If P-R can release FA 645 lenses why not K mount

Started Apr 15, 2014 | Discussions thread
Shop cameras & lenses ▾
James O'Neill Veteran Member • Posts: 4,106
There is no case for mirrorless. ESPECIALLY FOR PENTAX

xxZvonimir Tosic wrote:

yesman12 wrote:

Hi all,
And perhaps John Carlson can answer this...

I think it is great that PR released 645 lenses.. Why not introduce the best of the K mount lenses FA * such as the 24 F2, 85 1.4 etc? In the past I heard that these lenses had issues with lead included in the glass (never understood why this was an issue as it is encapsulated). However if this were true the 645 lenses would not be allowed back.

-- hide signature --

A picture is worth a thousand words but talk is cheap.
Best regards

All 645 lenses already made, and now available in the US, can out-resolve even a 150 MP MF sensor. We can say they may last forever.

For the 135 format, available lenses are not so great. They would indeed require modifications of design, and an all new production. New type of motors, etc. to be comparable with competition. Is it justifiable? Not for all. Perhaps for just a few that are also usable on APS-C cameras.

Ultimately, it comes down to a question: does Pentax brand really needs a 135 format sized sensor? Not quite. The availability of old film lenses for the 135 format is heritage, and a coincidence too, rather than true necessity for the design of a camera system for the age of digital and new unprecedented image qualities.

A case for the MF mirrorless instead of 135 format (aka FF) mirrorless

For example, why would Pentax bother designing an all new 135 format mirrorless system many have suggested, when they could design an MF mirrorless system using this 645Z sensor?

And in one camera have both MF and FF through any crop of your choice. The number of lenses needed for an MF in such a case could be minimal; say 6 lenses instead of 12-15 for the 135 mirrorless, because the crop alone on the MF, from a perfectly usable 52 MP sensor, would allow for unbelievable new possibilities.

Suppose just for a they build the 645Y - Like the Z but without the mirror: Permanent live view either feeding the back LCD or a small LCD which you can look at through an eye piece. No SAFOX system for AF, because AF is driven from the sensor, and no 86 KPixel metering system because you have a 50 MPixel one. It has shorter battery life, the sensor runs hotter and therefore noiser, maybe costs $8,400 instead of $8,500. And the advantage is what ?

Remember mirrorless cameras are selling poorly. FOUR SLRS are sold for every Mirrorless interchangeable.

and design the lenses to work with their element close to image then you can build a smaller camera. So you only get a benefit from mirrorless IF you throw away your lens mount and start again. If you keep an existing lens format .... well some might say the K-01 had the success it deserved

It's OK to go for a new lens mount IF you have the RD budget to bring new lenses to market, or you get into a partnership with others. (Picture a "Gigantic Four Thirds" group with 44x33 sensors size ) But that's not working out for Olympus and Panasonic.

The attraction of Full frame K mount is that it means body and lenses will be the same size as the current range, and FF lenses go onto crop bodies.  There's no benefit to Ricoh in customers being able to mount old lenses and those lenses may not perform all that well anyway - I think it was a miscalculation to develop so many lenses which will only work with APS-C.

The idea of paying the premium for a 44x33 sensor over a 24x36 one - which is thousands of dollars - and then telling users "Oh no, you don't need a 400mm lens just use a 300 and crop it", in fact if you have 200mm one you crop down to a perfectly OK APS-C sized piece of the it would get you laughed out of any chance of selling one.

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow