[Rush2112]

Right off the bat I will say that this is my main camera system, more so than Canon, Fujifilm, or even Pentax. Forgive my seemingly random post here, but I assure you it will come into focus eventually .

However, the Pentax K and Nikon F mount by far have the most lens variety of any mounts out there, which is one of the top three reasons I run two main mounts. This is also why I'm gradually phasing out my Canon system completely. Not too long ago, the EF mount was my main system, followed closely by the Pentax K system. Thanks to MPB and KEH to making the liquidation and transformation of my systems much smoother. It's still in the process.

The Pentax K mount is still my #1 choice for the most demanding outdoor work, with the K3 Mark III being my #1 choice for that. Otherwise I'm using my Nikon F mount for everything else I do, and that is quite a lot these days.

I want to speak my mind about something I've noticed about the camera industry in general. Something that the shill writers are afraid to say because of losing relationships and perks with those companies (which has been a travesty to our community over the last two and a half decades).

Frankly I am tired of manufacturers changing mounts.

Kudos to Pentax for being the only mainstream system to show dedication to a native mount. Pretty sure that Nikon will be phasing out the F mount system, although, you really never know if they will completely as they can be unpredictable at times (I really hope Nikon get the message). Canon are a sure bet, they are done with EF/EFS. Their current course and history show absolutely no loyalty to the photographer in terms of keeping an original mount. I do believe we will see Canon fall from the #1 slot in the very near future. Sony completely abandoned the A-Mount (Minolta A) users and milked them for everything they could. They are the most deplorable of all.

The reason I'm pointing this out is to throw caution to the wind of users of other gear. Pentax sticking to their K mount is admirable beyond words. They could have chased paths of sheer profit in so many other directions just as other manufacturers have done, but they remain loyal to this day. Trust me when I say that I admire Pentax and it's owners beyond what I can write in words. Publicly trading a company is a double edged sword, but in the end it's really a money grab, and companies lose their identity because they end up giving up serving shareholders instead of their initial vision.

Pentax still have their vision and autonomy.

I do hope Pentax translate the gains they made with the K3 Mark III into the next K1 camera. Right now the Nikon D800 series cameras are my main full frame cameras, but if Nikon do completely abandon the F mount, and Pentax really throw the gauntlet out on the next K1, I can tell you that I may be enticed to sell everything and be 100% on board with Pentax. It would be a huge temptation to be sure. I do like the K1 series cameras, but I'd prefer some refinements and performance enhancements that are more akin to the K3 Mark III's current set up.

So we shall see!

I doubt I'll get rid of my classic Nikon F cameras and lenses ever, as I adore them, but I can see myself whittling down a lot of my gear if Pentax go all in on the next K1.

[Wasp]

As long as Nikon builds DSLR bodies, they will sell F mount lenses. The long term plan seems to be ot transition to the mirrorless Z mount. As a result there will be few, if any, new F mount lenses coming out. Canon is already playing that game. That leaves Pentax as the main player in the DSLR market in years to come. Hopefully they will sell enough bodies so that R&D funds are available for new K mount glass.

I recently acquired a K3. After a few years of mainly using a Samsung NX1 mirrorless, the magic of mirrors have returned and I like it. That said, I do use live view on the K3 a fair bit. Horse for courses, I guess.

[alpheios]

Well I can totally see your point there. This is something I also really love about Pentax. But for the other companies creating a different mount for their mirrorless systems was a necessity. It is a matter of physics. Because of the reduced flange distance the opening had to become larger. This also allowed for lenses to be created that wouldn’t have been possible before in terms of light transmission.

[Rush2112]

The companies may have viewed mirrorless as a necessity, but stopping all DSLR development was not. It's been shown time and time again how many pro shooters are still using DSLRs and prefer them! There is still a big market for them. Pentax knows this, and if they had a half decent marketing team and a few other tweaks to the system they could be much bigger than they currently are.

[Wheatfield]

The companies may have viewed mirrorless as a necessity, but stopping all DSLR development was not. It's been shown time and time again how many pro shooters are still using DSLRs and prefer them! There is still a big market for them. Pentax knows this, and if they had a half decent marketing team and a few other tweaks to the system they could be much bigger than they currently are.

Probably not, and this presumes that Ricoh actually wants to grow Pentax to be significantly bigger than they are now, which is a questionable presumption.

