[PiDicus Rex]

Because it's so damn big and awkward.

So what would suit those who want a thinner body, is a Pentax MFT model, not necessarily a K-02, but something as thin as a Q, but with an APS-c sensor.

I'm happy to stick with the K-Mount for any theoretical K-02.

• An M-mode that actually works with completely manual lenses would be nice.
• A buffer so raw isn't just one image per second, at least a couple of images.
• Adjustment for focus peaking, so precision can be adjusted, also color of peaking.
• Ability to take a digital preview (maybe it's there already, but I'm not figuring out how, I'm only getting the camera to stop down with any of the red og green button as preview, not digital as on the Pentax DSLRs).
• Composition adjustment.
• Option to use sensor shift for shake reduction.
• Interval shooting that just goes until either battery is empty or card is full, not stopping at 999 images.
• Proper image quality for video.
• Levels for audio during video, so the record volume can be set sensibly, maybe even headphones out.
• Option to use the full sensor for video when shake reduction is off (now a little field of view is lost in video).
• Live View via HDMI to an external monitor with HD signal out.

Most of those are the same thing as requested in the firmware wish list thread. A K-02 that evolves from feedback in both threads would be fantastic.

The buffer is 128Mb - the write speed of the SD cards is the real limit, so firmware that can test the write speed of the card, and then enable higher write speeds for cards that support it, and then enable faster RAW burst modes for those cards.

Sensor Shift won't ever make it to video mode - Steady Shot for video is either done digitally, or by moving a lens element. Sensor Shift will add vibration to the body, which it then has to try to remove, and it will add noise to the audio recording.

Proper Image Quality for Video - yes please to a higher data rate - same as for RAW Burst Mode - enable a higher data rate in video for SD cards that can write faster (plus, exFat, no file size limit and 'film' dynamic range instead of REC 709)

[ChrisJowett]

An NEX-sized body would have no in-body image stabilization, and about half the battery capacity. The KAF-E adapter would have to be fairly chunky to house a screwdrive motor on one side (capable of turning big heavy zooms), another motor to operate the aperture arm on the other, and electronics to translate the E-mount electronic interface to the KAF's electromechanical interface - all of which would use more power than native E-lenses, further reducing shot count. I'm not trying to to be negative, just pointing out that any design has costs and tradeoffs.

The Q series have in body image stabilisation, so why not?

There is no critical reason why battery life need be half. Part of the problem with the K-01 design is the shallow grip caused by the thick body required by the K mount. The same grip and battery with a shallow body would kill both birds.

When you want to stick a K lens on a compact, the size of the adapter becomes less critical; the bigger the lens the more so as the camera hangs off the lens, not the other way 'round.

The adapter I prefer would be the Pentax equivalent of the Sony LA-EA1 providing full aperture control and AF for lenses with motors (including some of those big heavy zooms) rather than the LA-EA2 with a screw-drive motor. Even an equivalent of the Pentax Adapter Q with no AF would do for me as most of my K lenses are manual focus, although I do prefer the solid adapters with a tripod mount over the Pentax Q adapter.

I'm not confident there will ever be a K-02 as the K-01 was a sales bust. That is not all due to the size as Canon have thus far had a similar flop with the EOS-M and are apparently already working on the replacement.

[netrex]

Proper Image Quality for Video - yes please to a higher data rate - same as for RAW Burst Mode - enable a higher data rate in video for SD cards that can write faster (plus, exFat, no file size limit and 'film' dynamic range instead of REC 709)

The bit rate isn't the biggest problem. The Nokia 808 PureView has the same codec, but less than half the bitrate, and a lot better video quality. High bitrate is fine, but it's pointless if the image quality is low to begin with, like now.

[THoog]

The Q series have in body image stabilisation, so why not? There is no critical reason why battery life need be half. Part of the problem with the K-01 design is the shallow grip caused by the thick body required by the K mount. The same grip and battery with a shallow body would kill both birds.

The Q has a much smaller sensor, a mere 9.2mm register distance, and the center part of the body is actually thicker than the NEX-5 or NEX-7. The K mirror box is only part of the problem. The SR chassis on the K-01 is about 1cm thick. I'll assume that Pentax engineers are competent and squeezed it as much as they could - it was thicker on previous dSLRs. Because that 1cm has to go behind the shutter, they moved the main board to the side, which meant the battery had to go in front of the main board, giving a thick body (the battery is hard against the recessed part of the grip). If you don't have IBIS, the sensor chassis is about 5mm thick, leaving room behind it for the main board, and the battery can go on the end - that's how the NEX does it.

