[geo444]

I wouldn't say never-- surely Ricoh/Pentax folks are thinking and discussing options for the future right now and are trying to figure out if they can make a go of it as a company that basically only sells SLRs. If Pentax keeps the K mount, then they limit themselves with regard to how small they can make the camera body & lenses. At the same time, if they release a brand new mount, I can't imagine how long it would take them to get lenses for it completed...

With 2-3 Basic Lenses + the 4 Adapters I listed in my 1st post...
... then it would be a far more " Completed " System than the K-01 at launch !!

... As for the auto focus, there is no particular reason to believe that Pentax would make auto focus on a K-02 better than they have been able to make auto focus on the K-1...

There is 1 New Particular Reason to believe that Pentax will succeed in a Stunning AutoFocus :
- Sony Now manufactures its FF Sensors with embedded CD-AF & Hybrid-AF
It's just at what price Pentax and Sony will conclude the deal !

Regardless, I just hope they continue trying to innovate and release new products.

+10

[camyum]

Still, i like the idea of a hybrid DSLR(operating with excellent speed, AF in LV and absolutely silent - Global Electronic Shutter) much much more than I like the idea of having another MILC on the market.
The Nikon D850 will show what can be done(even without a hybrid Viewfinder)
But i sincerly hope the second Full-Frame DSLR from Pentax will rather incorporate 24MP(A9 Sensor) then around 40....

[geo444]

Adapters don't work !

Misinformation ?... Lack of information ?...

Confusion between Adapters With or Without Lens(es) inside ?

I use Adapters for Pentax K(45.46), NiKon F(46.5), Canon Eos(44mm)... to Sony E Mount (18mm)
=> I confirm -1) there are Absolutely NO LENSES inside these 3 Adapters !
-2) A Good Sharp Lens remains a Good Sharp Lens.

...
This MILC has to be built around a Short backfocus Electronic Mount
... let's call it PEM = Pentax Electronic Mount :
- the 1st Adapter to be the PEM to KAF4 = 100% Electronic Adapter !
- the 2nd Adapter to be the PEM to EOS = 100% Electronic Adapter !
- the 3rd Adapter to be the PEM to KAF3 with Aperture control lever ?
- the 4th Adapter to be the PEM to NiKon-F w/ Aperture control lever ?

...

Pentax only have to choose a Register Distance shorter than say ~41 mm for K+F+Eos Compatibility
= Compatibility with Several Hundreds of Good Sharp Lenses from Pentax+NiKon+Canon

The Compatibility with Sony E Lens is Another Deal to Conclude with Sony
- inside the Deal for the FF Sensor with embedded AutoFocus...
If positive, requires a Register Distance of ~15mm
( it's not a problem, NX-mini=7.5mm )
If Direct Compatibility with Sony E Lenses (highly unlikely) Register Distance =18mm !

Almost every serious review and DxO measure conclude that Native Lenses deliver optimal Optical Perfs...
... Camera Bodies are Designed by Each Manufacturer to meet their Lens Mount Specifics...

Are you serious ? Despite Pentax stopped its SDP-UF Refractors... K Astrams keep shooting !
... And you know what ?... You Always Need an Adapter for AstroPhotography !
Do you insinuate AstroPhotographer = ~sunday handyman~ ?

Except Misalignment, or Light Leaks, the Camera Body is of Zero influence on Optical Perfs !

During Exposure Time... Nothing is in the Light Path... from the Lens to the Sensor

Knowing this FF Sensor will be " Made by Sony "...
... does this mean your " Native Lenses " will be Sony E Lenses ?

[Aristophanes]

Misinformation ?... Lack of information ?...

Confusion between Adapters With or Without Lens(es) inside ?

I use Adapters for Pentax K(45.46), NiKon F(46.5), Canon Eos(44mm)... to Sony E Mount (18mm)
=> I confirm -1) there are Absolutely NO LENSES inside these 3 Adapters !
-2) A Good Sharp Lens remains a Good Sharp Lens.



Pentax only have to choose a Register Distance shorter than say ~41 mm for K+F+Eos Compatibility
= Compatibility with Several Hundreds of Good Sharp Lenses from Pentax+NiKon+Canon

The Compatibility with Sony E Lens is Another Deal to Conclude with Sony
- inside the Deal for the FF Sensor with embedded AutoFocus...
If positive, requires a Register Distance of ~15mm
( it's not a problem, NX-mini=7.5mm )
If Direct Compatibility with Sony E Lenses (highly unlikely) Register Distance =18mm !



