successor to K-01 to rival Fujifilm X-Pro2 ?

Sheffield Kevin · 03-03-2017, 10:57 AM

Why not, this would be a brilliant combination with compact Limited lenses

surfar · 03-03-2017, 11:03 AM

Yes, but with 4K video as well!

**THoog** · 03-03-2017, 11:47 AM

The "why not" is right there in your subject line: to rival <existing camera>. The MILC market is already highly competitive - too competitive for Samsung, who could bring a lot more resources to bear than Pentax. Jumping in to go head-to-head with an established model is just a bad risk, and Pentax can't afford bad risks.

Plus, it's the same design situation it's always been: a legacy-mount MILC is going to have a huge empty volume in the middle of the body where a short-mount MILC can put electronics, meaning the short-mount camera will always be able to pack more features into a same-size or smaller body. It would be the K-01 versus the NEX-5n all over again.

Na Horuk · 03-03-2017, 12:20 PM

K-02 would need a lot of features to compete against current mirrorless. Snappy AF, improved focus peaking, fast burst mode, wifi, video mode (the one on K-01 is really not very good. At least full HD, with high fps, manual exposure modes, AF, no digital SR, external microphone controls, ..) ...

**bobbotron** · 03-03-2017, 12:37 PM

Originally posted by THoog

Plus, it's the same design situation it's always been: a legacy-mount MILC is going to have a huge empty volume in the middle of the body where a short-mount MILC can put electronics, meaning the short-mount camera will always be able to pack more features into a same-size or smaller body. It would be the K-01 versus the NEX-5n all over again.

I was thinking... you could make the body collapsible, like the Mamiya 6.

**BigMackCam** · 03-03-2017, 01:21 PM - **1 Like**

I bought my A7 Mark II only for use with adapted lenses - M39, M42 and K-mount primarily, as well as my A-mount glass. Aside from my M39 rangefinder lenses, the rest of those require a fairly deep adapter. It looks a little odd, but I find the A7II body very comfortable to shoot with adapted glass.

Now, if Ricoh were to make an equally-slim full-frame (or even APS-C) mirrorless Pentax body and an adapter for standard K-mount lenses, I'd be *very* interested. Sony's tech is very good, but Pentax build quality and ergonomics are much better...

**THoog** · 03-03-2017, 04:01 PM

Originally posted by bobbotron

I was thinking... you could make the body collapsible, like the Mamiya 6.

I shudder to think what it would take to cram collapsible aperture and screwdrive linkages into a K-mount sized 'snoot'. The Mamiya didn't need any of that stuff. I think it would still be noticeably larger than the competition when collapsed. It certainly would be more complicated (=expensive), just to do what other MILCs can already do, and that's not a good start.

LensBeginner · 03-03-2017, 04:10 PM

Originally posted by Na Horuk

K-02 would need a lot of features to compete against current mirrorless. Snappy AF, improved focus peaking, fast burst mode, wifi, video mode (the one on K-01 is really not very good. At least full HD, with high fps, manual exposure modes, AF, no digital SR, external microphone controls, ..) ...

...a viewfinder...

johnmflores · 03-03-2017, 08:17 PM - **1 Like**

Make it full frame.
Make it $1100.
Profit.

**Tony Belding** · 03-03-2017, 09:33 PM

Originally posted by THoog

Plus, it's the same design situation it's always been: a legacy-mount MILC is going to have a huge empty volume in the middle of the body where a short-mount MILC can put electronics, meaning the short-mount camera will always be able to pack more features into a same-size or smaller body.

But exactly the same argument can be made against DSLRs.

**THoog** · 03-04-2017, 07:24 AM

Originally posted by Tony Belding

But exactly the same argument can be made against DSLRs.

...and has been, many many times. At least in a DSLR, that big hole in the middle does something useful. Making it do nothing but take up space won't help the camera in comparisons with other MILCs.

My point stands: In a cutthroat market segment where even a large company making competitive MILCs couldn't cut it, a small company trying to make a MILC out of DSLR parts is a bad idea. It didn't go well five years ago; it would be worse today. If Pentax wants to make a competitive MILC, they need to start from scratch with a new mount and an image processor architecture that can do up-to-date video - SocioNext will ALWAYS be years behind CanPanSony. That would be a riskier and more expensive undertaking than the K-1. I don't think they can afford it.

Vantage-Point · 03-18-2017, 08:27 AM

Honestly, if Pentax can keep the K-02 roughly the same size (with bigger grip) I don't see what the problem is. The Panasonic GX85 is about the same size as the K-01. The K-01 is just thicker which actually makes it easier to handle. They just need to add an great evf and improve the features inside (5 axis IBIS and the others) which everyone had mentioned already. (Love the aluminum body though!).

**bobbotron** · 03-18-2017, 10:29 AM

Originally posted by Vantage-Point

Honestly, if Pentax can keep the K-02 roughly the same size (with bigger grip) I don't see what the problem is. The Panasonic GX85 is about the same size as the K-01. The K-01 is just thicker which actually makes it easier to handle. They just need to add an great evf and improve the features inside (5 axis IBIS and the others) which everyone had mentioned already. (Love the aluminum body though!).

I agree. There are only three things I'd like changed with my K-01: grip to be more like my K3, sensor to be the same or better spec as the k3, and the fantastic screen of the k3 - live view on the k3 is head and shoulders better than the K01.

**THoog** · 03-19-2017, 06:31 AM

Originally posted by Vantage-Point

Honestly, if Pentax can keep the K-02 roughly the same size (with bigger grip) I don't see what the problem is. The Panasonic GX85 is about the same size as the K-01. The K-01 is just thicker

Not exactly. Looking from above, the GX85 is 25% thinner at the thinnest part of the body. This is important, because the K-01 uses every bit of that thickness, but does less with it (the GX85 has a tilt/touch screen and a much more powerful processor). If you want to add anything to a K-01, you have to make the body bigger. If you wanted something like a K-70 with an EVF instead of OVF, that's quite do-able. But if the goal is the smallest size possible, you quickly hit limits as to what you can squeeze in, while comparable short-register MILCs put more features in a smaller body at a lower price.

Side note: looking at the GX85's service manual, the main circuit board is actually about the same size as the K-01s, but where the K-01 board is crammed on both sides with components, the GX85 is fairly sparse. This is another advantage the other companies have - they make their own components, where Pentax combines off-the-shelf parts, which takes up more real estate on the board. So the GX85 has a quad-core image processor with room to spare where a K-01 has a dual-core without room for even an "image accelerator" co-processor.

**monochrome** · 03-19-2017, 06:53 AM

Originally posted by THoog

trying to make a MILC out of DSLR parts

Originally posted by THoog

My point stands: In a cutthroat market segment where even a large company making competitive MILCs couldn't cut it, a small company trying to make a MILC out of DSLR parts is a bad idea. It didn't go well five years ago; it would be worse today. If Pentax wants to make a competitive MILC, they need to start from scratch with a new mount and an image processor architecture that can do up-to-date video - SocioNext will ALWAYS be years behind CanPanSony. That would be a riskier and more expensive undertaking than the K-1. I don't think they can afford it.

Ruling hurdles are highlighted. They don't even have enough volume to make a FF AF sensor. What makes anyone think they can make a competitive image processor in-house?

03-03-2017, 10:57 AM	#1
Sheffield Kevin New Member Join Date: Feb 2017 Posts: 7	successor to K-01 to rival Fujifilm X-Pro2 ? Why not, this would be a brilliant combination with compact Limited lenses

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Successor to K3ii - care to guess when?	Spodeworld	Pentax K-3 & K-3 II	178	11-12-2016 01:57 PM
Ricoh want's to go mirrorless? With X-mount/Fujifilm? at least 2 years away.	D1N0	Pentax News and Rumors	223	04-18-2016 09:58 PM
Are we likely to see a successor to the K-5 soon?	RobA_Oz	Pentax K-5 & K-5 II	23	03-18-2012 10:03 AM
What does its successor need to be better to keep me from going for a cheaper K-x?	JoepLX3	Pentax DSLR Discussion	29	09-02-2010 10:48 AM

03-03-2017, 11:03 AM	#2
surfar Pentaxian Join Date: Jan 2015 Location: mid nth coast,nsw Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,141	Yes, but with 4K video as well!