I based the battery life on the batteries that are actually being used. The battery used by the NEX (NP-FW50, 1080 MAh) is physically smaller with 43% less capacity than the K-01 battery (D-Li90, 1880 MAh). There are third-party versions of the NP-FW50 claiming 1750 MAh, but (1) Sony doesn't use them for a reason, and (2) that just means you could squeeze 2500+ MAh into a D-Li90, and have the same ratio (and risk of fire). If Pentax had used the K-30 battery (D-li109, 1050 MAh), they could have shaved 3mm off the K-01, but at a similar cost in battery life. If there was some magic battery that would reliably provide the amps at half the size, Pentax (and Sony, and Samsung, etc.) would be using it.

Edit: Actually, the Samsung NX10 battery (BP1310, 1310 MAh) is kind of interesting - 31% less capacity and about 6mm thinner than the D-Li90, but wider. However, with later NX models, Samsung went to a 1000-1100 MAh battery of similar dimensions to the Sony.

My point (I actually do have one ) is that It's easy to get a much smaller body with a clean-sheet design with different requirements, but as soon as you start adding back requirements to do the same things (full legacy lens support, IBIS, shot count), you quickly get into the same costs in terms of size, weight, and power.

---

Last edited by THoog; 06-16-2013 at 12:43 PM. Reason: Corrected a comment about the NX battery.

[PiDicus Rex]

The bit rate isn't the biggest problem.

I think it is a lot more important then most people realise - the bit-rate refers directly to how much compression is used, and how much sensor data is being thrown away - the lower the data rate, then more compressed, and the more fine detail that is lost.

[monochrome]

At some point a company has to decide to make a video camera and slice still images out of the data stream.

[netrex]

I think it is a lot more important then most people realise - the bit-rate refers directly to how much compression is used, and how much sensor data is being thrown away - the lower the data rate, then more compressed, and the more fine detail that is lost.

Yes, I know that. But I'm pretty sure it's not the data rate here. My reason for thinking so is the image quality of the Nokia 808 PureView which is the same codec, just at a lower bit rate. I've explained that already.

[ChrisJowett]

The Q has a much smaller sensor, a mere 9.2mm register distance, and the center part of the body is actually thicker than the NEX-5 or NEX-7. The K mirror box is only part of the problem. The SR chassis on the K-01 is about 1cm thick. I'll assume that Pentax engineers are competent and squeezed it as much as they could - it was thicker on previous dSLRs. Because that 1cm has to go behind the shutter, they moved the main board to the side, which meant the battery had to go in front of the main board, giving a thick body (the battery is hard against the recessed part of the grip). If you don't have IBIS, the sensor chassis is about 5mm thick, leaving room behind it for the main board, and the battery can go on the end - that's how the NEX does it.

I based the battery life on the batteries that are actually being used. The battery used by the NEX (NP-FW50, 1080 MAh) is physically smaller with 43% less capacity than the K-01 battery (D-Li90, 1880 MAh). There are third-party versions of the NP-FW50 claiming 1750 MAh, but (1) Sony doesn't use them for a reason, and (2) that just means you could squeeze 2500+ MAh into a D-Li90, and have the same ratio (and risk of fire). If Pentax had used the K-30 battery (D-li109, 1050 MAh), they could have shaved 3mm off the K-01, but at a similar cost in battery life. If there was some magic battery that would reliably provide the amps at half the size, Pentax (and Sony, and Samsung, etc.) would be using it.

Edit: Actually, the Samsung NX10 battery (BP1310, 1310 MAh) is kind of interesting - 31% less capacity and about 6mm thinner than the D-Li90, but wider. However, with later NX models, Samsung went to a 1000-1100 MAh battery of similar dimensions to the Sony.

My point (I actually do have one ) is that It's easy to get a much smaller body with a clean-sheet design with different requirements, but as soon as you start adding back requirements to do the same things (full legacy lens support, IBIS, shot count), you quickly get into the same costs in terms of size, weight, and power.

