Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
01-11-2023, 04:02 PM - 1 Like   #1
Closed Account
Michael Piziak's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: West Virginia
Posts: 2,815
The K-01 was mirrorless, so here is my question:

The K-01 was mirrorless, so here is my question:

If the K-01 was mirrorless, then the obvious question is: Why can't they make another mirrorless camera with a digital viewfinder, that takes K lens?

I have read, and realize, that the big barrier is the flange distance, but again, it's been done before with the k-01 - so great big question mark (?)

01-11-2023, 04:15 PM - 1 Like   #2
Moderator
Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
Sandy Hancock's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Adelaide Hills, South Australia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 11,254
Despite being a camera with many virtues (I was an early adopter), the K-01 was an experiment which failed.

The lack of an electronic viewfinder, and the eccentric styling (which some of us have grown to love) were deal-breakers for many, and it was a financial flop.

Pentax have since positioned themselves firmly in the optical viewfinder camp. I'm not sure how a mirrorless K-mount camera would sit with that.
01-11-2023, 04:24 PM - 1 Like   #3
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Jersey C.I.
Posts: 3,573
QuoteOriginally posted by Michael Piziak Quote
The K-01 was mirrorless, so here is my question:
If the K-01 was mirrorless, then the obvious question is: Why can't they make another mirrorless camera with a digital viewfinder, that takes K lens?
I have read, and realize, that the big barrier is the flange distance, but again, it's been done before with the k-01 - so great big question mark (?)
Simple answer … the K-01 didn't sell!
If you want to go mirrorless there's a raft of options from CoFuSoNi etc.
If you want to see a mirrorless system that failed, check out the Samsung NX system, with EVFs, with clip-on EVFs and with no EVF at all.
Building a mirrorless camera with a PK mount makes for a bulky camera … if you don't have the PK mount you need a whole new lens system … see above!
Pentax have declared their dedication to the SLR and the heritage that is the PK lens-mount system … as I see it, end of story
01-11-2023, 04:41 PM - 1 Like   #4
Closed Account
Michael Piziak's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: West Virginia
Posts: 2,815
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Sandy Hancock Quote
Despite being a camera with many virtues (I was an early adopter), the K-01 was an experiment which failed.

The lack of an electronic viewfinder, and the eccentric styling (which some of us have grown to love) were deal-breakers for many, and it was a financial flop.

Pentax have since positioned themselves firmly in the optical viewfinder camp. I'm not sure how a mirrorless K-mount camera would sit with that.

I am certainly not in the camp of one that is clammering for a mirrorless camera; however, I understand that there is this "supposed" faction of Pentax users that either want a mirrorless with a digital viewfinder or believe that this is where future sells of interchangeable lens camera(s) exist (& thus think this is how Pentax is to survive in the future).

I think the k-01 was ahead of its time, back when even Canon and Nikon thouhgt that DSLR's were still the future of ILC cameras. The k-01 was released ahead of its time, in my opinion. Also, I believe its release without a digital viefinder, for one eye, would have also caused its failure when mirrorless were really catching on and even now as mirrorless are the "thing."


I, for one, am still in the optical viewfinder camp. But I've read so much about how mirrorless is the future & also read a lot about how flange distance from camera body to lens is a "barrier -" the barrier to keeping the k mount around. Apparently, the flange distance being the reason why Canon and Nikon came out with new mount sizes for their mirrorless.


IMO, there are 2 things that are still making Pentax a niche brand, and, not in any particular order, those are 1) excellent pentaprism optical viewfinder and 2) retaining the k mount.
Of those two, if one had to go, I would say that the K mount would have to stay and the pentaprism would go.


I think the k mount is financially more important to Pentax than the pentaprism - of course I could be wrong. But in believing this, my primary reason for this thread is to make the point that the K-01 was a camera that retained the K mount and was mirrorless. My point, further, is that Pentax could make a mirrorless camera again, that retained the k mount, that had a digital viewfinder.

