Some mirrorless options for Pentax

Barry Pearson said:

TacticDesigns said:

.... So . . . maybe just do a trickle down process again.

When the Pentax K-1 III comes out, let some of the Pentax K-1 features trickle down into a more entry-level body for new users to try out the Pentax eco-system?

But a FF sensor.

Click to expand...

The camera isn't the key user cost-driver. The lenses are.

(There is no point in people appealing to Ricoh/Pentax to enable them to exploit their legacy / 2nd-hand / 3rd-party lens. There is no financial benefit to Ricoh/Pentax in doing that! Ricoh/Pentax want/need people to buy new lenses from them).

Click to expand...

But Nikon got my money that way.

I already had FF lenses that I was using with my Nikon APS-C dSLR cameras.

When I got the Nikon D750, the only way I could afford it was because I already had the lenses I needed to use it.

(NOTE: I had been using FF f/2.8 zooms on a Nikon D7000 for the extra reach shooting as a parent from the stands at indoor sports events. When I got invited to shoot on the floor for my daughters club, those FF lenses were too long on the APS-C bodies so it really begged for me to get a FF body. And then a paid job came along that not only would pay for half the cost of the Nikon D750, but also really demanded I had the FF body. So . . . it was because I already had the FF Nikon lenses that it made sense for me to buy the FF Nikon body. If I didn't have Nikon FF lenses, I could have bought Canon or Pentax. So . . . people having existing FF Pentax lenses, and looking for a cost effective way in, this may be a benefit for Pentax?

Barry Pearson said:

Achieving the following graphic cost more than many people would be willing to spend.



I believe an aim for Ricoh/Pentax should be to enable people to obtain a comprehensive range of new Pentax FF lenses without being discouraged by the current prices of parts of the range.

Click to expand...

I'll go out on a limb here and say that maybe not all the lenses need to be rock bottom pricing.

But maybe segment the lenses.

There are general purpose lenses. Like kit + telephoto. Maybe a superzoom and a 50mm.

There are performance / enthusiast lenses like the f/2.8 zooms and f/1.4 lenses.

And then the expensive specialized lenses?

Take care & Happy Shooting!

Barry Pearson said:

For example, I suspect that few people need, or are will to pay for, (or carry around), the D FA 15-30mm f/2.8. Perhaps a cheaper alternative is needed. (Etc).

There are some hints about that in the roadmap.

Click to expand...

--
My Personal Flickr Favs . . .

[FL][RP][LS][GC]

TacticDesigns said:

TacticDesigns said:

If so, does it make sense for Ricoh/Pentax to expend lots of development resource to help you do something you didn't need to do?

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

You didn't provide an answer to that question that would convince Ricoh/Pentax!

Ricoh is a business, answerable to its shareholders.

Its developments need to be justified according to their return on investment.

Ricoh is not a "non-profit", nor a charity.

Ricoh should invest in new products that will cause more people to spend money with them, or cause individual people to spend more money with them.

They shouldn't divert their scarce development resources towards low margin products that will result in little or no subsequent revenues.

I believe their future flagship cameras (FF or APS-C) should be aimed high, not low. And should appeal to people who will accompany their purchases of such cameras with new high quality lenses (and other accessories).

Barry Pearson said:

TacticDesigns said:

Barry Pearson said:

If so, does it make sense for Ricoh/Pentax to expend lots of development resource to help you do something you didn't need to do?

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

You didn't provide an answer to that question that would convince Ricoh/Pentax!

Ricoh is a business, answerable to its shareholders.

Its developments need to be justified according to their return on investment.

Ricoh is not a "non-profit", nor a charity.

Ricoh should invest in new products that will cause more people to spend money with them, or cause individual people to spend more money with them.

They shouldn't divert their scarce development resources towards low margin products that will result in little or no subsequent revenues.

I believe their future flagship cameras (FF or APS-C) should be aimed high, not low. And should appeal to people who will accompany their purchases of such cameras with new high quality lenses (and other accessories).

Click to expand...

Ok, let me play devil's advocate again . . . a couple of ways . . .

1. Walk before you run.

It has been my tack to try things out before I really dive into things.

That is why I had a Canon 10D, Nikon D70s and Pentax K100d all at the same time.