The real pro shooters using DSLRs will have a fairly significant investment in lenses and other things dedicated to their cameras and will be loath to take a bath on it. Add to that, the present level of DSLR technology is high enough that further improvements in camera tech will be more incremental than earth shattering, certainly high enough for pretty much anything a pro would want to do, now anf into the future.
Were I a pro shooting Nikon or Canon DSLRs right now, and wanted to stay with DSLRs, I would be buying a few spare bodies while they are available and leaving them boxed until wear and tear takes it's toll on what I am using and break them out as needed, and maybe picking up one of the adapters that would allow me to put my present lenses onto a mirrorless so that if I absolutely had to, I could move my lens system to one of the new bodies.

[KiloHotelphoto]

It's been shown time and time again how many pro shooters are still using DSLRs and prefer them!

Where has this been shown?

[pres589]

Dividing development, marketing, and users between both mirrored and mirrorless cameras from the same company at the same time wouldn't make a lot of sense. Companies like Canon, Nikon, and Leica all sell adapters which provide most to all functionality for their legacy lenses on the bodies they sell today. Ricoh Pentax could do the same thing (Metabones has proven this).

I'm not even sure what problem is being discussed here. "I want to keep using my legacy Nikon gear as well as my Pentax gear going forward" isn't exactly a controversial position. What's really funny is how, with a couple adapters and the right mirrorless body (probably Sony) you could use both F and K mount glass on the same body. Not great if you love film shooting but not a bad situation at all.

[Lord Lucan]

creating a different mount for their mirrorless systems was a necessity. It is a matter of physics. Because of the reduced flange distance the opening had to become larger.

The flange distance is part of the definition of the mount, so by definition the mount would be a different one even if they kept the physical bayonet, and electrical contacts the same - a "wrong" lens fitted to it could not focus for most practical purposes.

A different mount (ie with at least a reduced flange distance) is an almost essential part of a move to mirrorless, otherwise most the vaunted advantages of mirrorless (smaller, lighter, easier wide angle lens designs) could not be achieved. So I would not in this case blame the camera makers for using different mounts for their mirrorless cameras, I would just "blame" them for going mirrorless in the first place.

[gatorguy]

The flange distance is part of the definition of the mount, so by definition the mount would be a different one even if they kept the physical bayonet, and electrical contacts the same - a "wrong" lens fitted to it could not focus for most practical purposes.

A different mount (ie with at least a reduced flange distance) is an almost essential part of a move to mirrorless, otherwise most the vaunted advantages of mirrorless (smaller, lighter, easier wide angle lens designs) could not be achieved. So I would not in this case blame the camera makers for using different mounts for their mirrorless cameras, I would just "blame" them for going mirrorless in the first place.

I'm far from a well-informed and educated camera design person, but since the old mount lenses work with adaptors, and I see regular suggestions that Pentax could create a K-mount supporting mirrorless if they wanted to, how "essential" is changing the lens mount?

Personally I've had the impression it had more to do with new lens revenues than a requirement it change. Am I wrong then and the camera companies could not feasibly stay with the mounts they offered for the premium and well-regarded lenses that preceded their mirrorless counterparts?

[luftfluss]

I'm far from a well-informed and educated camera design person, but since the old mount lenses work with adaptors, and I see regular suggestions that Pentax could create a K-mount supporting mirrorless if they wanted to, how "essential" is changing the lens mount?

Personally I've had the impression it had more to do with new lens revenues than a requirement it change. Am I wrong then and the camera companies could not feasibly stay with the mounts they offered for the premium and well-regarded lenses that preceded their mirrorless counterparts?

The camera makers could have stayed with their DSLR-era mounts, but they wanted to leverage with mirrorless design to make slimmer bodies:




Also, according to Nikon, their mirrorless mount benefits wide-angle lens design: Mount Wars: Guess what? Z-mount really DOES help lens design… and AF! (Nikon technical Q&A)

The micro-four-thirds group, Fujifilm, and Sony use the same lens mount for both SLR-style and rangefinder-style bodies, so they really did need a different mount than found in traditional SLRs. If Canon and Nikon did not follow suit when they transitioned to MILC, that would have put them behind the 8 ball.

So I guess the answer to your question depends on how you define "feasible".

[Rush2112]

Where has this been shown?