Or perhaps Pentax is truly staying true to their word, which is an optical viewfinder is that important to their mission.

Addendum: I think also a reason for Canon & Nikon to change their mount size is that with their new mirrorless body designs, they claimed they could offer a superior image with a new mount considering their new flange distances. A personal note, I think the size of the mount hole on the new NIKON cameras, well I think the new mount/hole size looks huge compared to the body of their camera(s)....


Last edited by Michael Piziak; 01-11-2023 at 05:19 PM.
01-11-2023, 07:37 PM - 1 Like   #5
Senior Member
Joe Dusel's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Vista, CA
Posts: 126
I would love a mirrorless version of the K-1, a K-1m if you will. I want the K-mount, the EVF and all of the benefits that go along with the mirrorless systems like eye focusing. Personally I can't see how replacing the mirror with an EVF would be that huge a task. I am fine with the size and weight of the K-1.
01-11-2023, 08:01 PM - 1 Like   #6
Closed Account
Michael Piziak's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: West Virginia
Posts: 2,815
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by kypfer Quote
Simple answer … the K-01 didn't sell!
If you want to go mirrorless there's a raft of options from CoFuSoNi etc.
If you want to see a mirrorless system that failed, check out the Samsung NX system, with EVFs, with clip-on EVFs and with no EVF at all.
Building a mirrorless camera with a PK mount makes for a bulky camera … if you don't have the PK mount you need a whole new lens system … see above!
Pentax have declared their dedication to the SLR and the heritage that is the PK lens-mount system … as I see it, end of story
I think the major reason the K-01 failed is simply because it had *no* type of viewfinder. Just my opinion, nothing else, nothing more....
Also, the K-01 being mirrorless, was before it's time. Now, professionals and well educated amateur photographers are looking to buy mirrorless cameras.

I honestly believe, that one year in the future, Pentax will attempt a mirrorless, retaining the K mount.
This may be Pentax very last ditch effort to keep the name profitable or perhaps financially even. When we see the mirrorless Pentax, it may very well be the true beginning of the end for the Pentax name. I hope not. I hope if it actually does happen, then it will be more profitable than what Ricoh/Pentax imagines....
01-11-2023, 09:27 PM - 1 Like   #7
Moderator
Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
Sandy Hancock's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Adelaide Hills, South Australia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 11,254
Without a pentaprism, there is no Pentax. I'm pretty sure the company sees it that way too.

If the OVF remains, there will still need to be a mirror, which means the registration distance can't be reduced and ipso facto there is no need to change from the K-mount.

Simple

01-12-2023, 01:52 AM - 1 Like   #8
Forum Member




Join Date: Aug 2012
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 90
Pentax (Ricoh) could of course produce another mirrorless camera based on the K mount but this seems highly unlikely. One of the main advantages of mirrorless cameras is the fact that due to the absence of the mirror the lens can be much closer to the sensor. That calls for a new mount and a new lens series. That is what other camera manufacturers have done and abandonded their old mounts and lens series although old lenses can still be used with an adaptor, not a neat solution. The K-01 did not go down this route and maybe that was part of the reason why it was not a huge success. It was a nice camera though but Pentax released it before they had done enough work on the contrast detect based focusing system. Even if that system eventually got much better with firmware upgrades the camera never really took off. The design was not to everybody's liking but it was certainly bold and in my view quite well done. There were other questionable decisions made in marketing the K-01, it was quite expensive and the kit lens made little sense, its only advantage being how small it was. Introducing a new lens mount at this stage would be very expensive for Pentax and hard to see it selling in the volume needed. If they wanted to do something in the mirrorless market they could of course resurrect the Q mount. There are several nice lenses available for that mount already so they would only need an updated camera body. The Q series uses a fairly small sensor of course so it would not take the place of an APS-C or fullframe mirrorless camera, it is closer to phone cameras in that respect.
01-12-2023, 02:37 AM   #9
Pentaxian
Wasp's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Pretoria
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 4,650
For better or for worse, Ricoh has nailed the Pentax colors to the DSLR mast. It is therefore unlikely that there will pe a Pentax MILC soon.