The Pentax K100d was given to me by my dad. The Canon 10D and Nikon D70s I picked up for cheap used to try out the system.

Once I got comfortable, then I was willing to spend more money at it.

But with Pentax only having one FF model, how do people test out the waters?

Instead . . . maybe people who want to test out FF are going to go to the Canon 6D or Nikon D610 / D750?

And . . . once they have the body, they buy a couple of lenses, maybe a flash unit and . . . then they are potentially locked into the system.

Sure, you could say the APS-C is the entry point. And for a lot of people it may be. But . . . for anyone that their intent is to try out FF . . . then APS-C is not the entry point.

2. If you can't sell your lenses to buy new lenses . . . would you buy new lenses?

Yes. Most of my lenses are bought used.

But . . . if there weren't people like me buying used, then . . . no one would be able to sell their old lenses when they want to buy a new lens from Pentax.

So . . . there are two benefits from this.

Although I bought used Nikon compatible lenses to get me up and running with Nikon dSLR . . . it resulted in me buying 2 new Nikon compatible lenses and 3 new Nikon dSLR bodies along the way. Because I was able to test out the waters buying used!

And . . . for the people I bought the used lenses from, hopefully that opened up some cash (and shelf space) for them to buy the new lens they wanted.

LOL.

EDIT: So . . . in a way . . . used lenses and cameras (as well as lenses passed down through generations) are also an entry point into the Pentax eco system.

Take care & Happy Shooting!

So, regarding old Pentax lenses . . . what functionality might be preserved?

Would it be a completely new system, like when Canon went to the EOS lens mount?

Will it lose AF with older lenses without built-in focus motors, like when Nikon introduced the Nikon D40?

Will it add capability like an electronic aperture that does not need the aperture lever in-body?

I was thinking about a potential adapter that . . . the aperture lever of older lenses is actuated manually with a manual lever on the side of the adapter.

That way . . . no aperture lever motor would need to be added to a hypothetical mirrorless body, but . . . in a way . . . you could get stop down metering with older lenses?

A goofy idea.

But sort of like a more manual version of stop down metering with Pentax-M lenses.

So, either the camera could sense that the lens has been stopped down, through either a sensor built into the lens adapter, or you could then press the AE-L button on the back of the camera . . . or the camera could sense it in the change in light and guess when you are press the button?

So . . . how what would the adapter look / function like?

Take care & Happy Shooting!

Let's admit that K-01 was not really a flop. I think Pentax over reacted and came with it when MILC technology was not there yet. And recognised designer involvement was not smart move either.

Would you buy simplified not expensive Pentax K-mount FF MILC without all high end DSLR whistles, but with reliable AF, decent EVF, fast FPS, K-1 articulated screen, and IBIS? Some are crazy about Astrotracer, pixel shift, etc., but do we all use it every day? I'm talking about kind of "cheap student edition" K-mount style MILC. Or even further: new mount/K-adapter combo to test MILC waters without pretending to fill MILC leaders shoes. Yes, the main customer will be, most likely, existent Pentax shooters. But who knows? Such camera might be the least expensive way into MILC world to test and hone more mature further offerings. Recently I read somewhere that there is a trend in mobil phone industry back to simplified not as smart handsets.

We had the Kmount mirrorless years ago and everyone laughed at it, said it was just a brick.

And don't forget this re Mark


Also from Memory Pentax was the first to produce a FF body but it was abandoned due to lack of sensor quality at the time.

Greyser said:

Let's admit that K-01 was not really a flop.

Click to expand...

It was. It takes just fine pictures, but did not sell well. Until you lowered the price so much it probably sold with a loss.

Greyser said:

I think Pentax over reacted and came with it when MILC technology was not there yet. And recognised designer involvement was not smart move either.

Click to expand...

You are right there. A correctly made mirrorless K-mount camera could be just fine.

Greyser said:

Would you buy simplified not expensive Pentax K-mount FF MILC without all high end DSLR whistles, but with reliable AF, decent EVF, fast FPS, K-1 articulated screen, and IBIS?

Click to expand...

You see, we will not agree on what can be taken away.

For me a cheap camera do not have IBIS, fast FPS and articulated screen.

Pentax must not go Cheap re features they must do what they are doing and go Rugged Pro DSLR Black Bodies IMO.

Roland Karlsson said:

Greyser said:

Let's admit that K-01 was not really a flop.

Click to expand...

It was. It takes just fine pictures, but did not sell well. Until you lowered the price so much it probably sold with a loss.

Click to expand...

That's debatable.

They had plans for at least a lens dedicated to the K-01 - they canceled those plans, likely because how the camera was received. From this regard, this was a flop.

Yet they also made a new batch - the blue edition - for the Asian markets. Even after the price reduction, it was somewhat worth it.

Overall, I consider it a failure as a product (less so as a photographic tool). It's why I believe that just making a mirrorless K-mount isn't enough, there must be something to differentiate it, to make it attractive. Unfortunately, I don't see what it could be.

Alex

Alex Sarbu said:

Roland Karlsson said:

Greyser said:

Let's admit that K-01 was not really a flop.

Click to expand...

It was. It takes just fine pictures, but did not sell well. Until you lowered the price so much it probably sold with a loss.

Click to expand...

That's debatable.

They had plans for at least a lens dedicated to the K-01 - they canceled those plans, likely because how the camera was received. From this regard, this was a flop.

Yet they also made a new batch - the blue edition - for the Asian markets. Even after the price reduction, it was somewhat worth it.

Overall, I consider it a failure as a product (less so as a photographic tool). It's why I believe that just making a mirrorless K-mount isn't enough, there must be something to differentiate it, to make it attractive. Unfortunately, I don't see what it could be.

Alex

Click to expand...

No, there is no compromise possible. No Pentax mirrorless with the existing DSLR camera (K) mount! At first it was Olympus who discovered it, then Sony, then Canon and now Nikon. Do not expect any miracles from Pentax. They tried it once and failed!

Why does this have to be so radical? KEEP the existing Pentax K mount and make a mirrorless camera with a shorter registration distance!! I have a K-01 which I love because of its simple controls and interface, it's a terrific walk-around camera, but if they produce a new camera, it has to be a true, thinner mirrorless. But unlike Olympus, Panasonic, Sony, etc., there is no need for a new bayonet as the current one can carry any of the electrical information the camera will need.

Greyser said:

....

Would you buy simplified not expensive Pentax K-mount FF MILC without all high end DSLR whistles, but with reliable AF, decent EVF, fast FPS, K-1 articulated screen, and IBIS? Some are crazy about Astrotracer, pixel shift, etc., but do we all use it every day? I'm talking about kind of "cheap student edition" K-mount style MILC.

Click to expand...

That sounds interesting!

It sounds like a respectable first K-mount FF camera for some people. (I keep seeing wishes from people who want a cheaper way of getting to FF, perhaps using some of their existing FF lenses).

It also sounds like a respectable second K-mount FF camera for people who want a back-up FF camera, or a camera to use alongside their FF SLR for certain situations. (That is one of my wishes).

I'm not sure what "high end DSLR whistles" are being omitted. With "reliable AF, fast FPS, K-1 articulated screen, and IBIS", it sounds like the feature-set I would use 90% of the time. Make that "really fast FPS" and I might buy one tomorrow!

My answer to your question appears to be:

"Yes, to co-exist alongside my K-1ii for purposes where "mirrorless+EVF" would suit me better than "SLR", and as a back-up in case my K-1ii broke".
(I would then put my K-3ii into storage).

(I would class "astrotracer, pixel shift" more as "Pentax goodies". They, and some other things such as a 2nd card slot, and the function & setting dials, could easily be omitted without being heavily criticised by people who are not familiar with them, or by people who have them on an alternative Pentax FF camera).

DiffractionLtd said:

Why does this have to be so radical? KEEP the existing Pentax K mount and make a mirrorless camera with a shorter registration distance!!

Click to expand...

What lenses would be used with it?

Are you including an adapter with the offering so that existing K-mount lenses can be used?

(If so, you are describing a variant of what I called "Option 3: New mount for mirrorless cameras". Where "New mount" means "simply a shorter registration distance").