03-03-2017, 11:47 AM	#3
THoog Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Aug 2012 Location: North Carolina Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,685	The "why not" is right there in your subject line: to rival <existing camera>. The MILC market is already highly competitive - too competitive for Samsung, who could bring a lot more resources to bear than Pentax. Jumping in to go head-to-head with an established model is just a bad risk, and Pentax can't afford bad risks. Plus, it's the same design situation it's always been: a legacy-mount MILC is going to have a huge empty volume in the middle of the body where a short-mount MILC can put electronics, meaning the short-mount camera will always be able to pack more features into a same-size or smaller body. It would be the K-01 versus the NEX-5n all over again.

03-03-2017, 12:20 PM	#4
Na Horuk Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2012 Location: Slovenia, probably Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 11,186	K-02 would need a lot of features to compete against current mirrorless. Snappy AF, improved focus peaking, fast burst mode, wifi, video mode (the one on K-01 is really not very good. At least full HD, with high fps, manual exposure modes, AF, no digital SR, external microphone controls, ..) ...

03-03-2017, 12:37 PM	#5
bobbotron Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2015 Location: Ottawa, ON Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,349	Originally posted by THoog Plus, it's the same design situation it's always been: a legacy-mount MILC is going to have a huge empty volume in the middle of the body where a short-mount MILC can put electronics, meaning the short-mount camera will always be able to pack more features into a same-size or smaller body. It would be the K-01 versus the NEX-5n all over again. I was thinking... you could make the body collapsible, like the Mamiya 6.

03-03-2017, 01:21 PM - 1 Like	#6
BigMackCam Digitiser of Film Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: North East of England Posts: 20,674	I bought my A7 Mark II only for use with adapted lenses - M39, M42 and K-mount primarily, as well as my A-mount glass. Aside from my M39 rangefinder lenses, the rest of those require a fairly deep adapter. It looks a little odd, but I find the A7II body very comfortable to shoot with adapted glass. Now, if Ricoh were to make an equally-slim full-frame (or even APS-C) mirrorless Pentax body and an adapter for standard K-mount lenses, I'd be very interested. Sony's tech is very good, but Pentax build quality and ergonomics are much better...

03-03-2017, 04:01 PM	#7
THoog Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Aug 2012 Location: North Carolina Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,685	Originally posted by bobbotron I was thinking... you could make the body collapsible, like the Mamiya 6. I shudder to think what it would take to cram collapsible aperture and screwdrive linkages into a K-mount sized 'snoot'. The Mamiya didn't need any of that stuff. I think it would still be noticeably larger than the competition when collapsed. It certainly would be more complicated (=expensive), just to do what other MILCs can already do, and that's not a good start.

03-03-2017, 04:10 PM	#8
LensBeginner Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2014 Photos: Albums Posts: 4,696	Originally posted by Na Horuk K-02 would need a lot of features to compete against current mirrorless. Snappy AF, improved focus peaking, fast burst mode, wifi, video mode (the one on K-01 is really not very good. At least full HD, with high fps, manual exposure modes, AF, no digital SR, external microphone controls, ..) ... ...a viewfinder...

03-03-2017, 08:17 PM - 1 Like	#9
johnmflores Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Somerville, NJ Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 5,361	Make it full frame. Make it $1100. Profit.

03-03-2017, 09:33 PM	#10
Tony Belding Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2013 Location: Hamilton, Texas Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 781	Originally posted by THoog Plus, it's the same design situation it's always been: a legacy-mount MILC is going to have a huge empty volume in the middle of the body where a short-mount MILC can put electronics, meaning the short-mount camera will always be able to pack more features into a same-size or smaller body. But exactly the same argument can be made against DSLRs.

