[photoptimist]

I can't help but wonder if it isn't time to cut the umbilical cord to a 40 year film era mount and move on.
As a technical question what advantages does K-mount bring to a, presumably, mirrorless EVF future?

The bigger question is: what advantage does Pentax have over Sony if they go the mirrorless route? How can Pentax use last-year's Sony sensors to beat this year's Sony MILC?

Then there's the switching costs for both Pentax and Pentax camera buyers. A non-K-mount MILC has very high switching costs for both Pentax (who must design and build new bodies & lenses) and Pentax customers (who much buy both new bodies & lenses). A non-K-mount MILC forces current Pentax users to also cut the umbilical cord and if they are cutting the cord, they are just as likely to consider Canon, Fuji, Nikon, Sony, Olympus, etc. if they have to switch anyway.

Unless a company is in a position to make cheap clones of another company's high-margin product, it's better to offer something different from the competition, not something that is the same. DSLR is different from MILC and that's an advantage. And if Pentax added an EVF to a K-mount DSLR, that would be an even bigger difference with an even bigger advantage.

[abruzzi]

Is the K-01 the only attempt of a company making a mirrorless camera based on lens mount from SLR? Obviously the use of a SLR lens forces the camera to be bulkier then it would be with a designed-for-mirrorless lens mount, none the less, I think Pentax could have done a better job with it. It needed a viewfinder, and they probably could have made the body thinner if they allowed the lens mount to protrude more from the body. Given the ultra-thin lenses that Pentax makes, a protruding mount probably wouldn't have been too big a deal.

[Rico]

A major factor which makes the Sony a9 deliver such frame rates and video performance is the use of UHS-II. The new features of the a9 comes from the UHS-II throughput.

The Pentax KP and Sony a9 are basically the same size, shape and weight. Both cameras even look similar. The a9 has shake reduction. I would like to see Pentax create a FF KP type camera. Maybe keep the OVF but go with a totally electronic shutter with an OLED screen.

Keep it simple. They could get away with having the same mount shape of the K-01 to accommodate XS K-mount lenses for wider more compact lenses.

[Rondec]

The bigger question is: what advantage does Pentax have over Sony if they go the mirrorless route? How can Pentax use last-year's Sony sensors to beat this year's Sony MILC?

Then there's the switching costs for both Pentax and Pentax camera buyers. A non-K-mount MILC has very high switching costs for both Pentax (who must design and build new bodies & lenses) and Pentax customers (who much buy both new bodies & lenses). A non-K-mount MILC forces current Pentax users to also cut the umbilical cord and if they are cutting the cord, they are just as likely to consider Canon, Fuji, Nikon, Sony, Olympus, etc. if they have to switch anyway.

Unless a company is in a position to make cheap clones of another company's high-margin product, it's better to offer something different from the competition, not something that is the same. DSLR is different from MILC and that's an advantage. And if Pentax added an EVF to a K-mount DSLR, that would be an even bigger difference with an even bigger advantage.

Exactly.

If Pentax tries to out-Sony Sony they are bound to fail. Sony has sunk a huge amount of money into getting better EVFs into their cameras and making their gear very high functioning -- in particular from a frame rate and video stand point.

Pentax's strength at this point is the k mount and the lens line up that goes with it, along with things like in body image stabilization, good ergnomics, pixel shift, and astro tracer.

Pentax has to release cameras based on their strengths and not try to get into tech too much. It is just a losing game for them.

[lytrytyr]

As a technical question what advantages does K-mount bring to a, presumably, mirrorless EVF future?

It sits in a body that is big and solid enough
to act as a heat sink for the sensor,
to hold a battery that is up to the job of providing all that heat,
and to counterbalance the weight of heavier lenses.

And it means that the lenses will be telecentric enough
to avoid the poor edge IQ (geometric distortion, color shifts, etc.)
of short-register wide-angle lenses on digital sensors.

Pentax was on the right track when they designed the K-01.
Sadly, they then lost interest in the concept,
just like they now seem to have done with the Q and 645 systems.

[boriscleto]

Is the K-01 the only attempt of a company making a mirrorless camera based on lens mount from SLR?

No. Sigma has one. Both APS-C and APS-H...

[bm75]

And it means that the lenses will be telecentric enough to avoid the poor edge IQ (geometric distortion, color shifts, etc.) of short-register wide-angle lenses on digital sensors.

+1 That's a key point. IQ of the final product is the most important factor, esp. in these days of pixel-peeping.

[D1N0]

No. Sigma has one. Both APS-C and APS-H...

Yeah they do but who has ever seen a Sigma dslr in the wild? It's like sigma are only making camera's to justify making lenses.

[ffking]

Probably about time that Ricoh bought Hoya, put Pentax back together again and let the medical instruments generate investment income of the cameras. Problem solved ;D

[boriscleto]

Yeah they do but who has ever seen a Sigma dslr in the wild? It's like sigma are only making camera's to justify making lenses.

They are making cameras because Foveon is a hobby...

[wildman]

Do you mean, to cut the umbilical cord to a constant revenue stream? Moving from the only significant user base?
Because that's what the K-mount is, and quite essential for Pentax' survival.

If so than Pentax's future as something more than just a tiny niche market is more bleak than I had thought.

[Kunzite]

I disagree; giving up on the K-mount before a suitable replacement (user base and associated revenue stream) is available is what would kill Pentax. Cutting the umbilical cord means putting them in red, which Ricoh won't allow.
Any MILC strategy would have to take this into account, i.e. the K-mount must survive it. It would not be instantly successful and profit generating; instead, it would rely on the money gained by Theta and the K-mount. It would be much more of a niche than the K-mount, for years.
Note that I don't believe in a K-mount MILC product line.

[bm75]

I just suppose that MILC will kill the lowest end of the APSC DSLR segment: MILCS are competitive towards nikon D3000;D5000 series or Canon XXXD ; XXD series. High-end DSLR will be attractive for many years more.

[wildman]

Any MILC strategy would have to take this into account, i.e. the K-mount must survive it. It would not be instantly successful and profit generating; instead, it would rely on the money gained by Theta and the K-mount. It would be much more of a niche than the K-mount, for years.

I don't see the market as being nearly as forgiving and patient about the introduction of new tech in the next few years as you apparently do.
Time will tell.

[Kunzite]

For the time being, the DSLR market is significantly larger than the MILC one.