[Digitalis]

I see Olympus and Panasonic as having trouble, since their cameras and lenses are not capable of accommodating larger sensors

the Fujinon X system lenses are also incapable of covering larger sensors.

[Clavius]

If you take into account the business ethos of the sony corporation, not really.

Their business ethos doesn't influence the quality of the pictures their cameras and lenses produce at all. Moreover, if all that's left complain about is their business ethos, then that must mean their gear is number one.

[Digitalis]

The flange distance is excessive. That's all that disturbs me with the K mount.

Compared to the flange from the Canon and Nikon systems it is only a few mm longer. If that fact disturbs you, perhaps a DSLR was the wrong choice for you.

---------- Post added 12-21-14 at 12:04 AM ----------

Their business ethos doesn't influence the quality of the pictures their cameras and lenses produce at all.

While the image is or paramount importance, sonys camera design and optical engineering are lacking in their current offerings - they have shown a willingness to cut corners in camera ergonomics and optical design that traditional manufacturers wouldn't have made in the first place. I'm all for new things - but there is always room for older methods and techniques. Can an inkjet print match the tonality and longevity of a pure platinum print - no, but I will not hold it against an artist for producing inkjet prints. Pure platinum prints are expensive, and technically demanding to produce - and only a few people have the knowledge to make them.


Pure Platinum print - Ebony 8X10 with Rodenstock 240mm f/5.6 ED APO-Sironar-S on Kodak Tech Pan 25

[Rondec]

the Fujinon X system lenses are also incapable of covering larger sensors.

True, although I feel like they are a niche player and will continue to be so for the foreseeable future. Certainly they have some nice primes that match up decently against most other maker's lenses. And they have this whole X Trans voodoo that their users really buy into. I don't really, but the combination of all of these means that they can probably continue to make money in a little corner of the overall market place.

[kadajawi]

Compared to the flange from the Canon and Nikon systems it is only a few mm longer. If that fact disturbs you, perhaps a DSLR was the wrong choice for you.

I thought I made myself clear. I have no doubt that DSLRs themselves are dying. The reason why SLRs were invented was so that you can see exactly what you are going to shoot, the most complete and perfect preview that was technically possible at that time (apart from twin lens reflex cameras, but those were bulky, expensive (2 lenses!), ...). That's why they went through the trouble of using that mirror. Later it proved useful in order to get good auto focus. But nowadays you get an even better preview (in some aspects, soon in others too) by skipping the mirror. Technology has simply advanced. The mirror is simply not needed anymore... at least if we look, say, 5 years into the future (the way things are going). Pentax will drop the mirror too, eventually. The question is how far are they willing to go, and _I_ hope that they will go all the way and create a new mount and lenses... which should be absolute state of the art, be as good as Pentax can make them. I know it sucks for legacy users (including me), that is why they must make the transition period as smooth and painfree as possible. IMHO the solution is to provide a lens mount that does not sacrifice anything, that makes it possible to use the old lenses as good as they would have worked had Pentax made a K-mount mirrorless.


As for larger sensors... what for, really? Smaller sensors are getting better and better, too. My smartphone, with a 1/3" sensor, these days can compete with my old Pentax DSLR, and by far exceeds it in terms of sharpness when there is enough light. I like APS-C as a sensor size, it's not too big, not too small, you get a nice shallow DoF without struggling too much when you want to have more in focus. It's also very close to Super 35mm. mFT isn't doomed because they can go full frame.

[aleonx3]

Are you talking thirty years till this k mount demise or a lot shorter? I don't really understand what is wrong with the f mount or the k mount that would be fixed by going with something like the FE mount.

As someone already mentioned it, it is the flange distance of the k-mount (or other legacy mount) that will eventually tip the scale. I am not familiar with lens optical design, I think if there is an advantage in shortening the flange distance while maintaining the optimal optical quality, it will likely be adopted and transitioned in a longer term.

