Originally posted by Kunzite kadajawi:
I don't like discussing such baseless "ifs". I'm a software engineer, and assumptions are the enemy
I would rather discuss the conditions necessary to make it work; the approach is different because it also implies possible solutions. For example, if right now they don't have enough (R&D, production etc) capacity to expand the K-mount with "full frame" products, the obvious solution is to expand their capacity. For this fiscal year, Ricoh allocated about 42 million USD to "increase production of digital camera, etc".
Handing over the firmware it's not as trivial as it sounds. We're talking about intellectual property here, they can't just give up on all that. Making the firmware open source (or otherwise opening it for 3rd-parties) is a huge task, and the benefits are doubtful outside a small circle.
A rebadged D810 would be a "Pentax" labelled camera with a Nikon F mount. What's the purpose? To migrate Pentax users to the F-mount?
Sorry, but a K-mount can't just appear on the D810; if you try you'll find out the body is designed for a larger registration distance, the controls and everything are Nikon style... problems which are expensive to fix. For the registration distance they'll probably need to use a hammer
Why, when Pentax is very much capable of making their own "full frame" K-mount DSLR? What's the USP in having exactly the same product as the competition, except with a hacked K-mount on it, and more expensive (because they need to pay Nikon, too)?
normhead:
"Here's the thing I would really like from FF advocates, stop focussing on FF taking away APS-c users. "
I see "full frame" as an addition to the K-mount. Instead of taking away, it will offer APS-C users an upgrade path, and new lenses to buy (regardless if going FF or not).
By handing over the firmware I meant hire them. At least try. Good things can come out of it. Being associated with the developers of Magic Lantern means something and gives free press. It also takes them away from developing the Canon version, which is good cause it hurts Canon (and Canon might even thank Pentax cause Canon would much rather sell their C series of cameras anyway). And finally we'd get the option to turn our Pentaxes into cameras that take video serious. If these people could reverse engineer and hack the original firmware to expand the capabilities of the cameras that much, what can they do with more access and information? Perhaps Canon's processor is vastly superior to the Fujitsu processor that Pentax uses, and it just can't be done. But they can try at least, and perhaps influence the direction the next camera is going into.
In any way stills capabilities don't have to suffer for video capabilities, and the owner can be given the choice if he wants the old, limited controls or if he wants to unlock the full potential, even if it is a bit intimidating. Green mode vs M mode.
I could imagine Pentax starting from the 645z. Advertise the hell out of it. Build the brand. Pentax is back (nevermind it was never gone). Doesn't matter if most that see the ads, see photographers using them etc. will never be buying one. Then say they are moving downwards, towards high end Canon and Nikon, offering something more affordable. After all the 645 line exceeds what Canikon have to offer. The K-3 as a smaller 645z. Built for portability, speed, unobtrusiveness. Silent without a slow mode. Photos with pancake lenses. Are you tired of carrying heavy and bulky gear, but still want a tough as f*** professional camera?
Professional does not necessarily mean FF. I'd argue something like the GH4 is still a professional camera, despite the small sensor. Eventually they should offer a FF camera, but at what point, and in what form?
Big viewfinders... I think that will be the selling point for mirrorless. Not now. But it will be. You can put in a relatively big screen with perhaps 2-4K resolution. And don't forget that using a screen can have advantages too, cause you can see what you will get, you have histogram overlays, focus peaking, etc. Low light will be an issue perhaps, but that depends on the sensor. Sacrificing AF though for a bigger, brighter viewfinder... Can't see that happen. Too unique. People were ridiculing the Nikon Df for not doing video. Try removing AF then... I think the only area where the lack of AF is perfectly acceptable is video. Video AF only matters to consumers.
There is one problem I see with using the same mount, the same lenses for FF and APS-C: You won't get the benefit of APS-C. Small, light and cheap lenses. Otherwise it makes sense. Heck, I'd extend it even further. One mount, APS-C, FF, mirrorless APS-C and FF. But not like the K-01. There'll be lenses meant for mirrorless, mostly ones that are meant to be small. The lens mount stays K mount on all cameras, but to use regular K mount lenses an adapter that mechanically extends out the mount has to be used. It would be very cool if you could actually pull out the lens mount so you can use lenses meant for SLRs, to get the flange distance. When using mirrorless lenses in mirror mode you basically have a macro extension tube built into the body. I guess the main problem with having something that can extend and retract is that the precision needed would be lost. But if they can find a solution for that...
A multiple FF line-up might not be that hard, after all. That's what the A7 has shown.