[reh321]

If you don't but two guys tired of Canon changing lens mount again do, then Pentax will not even try to prevent door from hitting your behind when you say "I quit". And if Pentax makes new lens mount they will even kick the door to get you faster out and make place for new customers. Sorry, but money is money and Pentax does not care about users if they are not willing to pay. We are all just statistics in some Excel file..

When I purchased my KP, I expected it to be my last purchase from Pentax - the K-3iii was more than I expected {both in product and in price tag}.

If they had folded their tent the next day, I would have missed them, but ….

Then I purchased a DA55-300mm PLM, a 1.4X TC,
then a 20-40mm Ltd.

I have said so many times that Rondec is tired of hearing it that I would purchase a K-90 with K-3iii focusing if they could squeeze it under $1K. Each of us is “using” the other; this is business - that is the way it works.

I wouldn’t expect to wake up tomorrow to the news that Ricoh has shut down camera operations. Perhaps in several years, if I live that long, I would notice that they haven’t released anything since the K-3iii, and I might wonder what ever happened to that Excel spread sheet {and we might even still be talking here about this}

---

Last edited by reh321; 11-03-2022 at 08:32 AM.

[Rondec]

The K-S1 and K-01 also differed in aperture control, but I doubt that would make much difference in weight. They could give up on screw-drive - accept KAF3 and KAF4 lenses only - or even ditch body control of aperture and accept KAF4 only amongst AF lenses - which would slightly address the desire to drive purchase of new lenses. This continues to be an interesting discussion; hopefully we’ll have some real news to talk about soon.

Yes, the K-01 has a stepper motor for aperture control. Otherwise, it is basically a K-30/50 without a viewfinder, stuck in live view, with worse buffer. Buffer on the K-30 was 8 RAW on the K-01 it was 1 RAW (you could force 3 RAW if you shot a three exposure burst at different exposures). FPS on the K-01 was one RAW image every 2 seconds.

[Fogel70]

The K-S1 and K-01 also differed in aperture control, but I doubt that would make much difference in weight. They could give up on screw-drive - accept KAF3 and KAF4 lenses only - or even ditch body control of aperture and accept KAF4 only amongst AF lenses - which would slightly address the desire to drive purchase of new lenses. This continues to be an interesting discussion; hopefully we’ll have some real news to talk about soon.

But who would be interested in a camera like this? The point of using K-mount on mirrorless would be to get full support on K-mount lenses. As an alternative for buying a Pentax DSLR.
It would not really be that interesting for existing K-mount users, and not for users outside K-mount.

A mirrorless camera from other manufacturer with an AF-adapter would be a better choice for existing Pentax users.

[reh321]

A mirrorless camera from other manufacturer with an AF-adapter would be a better choice for existing Pentax users.

Which one are you thinking of???

As far as I know even providing a KAF4 interface would be the only modern MILC providing some form of AF for existing Pentax users and it would provide them with a reason to purchase new Pentax lenses.

I don’t know of anyone {not even Nikon} who provides a way of supporting screw-drive AF with a modern MILC.

---

Last edited by reh321; 11-03-2022 at 09:43 AM.

[kypfer]

I already have a Hoodman so I could avoid “zombie mode” …

hahah … never heard that description before … but now you mention it

[jersey]

When I purchased my KP, I expected it to be my last purchase from Pentax - the K-3iii was more than I expected {both in product and in price tag}.

If they had folded their tent the next day, I would have missed them, but ….

Then I purchased a DA55-300mm PLM, a 1.4X TC,
then a 20-40mm Ltd.

I have said so many times that Rondec is tired of hearing it that I would purchase a K-90 with K-3iii focusing if they could squeeze it under $1K. Each of us is “using” the other; this is business - that is the way it works.

I wouldn’t expect to wake up tomorrow to the news that Ricoh has shut down camera operations. Perhaps in several years, if I live that long, I would notice that they haven’t released anything since the K-3iii, and I might wonder what ever happened to that Excel spread sheet {and we might even still be talking here about this}

Yes, I am the same (never though I would get K-3/3, I always thought that I replace K-50 with m43 camera ) but I was saying about you being unwilling to pay for Pentax MILC. If Pentax decided to go this route it would mean that they see more money in new users then in catering to old ones like you or me as I doubt I would buy Pentax MILC. And they would not care about us.

[Wheatfield]

And mirror, etc. The size is also a factor. Imagine a rangefinder style body.

I did, I bought a Fuji X-Pro1. It was huge.

[Wheatfield]

The ‘flange distance’ of a K-mount is constant in any case. I’m sure they could add an EVF to the K-01 with no trouble. There is zero real reason for them to invent another Mount.