[Rondec]

I thought I made myself clear. I have no doubt that DSLRs themselves are dying. The reason why SLRs were invented was so that you can see exactly what you are going to shoot, the most complete and perfect preview that was technically possible at that time (apart from twin lens reflex cameras, but those were bulky, expensive (2 lenses!), ...). That's why they went through the trouble of using that mirror. Later it proved useful in order to get good auto focus. But nowadays you get an even better preview (in some aspects, soon in others too) by skipping the mirror. Technology has simply advanced. The mirror is simply not needed anymore... at least if we look, say, 5 years into the future (the way things are going). Pentax will drop the mirror too, eventually. The question is how far are they willing to go, and _I_ hope that they will go all the way and create a new mount and lenses... which should be absolute state of the art, be as good as Pentax can make them. I know it sucks for legacy users (including me), that is why they must make the transition period as smooth and painfree as possible. IMHO the solution is to provide a lens mount that does not sacrifice anything, that makes it possible to use the old lenses as good as they would have worked had Pentax made a K-mount mirrorless.


As for larger sensors... what for, really? Smaller sensors are getting better and better, too. My smartphone, with a 1/3" sensor, these days can compete with my old Pentax DSLR, and by far exceeds it in terms of sharpness when there is enough light. I like APS-C as a sensor size, it's not too big, not too small, you get a nice shallow DoF without struggling too much when you want to have more in focus. It's also very close to Super 35mm. mFT isn't doomed because they can go full frame.

I guess you mean that mFT isn't doomed because they can't go full frame?

The question is really one of where money can be made in the future. Point and shoots have already been squeezed a bunch by the cell phone camera market. It feels like there is coming a divide where people will either use large sensors (not sure how large) or cell phones and nothing in between. Even now a camera like the K3 is only selling for 725. Entry level SLRs are selling in the 350 to 450 range. Not sure how companies without higher end products are going to make it when cameras like the K50 are under 500 dollars.

[aleonx3]

..
Even now a camera like the K3 is only selling for 725. Entry level SLRs are selling in the 350 to 450 range. Not sure how companies without higher end products are going to make it when cameras like the K50 are under 500 dollars.

I don't know about the production costs of k-3 and k-50, if Ricoh can still make enough money with the aggressively discounted prices, it would be a 'brilliant' strategic move on their part to undercut the sales of similar product lines from Canikon as both still have inventories of unsold models (2 or 3 generations old). Also, IMHO, putting more feature-rich models into the hands of the consumers is likely more effective use of marketing money otherwise spent on advertising (against the two giants) or via dealer rebates.

[disconnekt]

But how long will it take Pentax (or any other company) to offer a high quality adapter?
Because as we can see on the lens side of things, 3rd party companies (like Sigma & Tamron) don't have that many K-mount lenses like they used too, or aren't offering any new (updated) lenses nowadays.
Samyang and other similar company's do offer K-mount lenses, but they're all MF lenses.

[eddie1960]

But how long will it take Pentax (or any other company) to offer a high quality adapter?
Because as we can see on the lens side of things, 3rd party companies (like Sigma & Tamron) don't have that many K-mount lenses like they used too, or aren't offering any new (updated) lenses nowadays.
Samyang and other similar company's do offer K-mount lenses, but they're all MF lenses.

The sigma art line is new and available in k mount
There is more k mount than fuji x mount available (or m4/3 afaik)
Matters not because they could after it any time they want I'd a ff launches for instance and there is a perceived market

[philbaum]

I see Olympus and Panasonic as having trouble, since their cameras and lenses are not capable of accommodating larger sensors. If the price of full frame sensors continues to come down, there will be a squeeze pushing smaller sensor cameras to entry level positions and really hurting revenue.

I've been watching youtube reviews of the A7S recently, and there must be at least a dozen that compare the AKS to the GH4. In 2 that i have watched so far, they recite that one of the GH4's benefits is the generally longer DOF of the smaller sensor. Its funny how videographers and photographers look at things a bit differently, some photographers really value the short DOF for the artsy bokeh photos and the videographers are more likely to like the longer DOF that keeps most things in focus. One of the reviewers admitted buying both cameras, the A7S for the dark shooting above 800 iso, and the other for more convenient daytime shooting.

I don't have a m4/3 camera, but i can see them having a solid niche of sales for a long time.

---------- Post added 12-20-14 at 11:56 AM ----------

But how long will it take Pentax (or any other company) to offer a high quality adapter?
Because as we can see on the lens side of things, 3rd party companies (like Sigma & Tamron) don't have that many K-mount lenses like they used too, or aren't offering any new (updated) lenses nowadays.
Samyang and other similar company's do offer K-mount lenses, but they're all MF lenses.

It can't take any longer to manufacture a smart adapter for k-mount to a hypothetical new short mount, than it does to make a new lens. There's no optics to worry about, and they just finished issuing the new 1.4X converter - pretty similar thing. Of course they do need a new mount design if that is the way they are going. The question is: where does Pentax want to be 5 years from now? Realistically, i think Canikon are facing the same problem as Pentax. Do they offer a bridge adapter to a new Nikon mount or do they just offer a new shorter registration mirrorless mount with no cross-over adapter. They've got a huge lens inventory - it'd be dumb to not offer a way to use some of those lenses on a new mount - but what do i know

[Digitalis]

some photographers really value the short DOF for the artsy bokeh photos and the videographers are more likely to like the longer DOF that keeps most things in focus.

A focus pullers job is never easy, I feel sorry for the ones that are working with lenses f/1.2 and faster - In cinematography that is extremely demanding. Stanley Kubrick had quite a bit of fun calibrating the distance scale of that Zeiss 50mm f/0.7 lens - the markings on the lens were accurate, but the modifications he had to make to the cameras for the 50mm f/0.7 it to fit on them caused a few problems. As the depth of focus at the sensor plane gets shorter, it makes it harder for third party lens makers to make lenses to suit.

[philbaum]

I guess you mean that mFT isn't doomed because they can't go full frame?

The question is really one of where money can be made in the future. Point and shoots have already been squeezed a bunch by the cell phone camera market. It feels like there is coming a divide where people will either use large sensors (not sure how large) or cell phones and nothing in between. Even now a camera like the K3 is only selling for 725. Entry level SLRs are selling in the 350 to 450 range. Not sure how companies without higher end products are going to make it when cameras like the K50 are under 500 dollars.

I'm shocked at the price of a new K3; your question of where can mfr make money is an excellent one. Just wish i had an answer
Its like a perfect storm - with every manufacturer at risk. I don't think FF is an safe haven with Nikon, Canon and Sony coming out with so many new models - and cutting prices as well. I still see new D7000's and new D600's for sale.

There is so much money being poured into smart phone contracts - i don't see many folks having disposal income for large ILC cameras. At least thats my assumption. The irony is that cameras have never been as competent technically as they are currently, yet there's a major shortage of customers. Its a mistake to oversimplify the typical customer - there isn't one profile that fits. But i'm confident there are many more customers who can afford m4/3 than there are those that can afford FF. Same thing may be true of APS.

[Rondec]

I'm shocked at the price of a new K3; your question of where can mfr make money is an excellent one. Just wish i had an answer
Its like a perfect storm - with every manufacturer at risk. I don't think FF is an safe haven with Nikon, Canon and Sony coming out with so many new models - and cutting prices as well. I still see new D7000's and new D600's for sale.

There is so much money being poured into smart phone contracts - i don't see many folks having disposal income for large ILC cameras. At least thats my assumption. The irony is that cameras have never been as competent technically as they are currently, yet there's a major shortage of customers. Its a mistake to oversimplify the typical customer - there isn't one profile that fits. But i'm confident there are many more customers who can afford m4/3 than there are those that can afford FF. Same thing may be true of APS.

I think the biggest problem in the camera market from a manufacturer stand point is that the cameras have gotten too good. If you own a D7000 or an original K5 or even a 7D and you are a hobby shooter, what impetus do you have to upgrade? Your current camera is decent with high iso and short of going full frame, you probably aren't going to find much better on the market right now. You probably aren't printing huge, so you really don't need extra megapixels. Faster frame rates, more filters, more auto focus points seem to be the sorts of things camera companies try to use to encourage people to upgrade, but I just think people are satisfied with what they have and don't particularly need new gear. Average consumer is probably buying a new SLR or MILC every 6 or 7 years rather than every couple years, as in the past.

I do think there is a new tier, compared to the past -- entry level full frame, but camera companies continue to cripple those cameras enough that folks who really want all the bells and whistles need to go to 2000 dollars. And the lenses have not come down in price, as far as I can tell. It is awfully easy to drop a couple of thousand dollars on full frame lenses.

[whk1992]

until Pentax makes a proper mirrorless APS-C interchangable lens camera, I'm still using DSLR.