Barry Pearson said:

flektogon said:

Barry Pearson said:

flektogon said:

I don't think that it would be wise for Pentax to come with a new mount. If an average Pentax user like myself (who likes the Pentax brand, but is not crazy in love with Pentax) wants to switch to a MILC, well, there are dozens of options already available from Sony, Fuji, Olympus, Panasonic, Canon and now even from Nikon. But Pentax in my opinion could improve their DSLR cameras to be smaller (if not lighter as well), closer to how the MILC look like.

Click to expand...

This illustrates part of the problem. There is a lot of stuff related to mirrors and focusing screens and displays in the viewfinder:

Barry Pearson said:

Especially the FF DSLR cameras should be smaller. Here I do not understand why for example the K-1 has to be such a monster. Why such a FF DSLR can't be like the K-3 for example?

Click to expand...

The size of the focusing screen for the K-1-series is FF. That of the K-3-series (etc) is APS-C. That presumably influences the pentaprism, and that in turn pushes the other components outward.

This also influences the size of the mirror, which has to be larger to cover the FF focusing screen. Presumably that also has an influence on the total size.

Barry Pearson said:

The K-3 "chamber" should be already large enough to accommodate the FF-sized sensor and mirror (if not, here Pentax should concentrate their effort), so I really I do not see any reason why the Pentax FF DSLR cameras can't be smaller. They don't need to have articulated LCD panels, I wouldn't mind if they didn't have any back LCD at all, as I do not use the LV mode. I think this is the way most suitable for Pentax.

Click to expand...

Lots of people do use the LCD. I suspect an SLR without one wouldn't be taken seriously by most people.

I now wouldn't buy an SLR without an articulated LCD. And I particularly like the 4-legged LCD of the K-1-series. I use it a lot.

I'm not saying the K-1-series couldn't be made smaller. But is appears inevitable that it will be larger than an equivalent APS-C camera, and all the extra stuff we expect in the digital era will make FF cameras larger than the old 35mm cameras.

Remove the mirror and focusing screen and pentaprism, and avoid having those extra adjacent components for the information in the display, and things can be smaller and lighter.

Click to expand...

Pentax can make really small APS-C cameras, like the K-S1. What I meant is that Pentax now should come with a FF equivalent of the K-S1.

Click to expand...

For reasons I've identified above, it would necessarily be significantly larger than a K-S1. (How successful was the K-S1? It was below my radar).

But I don't know what the minimum size would be. I know you are not the only person who would like a smaller FF camera!

One SD card? Smaller battery? Fewer dedicated dials and screens? Given that it would still be expensive because it was an FF camera, would it sell without such features? I suspect FF cameras raise expectations, and those imply imply size and weight.

Click to expand...

The probable slow sales of the K-S1 can not be put on the shoulders of its size, or at least not that alone. The lack of weather sealing, the bizarre LED lights, lack of dual control wheels, etc.

I bought a K-S1 as a second body for the eclipse last year but I sold it and kept the K-50 as a backup body and my K-70 as my man in body.

If it had weather sealing and dual control wheels I would have kept the K-S1 instead of the K50.

Barry Pearson said:

DiffractionLtd said:

Why does this have to be so radical? KEEP the existing Pentax K mount and make a mirrorless camera with a shorter registration distance!!

Click to expand...

What lenses would be used with it?

Are you including an adapter with the offering so that existing K-mount lenses can be used?

(If so, you are describing a variant of what I called "Option 3: New mount for mirrorless cameras". Where "New mount" means "simply a shorter registration distance").

Click to expand...

Yes, that's it. Making a whole new mount is pointless.

I do not think Pentax is going to "downsize" the K-1 and create a similar mirrorless.

I am considering a K-3II or K-1 to use old Asahi manual focus lenses.

Everyone fails to understand that without K-mount Pentax has no customer base to speak of. The installed base of K-mounts (the camera is irrelevant) is the commercial definition of Pentax - 645 and Q having no base commercial effect whatsoever.

Ricoh, on the other hand, already markets a mirrorless camera and could market a non-K-mount interchangeable lens camera. But Ricoh is barely a brand anymore.

If Ricoh Imaging does a MILC it will be a Ricoh camera with a K-mount adapter.

