PS: Lets face it. The FF DSLR market is like 5% of the overall market. It would make very little sense for Pentax to just introduce another "me too" DSLR with a limited lens selection and hope to compete with Canikon or even Sony, which all have extensive lens lineups. The pros that really wanted FF jumped ship a long time ago. Now the market is the people that *think* they need FF (and probably don't).
On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 3:46 PM, Zos Xavius <[email protected]> wrote: > I personally think (and hope) they go for a mirrorless solution with a > super short flange distance that will adapt any other system's full > frame lenses. Since they need to create a bunch of new lenses for full > frame they might as well start from scratch like sony did with > e-mount. Being able to adapt foreign system glass would win converts > as well that are afraid to abandon their investments. On the other > hand they could go totally old school and keep k-mount. I'd be more > than ok with that too.... > > On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 3:19 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Sep 24, 2013, at 11:28 AM, Larry Colen <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 01:14:54PM -0500, Darren Addy wrote: >>>> What are you calling "traditional Leica glass"? >>>> M-mount has a 27.8mm flange to film/sensor distance. >>>> M39 is 28.8. >>>> Leica R-mount is 47mm (longer than the "kludge" K-mount 45.46.) >>> >> When used in a sentence, “traditional Leica glass" is nearly always >> referring to Leica M-bayonet and Leica Thread Mount (LTM). While the >> specific mount registration differences are 1mm apart, M-mount is the more >> universal design as it is the shortest registration and was designed so that >> LTM could be easily adapted to it (since M-mount bodies followed LTM bodies, >> it didn’t make sense to design for M-mount adaptation to LTM to Leitz). >> >> Leica R mount lenses are for their SLR line, in which there are five >> different (but mostly interchangeable) detail differences depending on year >> of manufacture and the specific lens in question. Leica (and others) also >> makes adapters to allow R-mount lenses to be used on M-mount, of course >> without mechanical rangefinder support since R lenses do not have the RF >> cam. Note: The Leica M (Type 240) allows full-field focusing and viewing >> with R lenses via Live View using the LCD or optional EVF. >> >> In addition to M-bayonet, LTM, and R-bayonet, Leica also has Visoflex mount >> (version I = 91.3mm, version II, III = 68.8mm), and manufactured longer >> lenses with these mountings as native so that they could be used on both the >> RF and SLR cameras using the appropriate adapters. >> >>> Oh well, it was a nice theory. Since folks seem to be able to use >>> Pentax glass on their ricoh m-modules I thought it had a short >>> registration distance. >> >> To use Pentax SLR lenses on the GXR A12 Camera Mount, all you need is a >> Pentax M42 or K-mount to Leica M-bayonet mount adapter. I have both. You can >> nearly always adapt a *lens designed for a deep mount register* to a *body >> with a shorter mount register*. The A12 Camera mount is M-bayonet register >> depth, 27.8mm. >> >>>> I've been thinking about upcoming cameras from a Pentax-centric point >>>> of view. We keep asking for a Pentax "full frame" camera, and the >>>> latest rumors seem to have being mirrorless. There are a lot of >>>> technical advantages in terms of light path to mirrorless, and there is >>>> the advantage of you see what the sensor sees. >>>> >>>> But, using K-mount for mirrorless is a kludge. You lose the short >>>> registration distance advantage, without kludging lenses that have >>>> elements that extend past the mount. >> >> I agree. >> >>>> But the company isn't Pentax, it's Ricoh. And they have already >>>> made an interchangeable lens camera with a well defined, full >>>> frame capable, mirrorless mount. The GXR Leica mount module. >> >> This should be qualified. Leica, just like Nikon and Pentax, deemed that it >> was more important to maintain compatibility with their existing lens lines >> than to redesign the lens mount on the M and F mount bodies, respectively. >> However, neither M nor F mounts are ideal for 24x36mm digital sensors—they >> can be made to work, but ideally a lens mount for a digital sensor should be >> larger diameter relative to the format and a shorter registration distance, >> to enable more flexibility in lens design for the digital capture medium. >> >> Canon was roundly dissed when they obsoleted the FL/FD mount in the 1980s >> and thereby obsoleted many owners' expensive lens collections. However, they >> were prescient in developing the EOS mount which is huge diameter (about >> 51mm) and a relatively short (44mm) register. The change has stood them in >> good stead in the long term, although it cost them a lot of customers once >> upon a time. >> >> Olympus was unsuccessful in bringing out an auto-focus SLR lineup and had >> pretty much left their pro system (OM) on the sidelines for years, >> delivering a couple of new bodies and lenses only for the last decade of its >> production history. When they started to think SLR with digital capture, >> they worked with Kodak and developed the FourThirds mount, which has an even >> shorter register than Canon EOS (38mm) and about the same outer diameter. >> This lens mount is the only one in production that actually has the ideal >> sensor size/diameter/register depth combination for digital capture SLRs and >> lenses up to f/1.4 aperture settings. The Micro-FourThirds design is >> essentially the same, scaling down the bayonet diameter along with the >> register depth to maintain the same characteristics, and allowing for more >> compact body designs—it was only made possible by the invention of >> high-resolution EVFs and large sensors with Live View capability. >> >>>> What if the new high end, full frame sensor, camera coming from >>>> Ricoh were not a Pentax mount, but a Leica mount? Ideally a mount >>>> that is mechanically compatible with traditional Leica glass, but >>>> with contacts for autofocus etc. And what if, just for the hell >>>> of it, they also sold an adapter that allowed use of K-mount lenses >>>> in full auto focus? Even if it were just full autofocus on the SDM >>>> lenses. >> >> It’s an interesting thought, but there are some subtleties here too. M-mount >> was never designed for lenses with electronic control or bidirectional >> communication with the body other than via the lens focusing cam and body’s >> mechanical rangefinder cam follower. Leica has gone through some complex >> efforts to maintain full compatibility with all M and LTM lenses, barring a >> few that simply project too far into the body cavity to work with the >> thicker digital capture sensor mechanism, while at the same time creating a >> communication system between lens and body that at least allows the body to >> recognize what lens is fitted so as to fill out the EXIF data and estimate >> the working aperture. They achieve this through a six-bit coding on the lens >> flange and a reader on the body flange. >> >> So if Ricoh were to do this, they would have to extend the M-mount design in >> ways that were not incompatible with Leica’s extension of the M-mount into >> the modern era. This would be no simple trick as there’s precious little >> space on the M lens mount for the usual sets of electrical contacts, >> potential screwdriver drive, mechanical iris control, etc. All of that stuff >> would have to be implemented in one way or another. >> >> It’s a fun thought exercise, however. >> >> Godfrey >> -- >> 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. -- 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.
