Steve, No matter whether there is a mirror in it or not, the camera will be at least as thick as a Pentax ME to mount a K-mount lens, which requires an ~45mm mount register. And the lenses are bulkier than they would be if the mount register were less as a consequence.
The advantage of microFT is that the mount register is only 20mm vs 40mm so lenses built for microFT will be substantially smaller and lighter than lenses built for FT, even though the sensor format is the same. For instance, since the normal for FT is a 25mm lens, you can build a symmetrical design 25mm f/1.4 which will be FAR smaller than the inverted-telephoto design required for the SLR mount. A 21mm f/2 lens could be the same size or smaller than the DA21. An L1 body (which is a mostly rectangular box) with the FT mount register is 5.03 cm (1.98 inches) thick at the mount. A microFT L1 body could be 1.1 inches thick ... thinner than a Leica M. Godfrey On Aug 10, 2008, at 1:49 PM, Steve Desjardins wrote: > "Slim" might be the wrong word. Small? Light? It doesn't have to > fit > in my pocket, but I'd be curious how small a camera you could build > around a K mount lens. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
