[Tony Belding]

That need was to produce – in the field – well exposed, sharp forensic-like images that conveyed information in graphic form.

I think the vast majority of photographs that are taken are utilitarian in nature. The purpose is to visually record something, illustrate something, show somebody something. A reasonably clear depiction of a person, object, scene or event is needed, but any kind of artistic ambition is given little-if-any consideration.

When it comes to photographic art, though. . . I am grateful for my own dabblings with "lomography". I never dove into that quirky fashion (or fad?) too deeply, and I never cross-processed any film, but I did learn that photos don't require razor sharpness and textbook-perfect exposure to look good. After flipping through enough of them, all those intensely analyzed, pixel-peeping shots of test targets on DPReview began to seem sort of silly.

[pacerr]

. . . to visually record something, illustrate something, show somebody something.

Imagine what the world would be like if 'photo reality' had been present as far back in history as you'd like to imagine. What if there'd been a photographer present in . . . well, you name your favorite historcial era. (There's a Speculative Fiction (SF?) novel there for someone!)

The importance of ANY image would preclude concern about LCD functionality, eh?

Ya wanna try it? -- shot your DSLR like an old glass-plate view camera an' see if you can do it as well as 'they did'. An' don't try to tell me you don't have the ISO or free trial exposures to do it either.

[reh321]

I've never considered myself a “photographer” – certainly not an “aesthetic photographic artist”, and rarely have any inclination to offer an image to the public except as potentially interesting information. I consider myself as a user of photography to record and occasionally to present a point of view – aesthetics notwithstanding.

In general, that is an excellent description of me also - I'm recording what I see (and at my current age of 67, with the hope that my daughters might be interested), I choose my equipment using various criteria .... cost will always matter to me, since I have other things in my life that also require money, and I would never want to have something that would cause me to experience serious loss if it were stolen or damaged (I kind of learned the lesson that emotional loss is unavoidable, when some of my pictures were stolen during my college days). I understand that companies will never design their equipment specifically for me, so I am always willing to adapt to what they do actuall produce).

[CWRailman]

Imagine what the world would be like if 'photo reality' had been present as far back in history as you'd like to imagine. What if there'd been a photographer present in . . . well, you name your favorite historcial era. (There's a Speculative Fiction (SF?) novel there for someone!)

The importance of ANY image would preclude concern about LCD functionality, eh?

Ya wanna try it? -- shot your DSLR like an old glass-plate view camera an' see if you can do it as well as 'they did'. An' don't try to tell me you don't have the ISO or free trial exposures to do it either.

While this is not exactly what you were talking about it is an exercise we designed during the film era to test a photographers skills and familiarity with his/her camera equipment.
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/136-pentax-q/273671-calling-yer-shots.html

Sometime in the 1970's I had acquired a small 2.25 x 3.5 portable collapsible glass plate camera built sometime between 1910 and 1915. (Somewhere that is stored in the boxes still unpacked from when I moved here 24 years ago.) I modified the slides so they would hold 2 x 2.5 sheet film which I cut down in my dark room by slicing a sheet of 4x5 film from my studio camera in half. Unlike a 4x5 view camera slide that holds one sheet of film on each side so you get two shots from each slide, these slides held one sheet of film and I had 9 slides. That meant that a photographer got 9 shots on any one outing. After I got somewhat proficient with matching the cameras aperture and shutter speed settings to my interpretation of the lighting conditions I was able to produce 4-5 usable shots from each set of 9 slides. Development of that film was also different than when the same film was used in my studio view camera. I do not remember the particulars ( I have slept a few times since then) but I do recall that I had to make development and printing adjustments to accommodate a lack of contrast. Taking photo’s during that time period was really an art form and it took someone with dedication to the craft to be really good at it.

[pacerr]

Yep, for some of us access to a strip of film was as irresistible as playin' with a magnifying glass on a sunny day.

And there was always the danger of loosin' a finger while wielding a razor blade to cut 220 film to odd sizes in pitch darkness . . .

[reh321]

You are right that I said not to put a EVF on the Q and that it did not need one because for what it is, and it’s target market, that is not necessary. It’s focus are people who use cell phones for picture taking, not people who use view finders. Those are two separate and non related markets. Leave it alone as it holds a unique place in the photographic community in what it offers for the money. Again the tool box theory in which each piece of photographic equipment serves a purpose. You do not use a sledge hammer to pound nails nor do you use a finishing hammer to break concrete.

What I am talking about is that Pentax has a gap between the K series and the Q series that is being filled by cameras like the Olympus E-M10 and the soon to be released Fuji X-T10. The link provided below shows how an Olympus E-M10, which according to DPReview produces images at or near the IQ of a K-5, fits exactly in the middle of a K and Q series and does so with the EVF and tilt screen that many on this forum have shown interest in having in their cameras.
Compact Camera Meter
Hover your mouse over each camera and note the size and weight while the physical size relationship between the three cameras is visually demonstrated. The soon to be released Fuji X-T10 is almost exactly the same weight and size and supposedly produces even higher IQ images than the E-M10.

If Pentax was smart, meaning that if they had anybody who got past the first semester of product marketing they would come out with a stripped down digital version of the K-1000 to match the size of the E-M10 or the Fuji X-T1 with mechanical function knobs like on those cameras and some if not all of the same features. (By the way, the K-1000 was the last SLR Pentax sold and was the longest selling and the most successful model as far as number of units sold.) With the average camera user getting more and more confused, heck even some of the camera reviewers get confused and note such in their reviews, by the increasing complexity of menus in cameras it would behoove Pentax to make the controls more tactile like the Canon DF, Fuji X-T1 or the new Fuji X-T10. The reviewers have given these cameras high marks for their simplicity of operation. Olympus has headed in this direction with it’s OM-D line of cameras with the E-M10 being the latest and least costly of the series and as a result their sales have risen and pulled them out of their financial hole and I think Pentax should do something about the same size and for a bit less money. Hence my $275 street price for body only. In fact you might be amazed at how many Pentax owners also own one of the Olympus OM-D or Fuji X series cameras and I think the X-T10 will pull even more away from the Pentax brand. In using the Fuji X series cameras I particularly like the fact that with the camera up to your eye you can make aperture adjustments by turning the aperture ring on the lens just like we did on SLR’s. Such control that were once common among all SLR's need to be reintroduced into the digital world instead of being different on each camera make.

But you’re right, I do not believe Pentax should make any of these additions to the Q which good or bad, has it’s own unique place in the photographic market.

So, now we're moving on to a third myth, The Myth of the General Company.

J.P. Morgan started General Electric based on the genius of Thomas Edison; in recent years, Jack Welch became well-known when he saw that the whole thing had become a monster, and developed procedures for jettisoning pieces which no longer made business sense.

When I was in business school in the early 1970s, I learned how management genius William Durant built General Motors, which at the time built everything from railroad locomotives to small cars; as an adult, I watched the whole thing come apart, until federally-supervised bankruptcy was able to constitute a company which makes business sense.

The closest we ever came to General Photography was probably Kodak; they seemed to follow the GE model, but unfortunately the pieces which didn't make business sense in one decade would have been essential in a later decade.

How does this fit into your wishes? {BTW - I am surprised to hear that you are less satisfied with Pentax offerings than I am, since you own two digital K-mount cameras and two Q-mount cameras, while I own only one of each} Yes, Pentax could put an aperture ring on current lenses; I don't know why they don't (the 70-300mm Sigma lens I use with my K-30 does have such a ring), and I don't know for certain what engineering/marketing decisions fed into Pentax's decision; looking at general trends, I am guessing that an extra ring would add to the cost of weather-proofing, and marketing surveys may have shown that younger buyers don't put any value on it. As far as camera bodies are concerned, as I have already mentioned, I virtually never use the menu system on either my Q-7 nor on my K-30; learning how to use the existing knobs and buttons took me a few days with the Q-7, but once I learned that, transferring that knowledge to the K-30 was trivial. Again, this is a pure guess on my part, but most likely more knobs would have increased the cost. Pentax could sell a version of the lens with an aperture ring and a version of the camera with knobs, but added variety increases costs, and I'm willing to believe that their marketing surveys show the current design mix to be optimal.

I'm not sure what you mean by a digital version of the K-1000. The K-30/50 are simple cameras; yes they are automated, but marketing may have shown that there is very limited demand for a camera without automation. The Fuji cameras may have the form of an older camera, but they definitely have automation there for anyone who wants to use it. As I have already indicated, making yet another/simpler camera version would incur design and setup costs, and I don't see any reason to expect that Pentax could have a reasonable hope of recovering those costs. Pentax did build the K-01, which was moving in the direction of the Fuji X-T1 in form, but it didn't sell very well. A first semester marketing student might think in terms of morphing a K-mount camera in the direction of the Fuji X-T1, but a first semester engineering or physics student would explain that the svelte body developed by Fuji requires a slightly different mount; a camera between the K-S1 and Q-S1 would require a lens mount between the K-mount and the Q-mount, and nobody is supporting four different mounts. If Pentax ignores history, they might develop a K-02, but I doubt if they could price it anywhere near to $275 initially - the current low price of the K-50 is a result solely of the fact that they have already paid off its development costs, and many here wonder if they are now cleaning out the attic preparatory to discontinuing it entirely. Pentax owners may also be buying Olympus and Fuji cameras, but I doubt if they are getting either for the current price of a K-50.

[pacerr]

There's more than a half a dozen Pentax DSLRs today that functionally fit the digital-K1000 concept. Aside from the shape, any one of 'em in M-Mode comes as close as I need to come to the 'good ol' daz'.

The idea that I'm not (yet) as comfortable with the new DSLR options (which I may use or not as I see fit) is my own puzzle to solve.

Pentax is buildin' cameras they can sell within the strictures of their company culture and profit motives. And I thank them for including the idea that accommodating older lenses is of value and wonder what that has meant in terms of fiscal expense and risk.

I'd ask you to consider what a Pentax would look like today if it was driven by a historically correct Communistic political agenda. Hint: there ain't one!

[Tony Belding]

Making an "in between" requires more than just stripping out bells and whistles. You need a new form factor and that could require a new lens mount. The K-mount is simply too big to be much smaller than what it is now. We've seen attempts at this with the K-01. That is probably as small as you can reasonably make it. Maybe some of the circuitry could be shrunk down and maybe a smaller, denser battery could be used ... but you still have that canyon sized mount. Squishing the K-mount dimensions could introduce some funky focusing issues in some lenses even if the mirror was removed.

Use the K-mount for what it is and you'll love it. Use the Q mount for what it is and you'll love that too. The M10 we both got could be the best compromise as an "in between" camera.

From Pentax's perspective, K-mount *is* the in between camera: smaller than the 645 system, bigger than the Q system. With these three lens mounts, they've got all the bases covered.

One could easily imagine a "KM" mount (M for mirrorless) with shorter distance between the mount and sensor, and a simple adapter allowing it to use existing K-mount lenses. (Sort of like the relationship between Four Thirds and Micro Four Thirds systems.) I think it might even happen someday. However. . . I don't expect this any time soon. Ricoh-Pentax already have their hands full supporting three existing lens mounts *and* rolling out the full frame DSLR and developing new lenses for it. For those who want a smaller system, the Q-S1 already exists, although it does need updating pretty soon IMHO.

The need for a camera "in between" K and Q is questionable if the Q line were to be developed to its potential. I mean. . . Try to imagine a Super Q (as I have suggested before) built on the same general layout as the OM-D with an EVF, flip screen, dual control dials, etc. It would be bigger than our existing Q bodies, but still a very compact system, especially taking lens sizes into account. It would be easier to use than an OM-D, probably less expensive (again, taking lenses into account), and the only real disadvantage would be a smaller sensor -- which isn't as terrible as people these days make it sound. We all know the Q-S1's image quality isn't that bad, and we must know it's only going to get better on future cameras as sensor technology continues to improve. So. . . Why the need for yet another lens mount to try and mimic M4/3? It's not necessary.

[mohb]

That thought has come to my mind often as I watch tourists attempting to sort out the workings of their camera while standing on the edge of the Grand Canyon, some vista in Sedona or near one of the other great photo opportunities we have here in Arizona.Their indecisiveness over which feature, which function or what settings to use out of that great wonder they hold in their hands has virtually paralyzed them

If they can't work out how the basic settings on a DSLR work how would they cope with a DK1000 where the only information you have are
f numbers and shutter speeds that without extensive knowledge of how exposure works are meaningless?

[pacerr]

...a "KM" mount (M for mirrorless) with shorter distance between the mount and sensor, and a simple adapter allowing it to use existing K-mount lenses.

My first instinct was to thank Pentax for once again enabling a closet full of older lenses via the adapters. But then I got to thinkin' . . . do I REALLY want to hobble a really nice l'il IL body with a honkin' big adapter just to use half a century old mirror box designed lenses?

Now I'm very happy with the Q-system when used as I think it was intended. The 02, 03, 06 and 08 lenses plus an extension ring and a Q7 fit quite nicely in a discrete bag the size that would accommodate my K5IIs plus a single common lens.

It doesn't replace the APS-C gear for serious stuff, it simply adds to the times I can enjoy having a functional camera system with me -- plus the Q-concept has added a modicum of FUN to the photo equation again.