Are you serious ? Despite Pentax stopped its SDP-UF Refractors... K Astrams keep shooting !
... And you know what ?... You Always Need an Adapter for AstroPhotography !
Do you insinuate AstroPhotographer = ~sunday handyman~ ?

Except Misalignment, or Light Leaks, the Camera Body is of Zero influence on Optical Perfs !

During Exposure Time... Nothing is in the Light Path... from the Lens to the Sensor

Knowing this FF Sensor will be " Made by Sony "...
... does this mean your " Native Lenses " will be Sony E Lenses ?

Astrophotography doesn't require wide open lenses and precise DOF control, making adapters a moot point for IQ.

By definition an adapter is a mis-alignment by offsetting the rear element from the capture plane in a manner not originally designed for in the OEM lens design. We knew this back in the film days. That is why bands mount distances were only needing to be off by ~1mm to make crossover difficult. And the sensor plane (especially enlarger sensors) has even less tolerance than the film plane.

Adapters....don't....work. They are an experiment in optics with he most fungible standards of tolerance, not a final product with the highest standards of tolerance. Look at the Leica R to M adapters and all their exceptions.

[RobA_Oz]

Assuming the throat diameter is adequate to the task, the issues of parallelism of mating surfaces and concentricity of optical axes are the ones to be dealt with in designing and manufacturing an adapter that doesn't introduce excessive image distortion. I'm sure that lens designers who are capable of making optical flats are well aware of the engineering techniques needed to minimise such distortion. All that boils down to the body and lens-makers' engineering tolerances, which already exist and introduce errors of some magnitude, even with lenses that don't require an adapter. Adding another pair of mating surfaces adds another level of complexity, unless you make an adapter that is custom-made to a particular body and lens. Non-OEM designers probably have to guess the body and lens tolerances, and try to work in between them, but a good start is to minimise deviations from parallel surfaces and optical axis squareness.

Tight tolerances in the OEM design and manufacturing process are the key to getting the best result, which implies that sticking to one manufacturer for the lot (body, adapter and lens) should give the best result possible, in the best of all possible worlds. It all comes down to how much deviation is acceptable in the final image, though.

[geo444]

.
This thread was totally " in the air "

ZENIT Krasnogorsk Mechanical & Optical Works, at least, shared my thoughts :
Zenit is back in business, plans to release full-frame mirrorless camera in 2018 : DPReview
«... In fact, an unnamed " leading photographic equipment company " will produce some of the components for this camera... »

Tens of posts including the brand Pentax-Ricoh to be found in comments...
... And here too :
Zenit plans to release full-frame mirrorless camera in 2018: Pentax SLR Talk Forum: DPReview

My guess is that ZENIT won't design a Mirrorless Camera built around a too limiting M42 Mount...
but a Camera with a Short Flange Distance to accommodate for most Lenses instead !

wait & see...

[Kunzite]

My guess is we'll see a Sony A7-based contraption. That would be easiest for them (and they launched a Sony FE lens).

[geo444]

.
The Essential Feature that the Pentax K-1 has ( that this Future System MILC will have too ! )
... and that even that marvelous new Nikon D850 misses at $3300...
the Pentax SR IBIS hand-held effectiveness !

Will 46 MPix D850 hand-held shots be Sharper than 36 MPix K-1 hand-held shots ?
... There is absolutely NO guarantee of that :
Just in case: Nikon FX SLR (DF, D1-D5, D600-D850) Talk Forum: DPReview
« The biggest problem is not the lens resolution, it's the camera shake »

Pentax maintains major and unique assets in its skills...
... what to offer to widely more than... 1 percent of the market !

[normhead]

I have my Pentax mirrorless, my XG-1 bridge camera. It has a number of important features. released in 2014 it's the first lens that collapses into a shorter non-shooting position for storage. It has a 24-1250 equivalent zoom, it has selectable back screen or EVF. It does a lot of the things Pentax doesn't do. I Love the zoom range, but if it's any indication of what Pentax would come out with in a mirrorless, it's not up to scratch. Pentax should stay focussed on their current product lines. The K-3II replacement is late, people want more lenses for the K-1. Scattering resources in another direction would be more likely to cost them market share than increase it.

Pentax is in a position where they can best increase market share by doing the things that will keep their current customer base happy. The most complained about thing at the moment would be lack of variable aperture and ƒ4 lenses for the K-1. It would be the same for an FF mirrorless.

I can get right to my final position in one post because:

This has been discussed to death.