DiffractionLtd said:

Barry Pearson said:

DiffractionLtd said:

Why does this have to be so radical? KEEP the existing Pentax K mount and make a mirrorless camera with a shorter registration distance!!

Click to expand...

What lenses would be used with it?

Are you including an adapter with the offering so that existing K-mount lenses can be used?

(If so, you are describing a variant of what I called "Option 3: New mount for mirrorless cameras". Where "New mount" means "simply a shorter registration distance").

Click to expand...

Yes, that's it. Making a whole new mount is pointless.

Click to expand...

There are many points of making a new mount as a short register distance mount have to be designed differently to best support short register distance lenses. A larger mount would be better as short register distance lenses have large rear lens elements. K-mount is not large enough for this.

Mirrorless lenses will not use screw drive or mechanical aperture control, so why fit them in the camera with an added cost? Would it even be room to fit them in a short register distance mount?

The screw drive and mechanical aperture control have to be fitted in the adapter for those wanting to adapt AF K-mount lenses. For those adapting manual focus lenses do not need adapter with screw drive and aperture control.

Why re-used the extra complexity of having electrical connectors on the mount surface? For mirrorless new a brand new communication protocol will be introduced between camera and lens. So new pibs will probably gave to be introduced. With a larger mirrorless mount the connector will be designed like on 645-mount or Q-mount for less complexity.

Re-using K-mount will only introduce extra cost and complexity, and will cripple lens design for a mirrorless system.

The only reason for doing a new mount is if it brings some substantial advantages over an old one.

For mirrorless, the obvious advantage is to allow a shorter registration distance. But it's not strictly necessary; Pentax had a prototype lens for the K-01 that extended behind the mount into where the mirror box would ordinarily go. They never brought it to market.

Nikon has created a mount with a larger diameter, but at this point it's unclear what the advantage of that would be. One big advantage from their perspective is that it's secret and protected so they won't have to share it with any competitors such as Sigma or Tamron.

Mark Ransom said:

The only reason for doing a new mount is if it brings some substantial advantages over an old one.

Click to expand...

Yes, substantial. Both in photographic capability and return on investment. Now and/or in the future.

Mark Ransom said:

For mirrorless, the obvious advantage is to allow a shorter registration distance. But it's not strictly necessary; Pentax had a prototype lens for the K-01 that extended behind the mount into where the mirror box would ordinarily go. They never brought it to market.

Click to expand...

I too query the need for a shorter registration distance. The point about extending into the body beyond the mount is a good one.

Here are some sizes that may be relevant. First for the D FA* 50mm f/1.4 lens, then for the Laowa 12mm f/2.8 ZeroD, then for the Samyang 12mm f/2.8 Fisheye.

D FA* 50mm f/1.4

The tube containing its rear elements, that slides in and out for focusing, has an outer diameter of about 35mm. So that is the space available (in that version of the K-mount) after the essential features of the mount have been fitted.

The rear element of that lens is about 30mm across, and is (slightly) within the body of the camera when the lens is focused at infinity.


D FA* 50mm f/1.4, focused at infinity. (Centimeters).

Laowa 12mm f/2.8 ZeroD

The rear element is smaller than the rear element of the 50mm f/1.4.

The front element is large. I suspect this applies to any FF 12mm f/2.8 lens.

What would be the equivalent sizes for a 12mm f/2.8 minimum distortion lens designed to exploit lack of a mirror? Could the rear end of the lens fit within the tube size used by the 50mm f/1.4 lens?


Laowa 12mm f/2.8 ZeroD, K-mount. (Centimeters)


Laowa 12mm f/2.8 ZeroD, K-mount. (Centimeters)

Samyang 12mm f/2.8 Fisheye

The rear element is smaller than the rear element of the 50mm f/1.4.

The front element is very large. I suspect this applies to any FF 12mm f/2.8 fisheye lens.

What would be the equivalent sizes for a 12mm f/2.8 fisheye lens designed to exploit lack of a mirror? Could the rear end of the lens fit within the tube size used by the 50mm f/1.4 lens?


Samyang 12mm f/2.8 Fisheye, K-mount. (Centimeters).


Samyang 12mm f/2.8 Fisheye, K-mount. (Centimeters).