[reh321]

Making an "in between" requires more than just stripping out bells and whistles. You need a new form factor and that could require a new lens mount. The K-mount is simply too big to be much smaller than what it is now. We've seen attempts at this with the K-01. That is probably as small as you can reasonably make it. Maybe some of the circuitry could be shrunk down and maybe a smaller, denser battery could be used ... but you still have that canyon sized mount. Squishing the K-mount dimensions could introduce some funky focusing issues in some lenses even if the mirror was removed.

Use the K-mount for what it is and you'll love it. Use the Q mount for what it is and you'll love that too. The M10 we both got could be the best compromise as an "in between" camera.

I have to admit that I'm largely ignorant concerning the K-01, so I've been doing some research. DPReview complained that the K-01 was too big, forfeiting benefits that are supposed to go with an MILC, but comparing the K-01 to the X-T1, I discovered that the K-01 is slightly smaller in two of the three dimensions - then being roughly 1/2-inch deeper to fit the K-mount - and weighs roughly 4 ounces more. The biggest differences are
(1) the K-01 has in-body stabilization and the X-T1 doesn't
(2) the X-T1 has a tilting LCD and an EVF, and the K-01 has neither. The Canon EOS-M, which also bombed outside Japan, also lacked a tilting LCD and EVF, so those could very easily be the features most important to MILC success in the US and Europe; I assume that a K-02 which had both a tilting LCD and an EVF would be slightly larger than the X-T1 in all three dimensions. I haven't had any problems nailing focus with the OVF on my K-30 with a Pentax-M lens mounted, but I don't know whether that would be equally easy using an EVF (using a Pentax-A or Pentax-M lens on this camera is the obvious route for someone who enjoys using aperture rings). I'm still not clear on what changes to controls would have to be made to satisfy the OP, nor what would be needed to satisfy the current market. Roberts is selling a half-boatload of K-01 bodies at roughly $20 less than the boatload of K-50 bodies they are also selling on eBay, so I'm not sure what this says about the selling price of a K-02.

BTW - looking at the last few pages of this thread, I suppose it should be up in the mirror-less sub-forum, even though much of the recent discussions might apply to the Q-7 as much as to the K-01.

[pacerr]

BTW - looking at the last few pages of this thread, I suppose it should be up in the mirror-less sub-forum, even though much of the recent discussions might apply to the Q-7 as much as to the K-01.

No, I don't think so. This is a bunch of folks that know both types of cameras. This is a valid forum IMO. Can't hurt to hear what they have to say here.

[Pioneer]

Anytime you are working with a digital camera you are slave to the "Myth of More." In my opinion the closest you can get to simple with a digital camera is with the Leica M (Type 240) Edition 60. This is a digital Leica with no display screen. As you can expect, being a limited edition camera, as well as being a Leica, it is VERY expensive. But it works almost exactly like the K1000, with the difference being the Leica is a rangefinder, not an SLR. In the digital world, extreme simplicity is possible, but you will pay a boatload of cash to get it.

However, it is possible to find simplicity in the film world as long as you are willing to turn you back on the convenience afforded by technology. You can still purchase new cameras that are almost exactly what Ansel Adams used, which have absolutely no automation whatsoever, yet continue to produce truly stunning photographs. You can even buy or build a camera that will take a photograph without any lens, any focusing, and very little effort to determine exposure, yet be very good.

Simplicity is a wonderful thing, but it is not a panacea for the confused hobbyists at the overlook who should have never let the salesman talk them into that Nikon. True simplicity requires far more commitment, study and work than we are willing to admit. It is always exciting to talk about going off the grid, but to actually do it takes more work than most of us want to be committed to. Technology is there for a reason. It is easy to flip a light switch and get light, just as it is easy to switch the mode dial to P, aim and press the shutter to get a photograph. And much the same as the light coming from that light bulb is far better, so is that photograph ofttimes far better than what most people can accomplish manually.

I really think it is time to quit knocking the Program Mode. I know that this is likely heresy, and I don't mean to downgrade anyone's photography, but I wonder how much better the work that some of us produce would be if we truly used the P mode and focused on our compositions rather than be so concerned with our exposures?

Technology may not really be all that bad.

[arnold]

I really think it is time to quit knocking the Program Mode.

Actually the program mode is the closest to the simple manual camera as far as complexity and confusion is concerned. What could be simpler than a manual camera, when all you need do is 1) Estimate focus distance, 2) Set a suitable speed, 3) Set a suitable sunny 16 aperture? That is, 1,2,3, shoot. Some of my best pictures were taken that way.

[barondla]

Attended a Dewitt jones ( National Geographic photographrer) seminar years ago. He called the P setting "P for perfect". Used it about 80% of the time. Only switched modes when he knew camera wasn't going to do what he wanted.
thanks
barondla