[geo444]

Assuming the throat diameter is adequate to the task, the issues of parallelism of mating surfaces and concentricity of optical axes are the ones to be dealt with in designing and manufacturing an adapter that doesn't introduce excessive image distortion. I'm sure that lens designers who are capable of making optical flats are well aware of the engineering techniques needed to minimise such distortion. All that boils down to the body and lens-makers' engineering tolerances, which already exist and introduce errors of some magnitude, even with lenses that don't require an adapter. Adding another pair of mating surfaces adds another level of complexity, unless you make an adapter that is custom-made to a particular body and lens. Non-OEM designers probably have to guess the body and lens tolerances, and try to work in between them, but a good start is to minimise deviations from parallel surfaces and optical axis squareness.
Tight tolerances in the OEM design and manufacturing process are the key to getting the best result, which implies that sticking to one manufacturer for the lot (body, adapter and lens) should give the best result possible, in the best of all possible worlds. It all comes down to how much deviation is acceptable in the final image, though.

.
Flat Parallel Grinding Machines got the Sub-Micron Precision many decades ago...
... So I'm not especially worried about Adapters Parallelism !

What bother me way more than Adapters are Zoom Lenses...
Especially those which show some blur at Top and Bottom of vertical frames
i.e.: Back-Focus at one extremity vs Front-Focus at the other side !

Then the Body itself could be the weak link too :
Takes more than a high sensor resolution: Nikon FX SLR (DF, D1-D5, D600-D850) Talk Forum: DPReview
Marianne : «... along the way, I found that the body of the D800E just isn't made Precisely Enough to hold the Mount to Sensor Alignment that's needed to fully utilize the Sensor, Corner to Corner. I wasn't pleased to discover that many of the Corner Aberration issues I've been seeing for years, are due to that, and Not the Lens. The D5, with its alloy body, is much better ( No, it's not merely due to the lower resolution ; I resampled to eliminate that factor )... »

Finally the Lens itself could be the problem :
Takes more than a high sensor resolution: Nikon FX SLR (DF, D1-D5, D600-D850) Talk Forum: DPReview
Marianne : «... I've been working on Lens alignment issues, to obtain best corner-to-corner performance. Many of them need some tweaking... »

Someone you can trust !
.

[geo444]

... requires a Register Distance of ~15 mm...

Nikon's Flange Focal Distance of their new FF ML System is rumored to be 16 mm :
Nikon's upcoming mirrorless camera rumored to have a new Z-mount with 16mm flange focal distance | Nikon Rumors

I would have preferred that it be Pentax who launched such a ML System...

[biz-engineer]

I would have preferred that it be Pentax who launched such a ML System...

Could be. When talking about MILC, everyone assumes that it require a change of the lens mount. But the fact is, removing a mirrorbox and replacing the prism by an EVF module does the trick with regards to the benefits of EVF (manual focusing and overlaid information directly in the EVF). Pentax could make such body. About the K01? The thing that was missing on the K01 was the EVF because when shooting outdoor on a sunny day, looking at the back LCD wasn't really an option.

[Mikesul]

Biz-engineer is right. The weakness of the K-01 was the lack of an EVF (and, of course, its price at launch). There was nothing wrong with the body itself. In fact, many of us rather enjoyed holding it. Pentax could give us most of the milc advantages but still retain the k-mount.

[geo444]

... When talking about MILC, everyone assumes that it require a change of the Lens Mount...

... Pentax could give us most of the MILC Advantages, but still retain the K-Mount..

Sony sold Millions of NEX cameras without an EVF... because they could Mount almost ANY LENS !
The birth of Sony NEX cameras was the real Beginning of the Adapters' Market...
5N, 5R, 5T, bests for Discrete Street Photo (Rolleiflex held)

[Mikesul]

Sony sold Millions of NEX cameras without an EVF... because they could Mount almost ANY LENS !
The birth of Sony NEX cameras was the real Beginning of the Adapters' Market...
5N, 5R, 5T, bests for Discrete Street Photo (Rolleiflex held)

I owned all of those except the 5R and the all had optional EVF which made them more usable. Nex took off with the Nex 6 which incorporated an EVF similar to the one in the early, expensive Nex 7. Many people liked the adapted lens funcition but I did not use it much. Sony took a while to fill out their lens line up which is still a bit thin in crop. I never gave up my Pentax equipment although the A6000 was very tempting to go to. The LCD only cameras were only barely usable - not unlike the K-01. But they were much cheaper.