[mecrox]

You are right. But, Pentax can and does offer something that Sony doesn't. What do I miss the most on my tiny A7r? Nice pancakes (or at least, smaller lenses) to pair it with!

I don't know about lower price though. Getting more should equal paying more. Otherwise people will think something smells fishy.

As to all the emotion about K-mount "dumping". I didn't see anybody mentioning dumping the K-mount. Only adding a new mount for mirrorless. And as to this forum being about "K-mount", rubbish! THen it would be called Kmountforums. It's about Pentax, and Pentax is about Q-, K- and 645 mount, but also about the legacy mounts that everybody is still happily using. Having K for the DSLRs and something else for the mirrorless, like Sony, doesn't seem all that strange. Especially not if there's a very good AF adapter. (A prettier one then the Sony one!!!)

And back to my first paragraph about the pancakes... Who's going to miss K-mount anyway if you can have an FF body with pancake in your left jacket pocket. And two additional primes the other. Carrying a nice walkaround kit without even needing a bag.

Every time I think of "adapter" I get a headache. I'm not sure that adapter is really the Way of Pentax. Their system is all about small, neat, precise, clicks together as if made for each other (which of course they are). Pentax with adapter is one less reason to buy Pentax. Leave it to Sony and their adapter-and-third-party-glass approach to precise, self-contained systems from a single manufacturer. For some folks it's a solution about as neat as ordure in the swimming pool.

I suspect everyone is looking at a fork in the road and trying to convince themselves it isn't really a fork. The fork is between the mounts predicated on the assumptions and technology of yesteryear, which still have plenty of purpose for some things of course, and the mounts predicated on today's tech and looking to the future. There is no combining the two which convinces me. It's one or the other. Trying to sell the complications of adapters and multiple mounts to regular folks who just want a good camera doesn't sound much fun to me. Sure there is a market for this, but it's not likely the way to grow a whole camera business.

[Clavius]

Every time I think of "adapter" I get a headache. I'm not sure that adapter is really the Way of Pentax. Their system is all about small, neat, precise, clicks together as if made for each other (which of course they are). Pentax with adapter is one less reason to buy Pentax. Leave it to Sony and their adapter-and-third-party-glass approach to precise, self-contained systems from a single manufacturer. For some folks it's a solution about as neat as ordure in the swimming pool.

I suspect everyone is looking at a fork in the road and trying to convince themselves it isn't really a fork. The fork is between the mounts predicated on the assumptions and technology of yesteryear, which still have plenty of purpose for some things of course, and the mounts predicated on today's tech and looking to the future. There is no combining the two which convinces me. It's one or the other.

And K-mount lenses are made for K-mount DSLRs. And any new mirrorless mount will be made for that new Pentax mirrorless. Exactly as you say. A one-to-one fit. ...But aren't they allowed then to provide a really good adapter for the users that already have K-mount lenses in their arsenal? I mean, nobody is complaining about the K to Q adapter either.

The K-01 shows how afraid Pentax are of rubbing their userbase the wrong way. They know very well there's lots of users with lots of K-mount glass that would become very angry when they wouldn't provide backwards compatibility. At the same time, it also shows what a "golden cage" it is. Why did the K-01 fail whilst the NEX series worked? It was a mirrorless with all the disadvantages of a DSLR.

Question really is, how many customers would Pentax gain by introducing a really good Pentax "A7" together with some tiny ltd to match it? Is that number high enough to not even care about the old established userbase?

Trying to sell the complications of adapters and multiple mounts to regular folks who just want a good camera doesn't sound much fun to me. Sure there is a market for this, but it's not likely the way to grow a whole camera business.

Now you're really insulting the "regular folks" there. If certain folks can't comprehend the workings of an adapter, then how would those same people deal with any consumer ILC at all?

As I said, obviously there's a lot of emotion.

[Paul MaudDib]

Every time I think of "adapter" I get a headache. I'm not sure that adapter is really the Way of Pentax.

We are talking about the company that lets you still use your M42 Takumar lenses from 1950 on your K-5 II, correct? The same one that put out a 1.7X AF teleconverter that lets you use those same 1950 M42 lenses on your K-5 II with full autofocus capability, right?

There's no free lunch here, if you don't have an adapter then you end up with the K-01. All the space for a mirror box, none of the advantages of mirrorless.

If you do the adapter right, you can keep full compatibility with old lenses while having a short register distance that allows compact cameras. Again, Sony is very instructive here, A-mount lenses just work on E-mount cameras because they put out a decent first-party adapter. CDAF isn't the best performing AF mode, but they're putting PDAF in their MILC nowadays.

For that matter you could even do the Metabones Speed Booster-style telecompressor/adapter and get FF field-of-view on a crop sensor MILC body.. Lots of possibilities.

---------- Post added 06-03-2014 at 03:47 PM ----------

Now if only that ff camera had a gorgeous optical view finder!

I still think the excitement and then disappointment over the Nikon DF was the result of pent-up demand for a serious manual-focus DSLR body.

Epson went totally cheapo with the R-D1, it's literally just a Cosina Bessa rangefinder body with a digital sensor. They didn't even bother updating the shutter mechanism, it still depends on you cocking the shutter with a wind lever just like the film version. And the stupid things still sell for $1000+ even though they're a decade old at this point. Leica does the same thing - digital sensor awkwardly grafted on to their classic film bodies, and people buy them.

People want a camera for taking pictures, not for poking through menus. There's 100 years of ergonomic design that went into film bodies, and much of it was just thrown away when electronic cameras and autofocus became a thing.

I remain convinced that a "digital Pentax MX/ME" with a big, bright viewfinder, split-prism focus screen, tactile controls, and a full-frame sensor would be a serious seller. That pent-up demand for a photographer's dream camera is exactly what Fuji is tapping into with the X-series right now.

[monochrome]

I mean, nobody is complaining about the K to Q adapter either.

Prior to getting a Q - and laying out the money for a Pentax K > Q adapter AND the fitting tripod foot - I hated the idea of using an adapter with a K-mount lens. Now, not so much.

However, on a camera with a FF sensor in the body, if Pentax made a new mount and new lenses to sell a godforsaken mirrorless using an adapter so I can mount the FF lenses I already own on the body I have waited an entire decade for - - - that would truly offend me. I could accept the CHOICE of a traditional K-mount FF body OR a new mount and an adapter on a MILC - - - but only as a choice.

Make BOTH. OVF 45.46 = Pentax; EVF new registration distance = Ricoh (Adapter by either). Release them together, even.

[eyeswideshut]

We are talking about the company that lets you still use your M42 Takumar lenses from 1950 on your K-5 II, correct? The same one that put out a 1.7X AF teleconverter that lets you use those same 1950 M42 lenses on your K-5 II with full autofocus capability, right?

There's no free lunch here, if you don't have an adapter then you end up with the K-01. All the space for a mirror box, none of the advantages of mirrorless.

If you do the adapter right, you can keep full compatibility with old lenses while having a short register distance that allows compact cameras. Again, Sony is very instructive here, A-mount lenses just work on E-mount cameras because they put out a decent first-party adapter. CDAF isn't the best performing AF mode, but they're putting PDAF in their MILC nowadays.

For that matter you could even do the Metabones Speed Booster-style telecompressor/adapter and get FF field-of-view on a crop sensor MILC body.. Lots of possibilities.

---------- Post added 06-03-2014 at 03:47 PM ----------



I still think the excitement and then disappointment over the Nikon DF was the result of pent-up demand for a serious manual-focus DSLR body.

Epson went totally cheapo with the R-D1, it's literally just a Cosina Bessa rangefinder body with a digital sensor. They didn't even bother updating the shutter mechanism, it still depends on you cocking the shutter with a wind lever just like the film version. And the stupid things still sell for $1000+ even though they're a decade old at this point. Leica does the same thing - digital sensor awkwardly grafted on to their classic film bodies, and people buy them.

People want a camera for taking pictures, not for poking through menus. There's 100 years of ergonomic design that went into film bodies, and much of it was just thrown away when electronic cameras and autofocus became a thing.

I remain convinced that a "digital Pentax MX/ME" with a big, bright viewfinder, split-prism focus screen, tactile controls, and a full-frame sensor would be a serious seller. That pent-up demand for a photographer's dream camera is exactly what Fuji is tapping into with the X-series right now.

Couldn't agree more. Good example re R-D1 btw. Had never thought of that.

[manntax]

People want a camera for taking pictures, not for poking through menus. There's 100 years of ergonomic design that went into film bodies, and much of it was just thrown away when electronic cameras and autofocus became a thing. I remain convinced that a "digital Pentax MX/ME" with a big, bright viewfinder, split-prism focus screen, tactile controls, and a full-frame sensor would be a serious seller. That pent-up demand for a photographer's dream camera is exactly what Fuji is tapping into with the X-series right now.

How I wish that somebody at Ricoch/Pentax would read that !!
,,,
' >' manntax

[Clavius]

Prior to getting a Q - and laying out the money for a Pentax K > Q adapter AND the fitting tripod foot - I hated the idea of using an adapter with a K-mount lens. Now, not so much.

However, on a camera with a FF sensor in the body, if Pentax made a new mount and new lenses to sell a godforsaken mirrorless using an adapter so I can mount the FF lenses I already own on the body I have waited an entire decade for - - - that would truly offend me. I could accept the CHOICE of a traditional K-mount FF body OR a new mount and an adapter on a MILC - - - but only as a choice.

Make BOTH. OVF 45.46 = Pentax; EVF new registration distance = Ricoh (Adapter by either). Release them together, even.

That's what I've been saying all along. A new mirrorless mount should be an addition. An extra choice, not a replacing system. Maybe they could even design the lenses so that they can be reconfigured/re-tooled from K to the other or vice versa with a few steps. No adapters.

[Kunzite]

Except they can't start a system with a low volume "full frame". As I keep explaining, IMO the only realistic choice is: first make sure you have a large enough APS-C user base, then add a "full frame" option to the system. Like Sony did.
Making the camera is the easiest part, but we're not talking about standalone products but systems.

[Clavius]

Except they can't start a system with a low volume "full frame". As I keep explaining, IMO the only realistic choice is: first make sure you have a large enough APS-C user base, then add a "full frame" option to the system. Like Sony did.
Making the camera is the easiest part, but we're not talking about standalone products but systems.

100% of the Pentax DSLR users is APS-C. That's a higher percentage of the users then Sony. [/EVIL GRIN]

Seriously though, I'm missing the clue here. Those APS-C user are using (mostly/generally) APS-C lenses. That goes for both current Pentax DSLR and NEX users. Now you're suggesting that there first should be a Pentax APC-C MILC system prior to a Pentax FF MILC system, even though the APS-C MILC lenses wouldn't work on the FF MILC system due to vignetting?

Come on, you're not being serious here.

[Kunzite]

I am serious, and I already explained what I mean several times. The real problem is not the camera, but the lenses; and the solution IMHO is to sell the newly introduced "full frame" lenses also to APS-C users.
Then, there's building market acceptance using a less expensive product line, having an upgrade path for your users instead of making them switch (possibly to another brand), shared R&D expenses for MILC-specific technologies...

[bdery]

Nikon made a bet about FF, disregarding the APS-C market, and have not turned a profit for the last two years.

[ElJamoquio]

Pentax has had the best aps-c camera on the market since forever... and they've been sold twice.

[Rondec]

Pentax has had the best aps-c camera on the market since forever... and they've been sold twice.

The issue with Pentax was (and probably still is) that they come up with too little too late. They have been a conservative company all the way along, producing nice quality products, but it took them forever to decide that digital was the way to go. They were slow to address (did they ever?) the SDM problems. The K5 series and the K3 were released after Hoya did their hostile take over and in hind sight, Hoya never had any desire to keep Pentax intact.

APS-C is still the place to build a foundation for a camera company. I think Pentax should release a full frame camera, but the users are terribly fragmented. Some believing mirrorless/EVF and adapters are the way to go, while others want a traditional SLR style camera. I, personally, would like both, but would be more interested in a small, tightly made SLR with nice 100 percent viewfinder. But I'm just one person and Pentax would need to sell to more folks than me to make it.

I do think with the rate at which Pentax seems able to design and produce new lenses that a new mirrorless mount seems like a disaster waiting to happen. Sony can do it, because they have the resources to churn out four or five new lenses a year till the line up is reasonably full, but with Pentax, one to two new lenses a year seems like a maximum.

[ElJamoquio]

I think Sony has said they'd make fifteen lenses in a year and a half? We're about 8 months into the A7 right now IIRC, and they have 5 or 6.

Personally I think the 'foundation' of a successful camera company is to offer a full line of products. Ken Rockwell, dpreview, etc, aren't strongly in favor of Pentax because Pentax doesn't fill the authors' needs.

Fuji is allegedly coming out with a 44x33 mirrorless. EGADS! Soon EVF's will be acceptable (or even desirable?) for many/most photographers...

[Clavius]

I am serious, and I already explained what I mean several times. The real problem is not the camera, but the lenses; and the solution IMHO is to sell the newly introduced "full frame" lenses also to APS-C users.
Then, there's building market acceptance using a less expensive product line, having an upgrade path for your users instead of making them switch (possibly to another brand), shared R&D expenses for MILC-specific technologies...

That would take several years. You know very well Pentax doesn't have that luxury.

Secondly, that has about as much logic as demanding that APS-C lenses, and 645 lenses fit on the Q to support the off chance that a user might want to upgrade the format later on. Users aren't missing it there either. You said it right: we're talking about different systems here. There's no shame in them having different mounts.