[eyeswideshut]

This assumption is incorrect. I never mentioned open source software, I'm only talking about open standards - and those are very different notions.


That it would be a new mount.
There's a thought, in a corner of my mind, telling me I don't know all the implications. One thing I'm afraid of is if everyone would start competing for the bottom line - cheaper, more, faster; without the compatibility barrier that might happen. Maybe proprietary mounts are what allows them to pursue things that can't be easily marketed, for example lenses which scores a bit lower on test charts but have unique renderings.
I guess it has to do with my job, I'm used to thinking in more detail than usual people. Give me an idea which seems wonderful and I'll ask, what's the trick? And, sadly, most of the times there is a trick.

Of course it would be a new mount -> if they decide to go mirrorless they will need a new mount. The mft experience has been an extremely encouraging one for consumers bringing a much broader range of lenses / cameras to market within a very short time than any one member could have provided on his own.

I doubt that the nexus you perceive between a proprietary mount and off beat or unusual or particularly painterly lenses is real. The true nexus is simply numbers sold - the more they sell, the more exotic the lense may become. Just look at the Pentax lens database. What have they not manufactured at one point or another in the distant past. But now? Try a tilt/shift for instance. We will never see that from Pentax for the k-mount as the potential market is far too small. But if various manufacturers share a common mount someone may just decide to offer such a lens.

Meanwhile, you realize that Pentax bringing out a ff dslr featuring a k-mount will get absolutely no support from the second tier manufacturers. Already the aps-c models get waning support and their sales figures are astronomical compared to what a ff camera will bring. Maybe Pentax can turn the tide, but that will take a lot of time and determination. Meanwhile they'll have to revamp their lens lineup on their own.

So IF they should decide to go mirrorless and if rumors of fuji and olympus contemplating ff are true, then a common mount ala mft makes a lot of sense in a shrinking market. The boon to consumers is obvious. All three manufacturers are renowned for the very high quality of some of their lenses, Cosina will immediately make its ff lenses available for the new mount and the other second tier manufacturers will undoubtedly also follow.

Incidentally, such a course of action would not preclude Pentax releasing a ff K3 at some point...

[ElJamoquio]

Not the protocol, but contact information, anything suggesting that one might actually be involved in this "open standard". Sony has it, and the E-mount is proprietary.

Your claim was that I could personally build a M4/3 camera. I feel no urge to prove or disprove your claim (nor to build a M4/3 camera) - it's you who should call them and tell us what's the answer.

And I've already proven it to the extent I care - they say it's an open standard. I really have no reason to believe they're lying, even if they haven't published the protocol on a webpage.

I'm calling nobody. M4/3rds are silly cameras, not pocketable and the poorest IQ of the not-pocketable cameras. Who would actually want to build one?

---------- Post added 07-19-14 at 03:34 PM ----------

Meanwhile, you realize that Pentax bringing out a ff dslr featuring a k-mount will get absolutely no support from the second tier manufacturers.

OK, but you'll need to tell them that, because they're currently building dozens of lenses for a Full-Frame K-mount. I think it's around 30, but admittedly some are Tamron. Maybe Sigma will stop building FF K-mount when the FF Pentax comes around?

[eyeswideshut]

OK, but you'll need to tell them that, because they're currently building dozens of lenses for a Full-Frame K-mount. I think it's around 30, but admittedly some are Tamron. Maybe Sigma will stop building FF K-mount when the FF Pentax comes around?

You mean that bevy of old boring zoom lenses? But you are right, I was still on the tangent of unusual lenses that Kunzite mentioned and Cosina's manual focus offerings etc. - so yes the obvious slipped right past me. Yet doom being Pentax' middle name, your prediction may yet come to pass .

[RonHendriks1966]

Meanwhile, you realize that Pentax bringing out a ff dslr featuring a k-mount will get absolutely no support from the second tier manufacturers. Already the aps-c models get waning support and their sales figures are astronomical compared to what a ff camera will bring. Maybe Pentax can turn the tide, but that will take a lot of time and determination. Meanwhile they'll have to revamp their lens lineup on their own.

Third party support for K-mount FF is a real concern I think. Having less lenses from Sigma for K-mount, like the 120-300mm lens is a real disadvantage. I think that is of real importance for outsiders to step into K-mount. It is already for the aps-c camera's for Pentax a small problem.