At any sideline on a major event. Just look around, weddings, events, studios, they are everywhere still.

[Rondec]

The reason why manufacturers are changing mounts is primarily because they hope it will benefit their bottom line. The claim is that it helps lens design, that auto focus is better with PDAF on the sensor, and that everyone wants EVFs.

On the other hand, it is pretty clear that brands saw an opportunity to re-sell lenses to the photographers that use their cameras. The Nikon 70-200 f2.8 VR II sells for 1800 dollars. The Z mount 70-200 f2.8 is 2700 dollars. I'm sure the Z mount lens is a little better. It also weighs about 90 grams less, but you can't tell me that Nikon didn't see dollar signs when they decided to move to the Z mount. They are selling a 50mm f1.4 lens for 640 dollars, a 24-70 f2.8 for 2400 dollars, and their 14-24 f2.8 for 2500 dollars (B and H prices).

Some people need something that mirrorless offers -- they need faster frame rates, better video performance, but for those who mainly shoot still photography, the benefits are minimal and the costs are high once you factor in the prices for new, brand name glass in the new mount.

[zapp]

The so called mirrorless cameras offer the best solution for standard handheld photography. Focusing on the sensor and 100% image preview. 60 years ago we had the same arguments against new, expensive SLR cameras versus rangefinders that we use today against mirrorless.
Resolution is demanding, user base is getting smaller, prices go up.
I like my DSLRs because I am used to it, understand the shortcomings and my gear is DSLR based, although I have to admit, going from DSLR to mirrorless is easier than vice versa. Neither system will make my images better, but technology can make things easier.

It makes little sense to keep a DSLR system next to a mirrorless system. The new cameras match performance of DSLRs today or tomorrow and offer a lot more advantages than we like to admit. Canon and Nikon will not invest seriously in new DSLR gear. Japanese like to please customers, so we may see a final DSLR, similarly to the F6 when everyone went digital…, but ultimately the companies are supposed to make money not cameras.
Pentax decided for DSLR as a niche and I am with them as long as the system stays alive.
No mirror shock, no shutter shock, focus on the sensor itself, less retro focus effects, smaller footprint, on sensor tracking, a wealth of old and new lenses to fit new mirrorless systems,… are valid propositions hard to ignore - and glass-wise the new systems are very mature compared to the current Pentax lineup.

---------- Post added 22-04-23 at 01:32 PM ----------

At any sideline on a major event. Just look around, weddings, events, studios, they are everywhere still.

How many of them still use manual focus, work with film, …, how many photographers will invest in final DSLR stock when end of production will be announced. 5 years and the game will have changed again. It happened before, it will happen again.

---------- Post added 22-04-23 at 01:38 PM ----------

The flange distance is part of the definition of the mount, so by definition the mount would be a different one even if they kept the physical bayonet, and electrical contacts the same - a "wrong" lens fitted to it could not focus for most practical purposes.

A different mount (ie with at least a reduced flange distance) is an almost essential part of a move to mirrorless, otherwise most the vaunted advantages of mirrorless (smaller, lighter, easier wide angle lens designs) could not be achieved. So I would not in this case blame the camera makers for using different mounts for their mirrorless cameras, I would just "blame" them for going mirrorless in the first place.

First place, we should blame them for adding a mirror.

[KiloHotelphoto]

I can't imagine anyone who shoots subjects that move with a DSLR that try a modern mirrorless body would ever go back to a DSLR, the tracking and 100% frame coverage are so impressive and useful. I always thought the 1DX2 had good autofocus then I got a R5 and it was in another league and the R3 has taken another step up from that.

Now if you shoot landscape or product photography it really doesn't make much difference what you use but even something like portrait shooting I could see how a mirrorless could speed up your workflow with eye tracking and not having to worry about front or back focusing.

[Rush2112]

In another league specifically how Kilo?

100% frame coverage isn't always a plus either. In fact I find the masked crop modes in the Nikon F DSLR's extremely valuable because I can see what is entering the frame before it gets there. That is huge! Can the R5 do that?

And I've used so many mirrorless cameras for continuous AF and I have yet to be convinced they can track and shoot subjects as consistently and pleasurably as a DSLR. Are you saying the R5 is better than pro level DSLR's in every area of this kind of work? This is why I ask for specifics.

Every time I hear this claim it is broad spectrum and I find that reality isn't that simple.