I hope you're wrong, but sadly accept you're probably right - there will never be a smaller K-mount Pentax MILC.
I will probably get myself a Sony NEX-6 or RX-100 in addition to my Pentax DSLR and K-01 as I really do need something more portable with better IQ than Pentax presently offers.

[ogl]

The rumors of "K-02 (APS-C) in retro body, but compact and with better ergonomics than K-01" started to float....I don't know if it's true, of course.
But it seems to me it will be body for new DA limited design.

[Na Horuk]

The buffer is 128Mb - the write speed of the SD cards is the real limit, so firmware that can test the write speed of the card, and then enable higher write speeds for cards that support it, and then enable faster RAW burst modes for those cards.

The SD card is not the limiting factor. This can be proven because you can enable bracketing and the camera will take and write three photos, in raw, much faster than raw burst mode allows. Everything points to this limit being artificial.

[prime.partisan]

I wish Ricoh realize that the K-01's design, i.e its look, isn't a problem. There are probably many more people who like it than those who hate. The real problem was its capability vs pricing ratio. Just look at the NEX system, probably still the best mirrorless deal, and match their best features - flip-out touch screen, EVF availability, color choices for focus peaking, electronic front curtain etc.
Make sure you can at least compete on features, and price it accordingly. Then any reasonable design will probably do. But why produce another me-retro-too while a unique Marc Newson design can differentiate the brand better?

[normhead]

FF K-02... all the way. The flat front lends itself to tilt shift, and the FLU card lens itself to remote live-view. It could be the next big thing.

[monochrome]

FF K-02... all the way. The flat front lends itself to tilt shift, and the FLU card lens itself to remote live-view. It could be the next big thing.

If marketed with the complete set of K-3 controls rather than the limited set of K30 / K50 controls it would work well. I don't think the Mark Newson design can ever overcome the ennui. If they put a small EVF in a prism hump the market would go GaGa.

[PiDicus Rex]

I wish Ricoh realize that the K-01's design, i.e its look, isn't a problem. There are probably many more people who like it than those who hate.

I feel the opposite is true, it's a fantastic piece of hardware, wrapped in an awkwardly shaped body that lends itself better to tripod or rig use then it does to hand-held operation.

The real problem was its capability vs pricing ratio. Just look at the NEX system, probably still the best mirrorless deal, and match their best features - flip-out touch screen, EVF availability, color choices for focus peaking, electronic front curtain etc.

I don't really see the K-01 should be competing against the baby MILC's, and especially against any MILC that requires a new set of lenses to be included in the start-up price.
Against the BMD Pocket Cine camera, sure.
Heck, update the firmware to inculde the compressed version of the Cinema DNG CoDec, and 48kHz sound, and I'd pitch the K-01 against the BMD CC, Canon C100 and C300.
And for anyone thinking about those camera, but who already has K-mount glass to play with, the K-01, or our hypothetical dream K-02, is a value based winner.

Make sure you can at least compete on features, and price it accordingly. Then any reasonable design will probably do.

I'm sure they said that about the Edsel.

But why produce another me-retro-too while a unique Marc Newson design can differentiate the brand better?

Ah, maybe because that well-evolved 'retro' look actually feels comfortable in the hand.
Maybe if Mr Newson spent some time as an apprentice for Pinninfarina, he'd learn something about beautiful design.


At least, in this age of 3D printing, there's hope we can re-shell bad exteriors with something customized for human hands.

[prime.partisan]

I feel the opposite is true, it's a fantastic piece of hardware, wrapped in an awkwardly shaped body that lends itself better to tripod or rig use then it does to hand-held operation.

Actually it's not that fantastic when it comes to hardware. Unless you're just talking about the toughness of the metal shell. It's a slow cam - slow fps, slow write time, slow and noisy focus, obvious shutter lag when compare to my NEX-5R. The K-01 sensor is great, but not any greater than 5R's. There is nothing photographically that can be done in the K-01 that cannot be done better in a 5R.
The unique design and/or the fire sale price were the main reason most of us got a K-01. Kirk Tuck bought one just for the design.
In the end I can only see 2 approach that could allow for a more successful K-02. Either combining the unique design and competitive me-too features, or go with the me-too design and beat competitors on features. The latter is hard.

Ah, maybe because that well-evolved 'retro' look actually feels comfortable in the hand.

Which one? I don't think reviews of those retro looking cams are raving about comfort.