[ElJamoquio]

You mean that bevy of old boring zoom lenses? But you are right, I was still on the tangent of unusual lenses that Kunzite mentioned and Cosina's manual focus offerings etc. - so yes the obvious slipped right past me. Yet doom being Pentax' middle name, your prediction may yet come to pass .

Sigma has a 15, 24, 35 and 85 if you like primes. I haven't heard anything about the 15. I think the 24 is sub-par but a new one is coming out this fall according to rumors. The 35 and 85 are awesome, and the 50 might be (is?) coming. The 500mm F/4.5 is the best long telephoto made for Pentax (and if you'd like to argue, I'll just remind you the 560 isn't a telephoto ), and the 300mm F/2.8 is pretty good too.

I think the 70mm macro should be FF too?

Tamron has a great 90, but I prefer Pentax's 100mm.

If you don't mind manual focus there's the Rokinon 14, 24, 85, and according to them, the 8mm fisheye (black corners).

So that's 11 second-party primes plus the Rokinon 8 plus likely the Sigma 50.

Primes only! What about the zooms? There's at least a dozen I think.


You know what I was surprised about, though? When I used APS-C exclusively, I basically only used primes; I didn't find the speed and IQ of the zooms good enough. On FF, I didn't expect to like zooms - I bought a D600+24/85 when it was priced the same as the body only - and lo-and-behold, that 'cheap' zoom is so much better I now don't usually shoot primes any more.

Will other people change? Dunno. I think the percentage of prime-shooting-pentaxians is far higher than Canon and Nikon, but would that change with a FF?

[Kunzite]

Of course it would be a new mount -> if they decide to go mirrorless they will need a new mount. The mft experience has been an extremely encouraging one for consumers bringing a much broader range of lenses / cameras to market within a very short time than any one member could have provided on his own.

I'm not so sure about that. The lens range is insanely redundant in some places, the only thing - some 3rd-party makers made lenses which are a bit special. I guess it's easier to do so, when you're not constrained by the retrofocus design.
And let's not forget that 5 years passed since the introduction of the m4/3 system, with 2 manufacturers working full speed - no interruptions. Still, no OEM tilt&shift, they're too busy launching standard zooms

I doubt that the nexus you perceive between a proprietary mount and off beat or unusual or particularly painterly lenses is real. The true nexus is simply numbers sold - the more they sell, the more exotic the lense may become. Just look at the Pentax lens database. What have they not manufactured at one point or another in the distant past. But now? Try a tilt/shift for instance. We will never see that from Pentax for the k-mount as the potential market is far too small. But if various manufacturers share a common mount someone may just decide to offer such a lens.

Where is the OEM m4/3 tilt/shift lens, then?

Meanwhile, you realize that Pentax bringing out a ff dslr featuring a k-mount will get absolutely no support from the second tier manufacturers. Already the aps-c models get waning support and their sales figures are astronomical compared to what a ff camera will bring. Maybe Pentax can turn the tide, but that will take a lot of time and determination. Meanwhile they'll have to revamp their lens lineup on their own.

No, I don't realize that

So IF they should decide to go mirrorless and if rumors of fuji and olympus contemplating ff are true, then a common mount ala mft makes a lot of sense in a shrinking market. The boon to consumers is obvious. All three manufacturers are renowned for the very high quality of some of their lenses, Cosina will immediately make its ff lenses available for the new mount and the other second tier manufacturers will undoubtedly also follow.

Too many IFs. Too much optimism.

And I've already proven it to the extent I care - they say it's an open standard. I really have no reason to believe they're lying, even if they haven't published the protocol on a webpage.

You would also trust their accounting, right?

OK, but you'll need to tell them that, because they're currently building dozens of lenses for a Full-Frame K-mount. I think it's around 30, but admittedly some are Tamron. Maybe Sigma will stop building FF K-mount when the FF Pentax comes around?

And perhaps Pentax will get rid of their current FF lenses and won't launch others. Just because.

[ElJamoquio]

Third party support for K-mount FF is a real concern I think. Having less lenses from Sigma for K-mount, like the 120-300mm lens is a real disadvantage. I think that is of real importance for outsiders to step into K-mount. It is already for the aps-c camera's for Pentax a small problem.

Third party support, while worse than Canon+Nikon, is still head-and-shoulders better than Olympus, Panasonic, Leica, or Sony.