Except they would be an also ran in a market that is saturated by giants. There is nothing to gain for Pentax to go to mirrorless. Most of the advantages of EVFs are chimeras. Pentax going mirrorless would be a financial disaster that would end the brand once and for all.
Sony did a great job of selling sizzle instead of steak with mirrrorless and they managed to get enough FUD into the conversation that they literally scared people into their cameras on the theory that if they didn't jump on the wagon they would be crushed under the wheels to sell a lot of cameras and to get Canon and Nikon to abandon their SLR lines. Don't kid yourself by showing me a lens catalogue, in those two brands, the SLR is a dead man walking.

There is this very western centric business theory that translates roughly as go big or go home, and if you aren't number one you are a loser. This is a big steaming pile. Other manufacturers have shown us that they can be successful enough by staying out of the battle of the goliaths and just do what they do best.
Leica and Hasselblad did it with cameras, Subaru did it with cars.
The advantage of not trying to be a world beater is that you don't have other companies taking broadsides at you.

[Wheatfield]

Pentax will someday go mirrorless or go out of business.

This is a declarative statement that has no facts to back it.

[gatorguy]

I have said so many times that Rondec is tired of hearing it that I would purchase a K-90 with K-3iii focusing if they could squeeze it under $1K. Each of us is “using” the other; this is business - that is the way it works.

The Pentax KP you have is the last camera you'll be buying then IMHO. I don't expect there to ever be another new Pentax camera that comes in at under $1000 new. The market is shrinking by the month and there's no making up low prices with volume.

(Edit: I'll qualify that, under $995.00. Iffy, but possible)

[reh321]

But who would be interested in a camera like this? The point of using K-mount on mirrorless would be to get full support on K-mount lenses. As an alternative for buying a Pentax DSLR.
It would not really be that interesting for existing K-mount users, and not for users outside K-mount.

A mirrorless camera from other manufacturer with an AF-adapter would be a better choice for existing Pentax users.

This probably says more about me than about the lenses.
Ten years ago I was a satisfied Canon Rebel user, with my most "valued" lens being a Sigma 10-20mm F/4-5.6 lens;
of course, the Canon version had an in-lens motor ,,,,, in fact, the quiet EF-mount/usm is what attracted me to Canon from Pentax in 1995.

Then I was let down by my second Rebel in a row - my only hesitation being that I didn't want to leave the Sigma lens behind .... but I did, getting a K-30 kitted with some screw-drive Pentax DA18-55mm lens.
Almost immediately I purchased a Pentax DA 18-135mm lens and sold off that noisy 18-55mm lens - then I discovered there was also a Sigma 10-20mm F/4-5.6 lens in K-mount,
so I purchased it even though it was screw-drive; so, for the past seven years I have owned Pentax lenses with in-lens motors - and that screw-drive Sigma lens.
I would willingly give up that lens a second time for the K-02 I am talking about here.
In fact, I believe the DA 55-300mm PLM lens is the only KAF4 lens I own ...... but I would figure something out.

[reh321]

Yes, I am the same (never though I would get K-3/3, I always thought that I replace K-50 with m43 camera ) but I was saying about you being unwilling to pay for Pentax MILC. If Pentax decided to go this route it would mean that they see more money in new users then in catering to old ones like you or me as I doubt I would buy Pentax MILC. And they would not care about us.

I am not suggesting that they "abandon" those of you who prefer DSLR - just that they revive the K-01 line, which would probably be at the low end of what Pentax produced {which I doubt you would go for in any case}.

[rr1736]

This is a declarative statement that has no facts to back it.

Actually the driving force is cost it is cheaper to build a mirrorless camera. Cost almost always wins in the end

[Fogel70]

Which one are you thinking of???

As far as I know even providing a KAF4 interface would be the only modern MILC providing some form of AF for existing Pentax users and it would provide them with a reason to purchase new Pentax lenses.

I don’t know of anyone {not even Nikon} who provides a way of supporting screw-drive AF with a modern MILC.

Sony has supported screw drive AF för A-mount lenses on E-mount cameras for over 10 years.
There also a third party adapter that support screw drive AF on K-mount lenses for E-mount cameras.
https://www.monsteradapter.com/products/la-ke1-pentax-k-mount-lenses-to-sony...ameras-adapter

[Wheatfield]

Actually the driving force is cost it is cheaper to build a mirrorless camera. Cost almost always wins in the end

Tell that to the German manufacturers.
Ironically, mirrorless cameras don't seen to sell for significantly less than SLRS.