF sensor shift might move out of the usable imaging circle on some lenses).

Also the mirror box on the K-3 is too small for a FF mirror, this has already been explored in the past by many other members.

Everyone assume FF should be the easiest thing in the world for Pentax because of the existing back catalog of FF lens designs. But the fact is that many (most?) of those lenses have an image circle that just barely covers the frame. Any sensor shift would generate one or more soft corners and ugly vignetting. So to go full frame and retain compatibility with existing lenses, Pentax would have to either:

a) drop sensor shift or disable it on unsupported lenses (one of their defining features)

b) crop the image on unsupported lenses (to about APS-H size)

c) use an actual APS-H sensor

I far prefer the last option. It would give us a more agile camera with responsive sensor shift and retain SR on old lenses without IQ issues. The best of all worlds.

---------- Post added 09-07-14 at 09:42 AM ----------

Off-topic, but hey, you're back! Hi, there.

Yeah, I have occasional lapses in judgment around the time of big camera events or near the launch of new Pentax gear. I typically regain my sanity within a day or two. This isn't a very pleasant place to be.

[Winder]

Read Roger Cicala's paragraphs about Sony's process engineering, design and manufacturing expertise (learned in consumer electronics). That's the key. It isn't just making and selling a better mirrorless camera. It's making a profit doing it in the modern, machine-assembly world.

If they can make and sell DSLRs for a profit then they can do the same with a mirrorless. If they can't then Ricoh won't be able t save the brand and it doesn't matter.

[Fogel70]

Nope, they can't. You must've missed this part of my post

No, I have not missed it, it's just that the SR movement is not large enough to be an issues on most FF lenses. I don't think any Pentax K-mount FF lens will make the image totally useless when the FF sensor moves a few 1/10 of mm needed for 3-4 stops of SR. In worst case there will be small amount of extra vignetting in the images. But I don't see any reason for limiting all images to 1.3x crop because of this.

And as a 1.3x crop sensor will have to be custom made, it might make the sensor more expensive than a FF sensor. And to build the future development on a custom design sensor which might not get the best support from sensor manufacturers might end up a nightmare for Ricoh/Pentax.
New lenses also have to be designed for 1.3x crop which will make it difficult to move up to FF in the future, and we can all forget 3rd party support on lenses.

To only go half the way that the market want, is just not good enough.

[devouges]

What could be different with FF ? I say NO VIDEO MODE ! ! !

I wonder how many people actually find any regular use for video on an SLR