[mee]

Third party support, while worse than Canon+Nikon, is still head-and-shoulders better than Olympus, Panasonic, Leica, or Sony.

The solution is simple.. the new FF dSLR body from Pentax should have an F mount. Instant Sigma love!

[jsherman999]

You mean, if I could open up a company dedicated to building photographic products, and large enough to be accepted by Olympus and Panasonic? That's not what personally means.

I'm not sure where you want to take this line of query - what point are you trying to make about 'open standards', now? That it's not open if you personally - you, yourself, alone - can't make an m43 camera?

If you contacted the current m43 consortium committee (headed by an Olympus rep I believe) and said that you had limited capital but access to 3D printing, machine tools, and some basic raw materials and wanted to try to build your own m43 camera or lenses you may be given the detailed specs and a pat on the back. (For all we know the detailed specs are available now for download anyway, have you checked?) That wouldn't work the same way with K-mount, F-mount, etc.

Anyway I'm not sure what point you're trying to make - you implied that you didn't expect the 'open standard' here to follow the software model directly, so I don't know what level of deviation from that you find acceptable or why it matters to the main thread. What's being suggested is a consortium of companies agreeing on an open FF standard - not one guy in his garage.

---------- Post added 07-20-14 at 10:05 AM ----------

Meanwhile, you realize that Pentax bringing out a ff dslr featuring a k-mount will get absolutely no support from the second tier manufacturers.:

Exactly the opposite - K-mount 3rd-party support will likely stabilize and increase as the mount is given an economic vote of confidence from it's parent and a more active lens-buying demographic is retained and grown.

Lots of aps-c DSLR sell, but the vast majority of those buyers don't move beyond the kit lens or a dual kit (18-55 & 55-200 or 70-300.) The constant-aperture zooms and primes and exotics are bought by FF buyers at a much higher rate.


.

[Kunzite]

Again, ElJamoquio said that he believes that I, personally, could build a M4/3 camera. I challenged that baseless assumption. That's one thing.

Then, Olympus claims their mount is an "open standard" without as much as publicly providing information about how one could get in. I want to know how it's any different than a proprietary mount which can be licensed to 3rd-parties (or reverse engineered). Until they say to which extent they're "open", it's just a proprietary mount trying to appear as something else. That's another thing.

Available for download, where? I did search the four thirds site but couldn't find anything. You're assuming they are available, and that I didn't check.

This is not important enough to prolong it further, and I don't see what else could be added.

[jogiba]

Again, ElJamoquio said that he believes that I, personally, could build a M4/3 camera. I challenged that baseless assumption. That's one thing.

Then, Olympus claims their mount is an "open standard" without as much as publicly providing information about how one could get in. I want to know how it's any different than a proprietary mount which can be licensed to 3rd-parties (or reverse engineered). Until they say to which extent they're "open", it's just a proprietary mount trying to appear as something else. That's another thing.

Available for download, where? I did search the four thirds site but couldn't find anything. You're assuming they are available, and that I didn't check.

This is not important enough to prolong it further, and I don't see what else could be added.

Budget M43: Kodak Pixpro S-1 First Impressions Review: Digital Photography Review
Blackmagic Design: Blackmagic Pocket Cinema Camera
Mirrorless System Lenses | B&H Photo Video

[Kunzite]

You're quoting me, then post something completely irrelevant to what I said. What's your point?

[RonHendriks1966]

As far as I know it is open in the way that others can join........ No idea about a fee, but it must be a thing that varies, since there also some very small company's. So I don't think it is impossible to open a one men bussiness and join in on the micro 4/3th system.


Could we leave it at this point?

[jogiba]

You're quoting me, then post something completely irrelevant to what I said. What's your point?

What's your point?

[Kunzite]

Well, Ron, since it's pointless, I cannot find a minimum of information and since jogiba is here trying to engage me in silly games - I'll leave the subject alone. I'm still considering it a proprietary mount like any other, with a marketing twist.

And what better way of closing this subject, than enumerating the manufacturers which used a certain other proprietary mount? (source: Wikipedia; otherwise I'd miss half of them):
Pentax
Almaz
Chinon
Carena
Cimko
Cosina
Edixa
Exakta
Lindenblatt
Miranda
Porst
Promaster
Quantaray
Ricoh
Samsung (Pentax rebadges, the SR4000 used another mount)
Sears
Topcon
Vivitar
Voigtlander
Zenit