03-04-2017, 07:24 AM	#11
THoog Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Aug 2012 Location: North Carolina Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,685	Originally posted by Tony Belding But exactly the same argument can be made against DSLRs. ...and has been, many many times. At least in a DSLR, that big hole in the middle does something useful. Making it do nothing but take up space won't help the camera in comparisons with other MILCs. My point stands: In a cutthroat market segment where even a large company making competitive MILCs couldn't cut it, a small company trying to make a MILC out of DSLR parts is a bad idea. It didn't go well five years ago; it would be worse today. If Pentax wants to make a competitive MILC, they need to start from scratch with a new mount and an image processor architecture that can do up-to-date video - SocioNext will ALWAYS be years behind CanPanSony. That would be a riskier and more expensive undertaking than the K-1. I don't think they can afford it.

03-18-2017, 08:27 AM	#12
Vantage-Point Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: New York Posts: 516	Honestly, if Pentax can keep the K-02 roughly the same size (with bigger grip) I don't see what the problem is. The Panasonic GX85 is about the same size as the K-01. The K-01 is just thicker which actually makes it easier to handle. They just need to add an great evf and improve the features inside (5 axis IBIS and the others) which everyone had mentioned already. (Love the aluminum body though!).

03-18-2017, 10:29 AM	#13
bobbotron Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2015 Location: Ottawa, ON Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,349	Originally posted by Vantage-Point Honestly, if Pentax can keep the K-02 roughly the same size (with bigger grip) I don't see what the problem is. The Panasonic GX85 is about the same size as the K-01. The K-01 is just thicker which actually makes it easier to handle. They just need to add an great evf and improve the features inside (5 axis IBIS and the others) which everyone had mentioned already. (Love the aluminum body though!). I agree. There are only three things I'd like changed with my K-01: grip to be more like my K3, sensor to be the same or better spec as the k3, and the fantastic screen of the k3 - live view on the k3 is head and shoulders better than the K01.

03-19-2017, 06:31 AM	#14
THoog Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Aug 2012 Location: North Carolina Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,685	Originally posted by Vantage-Point Honestly, if Pentax can keep the K-02 roughly the same size (with bigger grip) I don't see what the problem is. The Panasonic GX85 is about the same size as the K-01. The K-01 is just thicker Not exactly. Looking from above, the GX85 is 25% thinner at the thinnest part of the body. This is important, because the K-01 uses every bit of that thickness, but does less with it (the GX85 has a tilt/touch screen and a much more powerful processor). If you want to add anything to a K-01, you have to make the body bigger. If you wanted something like a K-70 with an EVF instead of OVF, that's quite do-able. But if the goal is the smallest size possible, you quickly hit limits as to what you can squeeze in, while comparable short-register MILCs put more features in a smaller body at a lower price. Side note: looking at the GX85's service manual, the main circuit board is actually about the same size as the K-01s, but where the K-01 board is crammed on both sides with components, the GX85 is fairly sparse. This is another advantage the other companies have - they make their own components, where Pentax combines off-the-shelf parts, which takes up more real estate on the board. So the GX85 has a quad-core image processor with room to spare where a K-01 has a dual-core without room for even an "image accelerator" co-processor.

03-19-2017, 06:53 AM	#15
monochrome Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Working From Home Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 26,276	Originally posted by THoog trying to make a MILC out of DSLR parts Originally posted by THoog My point stands: In a cutthroat market segment where even a large company making competitive MILCs couldn't cut it, a small company trying to make a MILC out of DSLR parts is a bad idea. It didn't go well five years ago; it would be worse today. If Pentax wants to make a competitive MILC, they need to start from scratch with a new mount and an image processor architecture that can do up-to-date video - SocioNext will ALWAYS be years behind CanPanSony. That would be a riskier and more expensive undertaking than the K-1. I don't think they can afford it. Ruling hurdles are highlighted. They don't even have enough volume to make a FF AF sensor. What makes anyone think they can make a competitive image processor in-house?