The thing is, if you ditch the mirror in a DSLR you lose phase detect autofocus. You are in live view all the time, with only contrast detect autofocus. That is where the K01 fell short.

Quite a few MILC sensors do have phase detect nowadays, but that would mean doing the R&D to build a body that uses such a sensor. I am not sure where Pentax stand on this front.
01-12-2023, 03:48 AM - 2 Likes   #10
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 27,602
The K-01 was basically a K-50 without a viewfinder, stuck in live view mode all of the time and with a massive 1 frame raw buffer, and abysmal continuous auto focus. At the time, Pentax had the impression that the camera would sell due to styling and that turned out to be a fallacy. They did end up selling out, but it was only after they had reduced the pricing to less than 300 dollars.

I think the problems for Pentax on the mirrorless side of things have to do with the level of tech that they can put into cameras. They simply aren't going to be able to have an MILC with similar specs to a mid-level Nikon or Sony MILC without a huge investment of resources. Even then, I find it unlikely that they could bring something to the table that would make such a camera be a big seller. If you are the seventh or eighth camera brand to release an MILC, what is it that you bring to your camera that differentiates it from Sony, Canon, Fuji, Nikon, OM-D, Panasonic, Sigma, Leica, and whoever else I'm forgetting?
01-12-2023, 04:33 AM - 1 Like   #11
Closed Account
Michael Piziak's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: West Virginia
Posts: 2,815
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Sandy Hancock Quote
Without a pentaprism, there is no Pentax. I'm pretty sure the company sees it that way too.

If the OVF remains, there will still need to be a mirror, which means the registration distance can't be reduced and ipso facto there is no need to change from the K-mount.

Simple
So they couldn't continue making DSLR's? Just as they continued making them when they produced the K-01 ?

---------- Post added 01-12-23 at 04:40 AM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by gylfimag Quote
Pentax (Ricoh) could of course produce another mirrorless camera based on the K mount but this seems highly unlikely. One of the main advantages of mirrorless cameras is the fact that due to the absence of the mirror the lens can be much closer to the sensor. That calls for a new mount and a new lens series. That is what other camera manufacturers have done and abandonded their old mounts and lens series although old lenses can still be used with an adaptor, not a neat solution. The K-01 did not go down this route and maybe that was part of the reason why it was not a huge success. It was a nice camera though but Pentax released it before they had done enough work on the contrast detect based focusing system. Even if that system eventually got much better with firmware upgrades the camera never really took off. The design was not to everybody's liking but it was certainly bold and in my view quite well done. There were other questionable decisions made in marketing the K-01, it was quite expensive and the kit lens made little sense, its only advantage being how small it was. Introducing a new lens mount at this stage would be very expensive for Pentax and hard to see it selling in the volume needed. If they wanted to do something in the mirrorless market they could of course resurrect the Q mount. There are several nice lenses available for that mount already so they would only need an updated camera body. The Q series uses a fairly small sensor of course so it would not take the place of an APS-C or fullframe mirrorless camera, it is closer to phone cameras in that respect.

I agree with much of what you said. I also think it's highly unlikely it will happen, unless Pentax is on it's very last leg and are desperately throwing all the pasta at the wall to get something to stick and sale....

I do think that a compromise could be to keep the k mount and sacrifice the mirror instead of giving up both, should it ever come to mirrorless....

Last edited by Michael Piziak; 01-12-2023 at 04:42 AM.
01-12-2023, 05:09 AM - 2 Likes   #12
Forum Member




Join Date: Sep 2022
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 98
QuoteOriginally posted by Michael Piziak Quote
But I've read so much about how mirrorless is the future & also read a lot about how flange distance from camera body to lens is a "barrier -"
I believe the "mirrorless is the future" topic has been covered many times in the forum and it's just to do with video, changing mounts to bring in new lenses, cost, etc. These cameras are so cheap to manufacture. Think of them as computers with a sensor. They have to push it to sell, just like any business. I am not against them. I, myself, have been using a mirrorless for 8 years now. DSLRs have matured already, so perceived innovation is with mirrorless.


QuoteOriginally posted by Michael Piziak Quote
Apparently, the flange distance being the reason why Canon and Nikon came out with new mount sizes for their mirrorless.
This one has also been discussed many times in the forum. They change mounts and market them because they will get their loyal users to switch as well. This is just common with many businesses. The marketing is the key.

If you are going to do lens/optical design, the biggest advantage of a mirrorless system over a K-Mount or any DSLR is the design of ultra wide angle (UWA) lenses, which can be quite challenging to the current DSLR mounts, particularly Pentax with it's flange-back distance that it has been keeping since M42. I'll explain this below.


QuoteOriginally posted by Michael Piziak Quote
Addendum: I think also a reason for Canon & Nikon to change their mount size is that with their new mirrorless body designs, they claimed they could offer a superior image with a new mount considering their new flange distances. A personal note, I think the size of the mount hole on the new NIKON cameras, well I think the new mount/hole size looks huge compared to the body of their camera(s)....
Again, the biggest advantage of mirrorless over DSLRs to do with UWA lenses. In optics, and optical engineers know this very well, the mirrorless advantage is up to the 35mm focal length only for any system. Beyond that, the rear projecting element will still have to be pushed forward. Think about the 40mm and 50mm lenses from other companies - their rear elements are already pushed forward away from the sensors. The zooms' rear elements are also pushed way forward so they're almost the size of their DSLR counterparts after 35mm. This is why there isn't really a size advantage with mirrorless lenses beyond 35mm. With this, think about how micro four-thirds can take advantage of this fact. At 35mm, it's already 70mm EFL. Nifty-fifty is already at 25mm in that system. Sigma even mentioned that 35mm limitation way back before they committed themselves to mirrorless lens manufacturing. There isn't really that much difference in lens size after such FL as it's technically dictated by the sensor size.


Nikon's Z-mount still has the 35mm, however, that extra-wide mount, that big throat, gives optical design a looooot of space to play with. Lens size is a handicap but that throat gives the designers so much freedom.


Regarding your question about the K-01, Pentax has been running the same flange-back distance since M42 and I found out that the reason why many are so loyal to them is that new users are still able to use their lenses from the film era so easily. I am a relatively new DSLR Pentaxian, by the way. I don't think Pentax will leave that feature anytime soon.

These are just thoughts for sharing and discussion but as a relatively new digital Pentaxian, Pentax's strenghts are just so well-defined once one uses it. It's just different. Cheers.

---------- Post added 01-12-23 at 05:20 AM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by Wasp Quote
Quite a few MILC sensors do have phase detect nowadays, but that would mean doing the R&D to build a body that uses such a sensor. I am not sure where Pentax stand on this front.
Yes, mirrorless started with contrast-detect AF (CDAF) back in the day. CDAF is very accurate. Nowadays, almost all mirrorless cameras have hybrid AF - PDAF and CDAF on-sensor. Even Lumix, with their new S5 II, now has a well-designed PDAF on sensor, to satisfy the gear reviewers. It benefits autofocus in video because the CDAF pulsing is goine.

There is a big, big, big, issue with PDAF on sensor, though, the presence of PDAF lines in the images/videos. It can be mitigated in post but it won't be as clean as one taken with a mirrorless camera with just the CDAF. In the industry, videography and cinematography are done with manual focus, so PDAF on sensor is not necessarily needed. Again, it would satisfy vloggers and gear reviewers so they can run-and-gun. Cheers.
01-12-2023, 06:55 AM - 1 Like   #13
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 40,442
My phone is mirrorless and take advantage of all the mirrorless features at fraction the wieght and cost, the whole camera costs less than one excellent lens. I'll just skip the mirrorless camera thing. My phone goes from 14mm to 235mm (FF), with seamless lens changes and fits in my pocket. It is incredible in that it picks out the subject and focuses without me asking it too and the pictures are often easier to work on than my DSLR photos, and the IQ is all I need. Mirrorless cameras are a stop gap between declining camera and increasing phone use, without the advantages of either. DSLR for OVF and phone for mirrorless for me. Apple phones have produced the most images on Flickr for many years now. Some folks aren't paying attention. Phones take advantage of all the benefits of mirrorless and digital, unlike Mirrorless ILCs which are still locked into the old DSLR model with fat bodies and clunky lens changes. I have a DSLR for that. But with a DSLR there's a reason, the optical viewfinder with its mirror assembly. EVFs are just mimicking old tech. They are fighting the wrong battle, with the wrong tech as their target. It's phones that are eating their lunch, not DSLRs. I'm not sure in what world taking over ashrinking market is a thing, but, the camera manufacturing urge is apparently strong. They can't help themselves.

Meanwhile 100% of the cameras I see advertised on TV, are in phones. There's a message there.

When you look at the hundred of millions of cameras sold in phones and how good they are getting, there is a distinct chance, only the smaller companies like Pentax will survive in their current form, with every other larger company going through a long downward spiral, that's already been going on for a few years.

ILCs have been relegated to macro, astro and telephoto for a large majority of people, with K-1 and MF type cameras still pretty useful for landscape. If you're not doing one of those four things, use your phone. That's my take.

It occurs to me that once Apple and other companies put the equivalent of the Apple 48MP sensor in their phones, and Apple puts them in all three cameras, the number of images taken with phones will increase even more, with people having less and less reason to buy a stand alone camera. Once they are topping the resolution of ILCs, and are better for printing large, the gig will be up. ILCs will become specialty cameras of interest only to pros and advanced amateurs.

Last edited by normhead; 01-12-2023 at 09:40 AM.
01-12-2023, 09:54 AM   #14
Pentaxian
Wasp's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Pretoria
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 4,650
The thing that any camera with a small sensor can not do is shallow depth of field, along with crazy bokeh. There is some computational meddling that phones can do to blur the background in a portrait, but there are limits. For nonsense like this a much bigger sensor (at least APS-C IMHO but M4/3 fanbois may disagree) is needed, along with a large aperture lens of course.

01-12-2023, 10:01 AM   #15
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
pres589's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Wichita, KS
Photos: Albums
Posts: 4,506
I'd love a K-02 that was styled like a classic camera and tech from the GR & K-3 III so that I could more easily focus and meter through classic, adapted, and modern manual glass. If they had done that I probably wouldn't have gone looking for a mirrorless body to try and move forward with. These sorts of threads tell me that I'm not alone in this sort of standpoint. I cannot imagine that there is a reason why they couldn't do exactly what I've outlined here.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
35mm, advantage, apple, camera, cdaf, course, customer service, image, k-01, lens, lenses, mirror, mirrorless, mount, pdaf, pentax, phones, pictures, question, ricoh imaging, sensor, series, size, suggestion, system
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Mirrorless sales collapsing worse than -30% in Japan the homecountry of mirrorless beholder3 Photographic Industry and Professionals 21 04-05-2017 04:58 AM
Why is my 40mm xs so tight on my K-01? hcc Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 15 02-09-2013 06:56 PM
Waiting on my first mirrorless: K-01! Penta Welcomes and Introductions 2 01-30-2013 05:49 AM
Nature So so tall, small, so beautiful newmikey Post Your Photos! 3 06-03-2011 03:11 AM
I am a pro shooter and here is why I am so excited for my K-5 to get here tomorrow benisona Pentax K-5 & K-5 II 102 10-31-2010 04:52 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:27 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top