Some Thoughts on the K-01 and Mirrorless From Pentax

**squareeyes** · 12-21-2013, 07:49 AM

Right, the minimal addition is two layers of case behind the sensor and behind the LCD, 3mm max.

Doundounba · 12-21-2013, 10:19 AM - **1 Like**

Personally, instead of shrinking the registration distance, I'd like them to grow the sensor. If they could produce a FF mirrorless K-mount camera that isn't much bigger or heavier than the K-01, and still has in-body image stabilization, I'd be pretty interested...

**THoog** · 12-21-2013, 10:48 AM

Originally posted by Steve.Ledger

You seem to be forgetting that the LCD screen assembly is already part of the camera which is already using space internally in the camera body. The tilting screen just requires it to be on a hinge.

Anyhow, I didn't post this to incite an argument, was just a fun mashup I hoped people would enjoy and one that actually would work as well...

Nope, not forgetting the LCD at all - that's why I listed it as 3mm of body thickness. When I looked for real-world examples of a tilt-screens, the average thickness was 8mm. If I'd found a tilt-LCD that was only 3mm thick including folding arm or whatever, I'd say it could be done. Even your mashup looks to be at least 6mm thick.

I'm not trying to be a wet blanket, just explaining engineering realities based on the real world (which is, I guess, being a wet blanket). If it was easy to cram 4 pounds of crap in a 2-lb sack, everyone would do it. Instead, everyone (except Pentax) discarded their legacy requirements, which gave them more room to work with. Actually, Pentax went one further in the Q by discarding a big sensor.

**THoog** · 12-21-2013, 11:03 AM

Originally posted by Doundounba

Personally, instead of shrinking the registration distance, I'd like them to grow the sensor. If they could produce a FF mirrorless K-mount camera that isn't much bigger or heavier than the K-01, and still has in-body image stabilization, I'd be pretty interested...

I think it's possible. It doesn't seem like the SR chassis has to be thicker for a bigger sensor, just wider. There's the question of image circle and shake-the-sensor IS, but that's been chewed to death elsewhere.

We know from Sony's latest how small a 35mm body (w/o IBIS or a legacy mirror box) can be. Unfortunately, that means a K-01-sized FF would be slammed for being unnecessarily big, even though it DOES have the K-mount and IBIS constraints (and twice the shot count).

cahudson42 · 12-21-2013, 12:39 PM

Originally posted by Doundounba

Personally, instead of shrinking the registration distance, I'd like them to grow the sensor. If they could produce a FF mirrorless K-mount camera that isn't much bigger or heavier than the K-01, and still has in-body image stabilization, I'd be pretty interested...

What a great idea! FF Mirrorless Pentax with K-mount! My slew of M42 Takumars become 'normal' again. No 1.5

Now if they don't ruin it with Sony Alpha 7R pricing - or worse...

Steve.Ledger · 12-21-2013, 02:19 PM

Originally posted by THoog

If it was easy to cram 4 pounds of crap in a 2-lb sack, everyone would do it. Instead, everyone (except Pentax) discarded their legacy requirements, which gave them more room to work with.

Good grief, can't you just enjoy a good idea and not turn a 'positive' into so many negatives.

Merry Christmas.

ChopperCharles · 12-27-2013, 02:29 PM

They could concievably make the K-02 use K-mount lenses, but be physically thinner, if they used a folded light path. It wouldn't be cheap though.

Charles.

**ivanvernon** · 12-27-2013, 03:03 PM

Originally posted by cahudson42

Yep - we can only dream of a K-02 - one perhaps with a digital viewfinder like the Sony Alpha 7R (at $2298 body only? Without 'image stabilization' (shake reduction) - am I reading the 7R specs correctly? If so - unbelievable. )

My Daughter, now 30, was 'brought up' using my Spotmatic F and then ES II at 15, - with M42 lens (50, 85, 105, 135, 500). High School Camera Club, trip to Europe, developing and printing own B&W stuff, etc..

I had given her a G12 at her wedding two years ago - something for 'point and shoot'. Not to replace it but to complement it, I just got back from giving her a K-01 'kit' setup for manual M42 only, with F3.5 35, F1.4 50, F4 50 Macro , 135, 200, 300 and one Vivitar Zoom ( for 'video only'..:>). I think she was thrilled to be 'back in control' - and we spent hours going over each lens and its use. Which fortunately, she started from a good base of experience.

I'm guessing Husband will now usually shoot with the G12, while she will be breaking in the K-01 kit.

The K-01 is unbeatable for use with M42 Takumars IMO.

Hopefully, Ricoh won't feel 'burned' by the K-01 flop - treat it as a 'learning experience' - and deliver us the 'Next Generation'.

Perhaps with encouragement from Forum Members and Admins - they might do so.
Chris

"The K-01 is unbeatable for use with M42 Takumars IMO."

Would you please explain why you think this? (Not doubting, just curious about your reasoning.)

**monochrome** · 12-27-2013, 03:54 PM

Pentax MX-1 with Tilting LCD - more than 3mm

cahudson42 · 12-27-2013, 04:12 PM

Originally posted by ivanvernon

"The K-01 is unbeatable for use with M42 Takumars IMO."

Would you please explain why you think this? (Not doubting, just curious about your reasoning.)

First, focus peaking, Next, shake reduction, Next - cheap in part because K-01 CDAF auto-focus stinks - but I will never use it. So I can set everything optimized for manual focus. Similar - not paying for PDAF which I also will never use.

30120 Pentax adapter eliminates any need for 'gaffer tape' or other work-arounds with later K lenses. I leave the 30120 adapter in 'permanently' and use only M42 Primes (Well - one exception. An old Vivitar 85-205 F3.8 Kiron I only use for occasional video...). Green button can be set to toggle Focus Peaking. AF/AE-L can be set to Exposure Lock.

Exposure control is great. In normal situations I let the ISO float. But in difficult/backlit situations I switch via ISO button to a fixed ISO, and can easily adjust + or - with E-dial, getting the shutter speed/F-stop I want by manually setting F-stop - or resetting the fixed ISO (I don't see much noise up to 3200 - so a lot of flexibility there).

No mirror. No risk of crashing mirror into my Kilfitt 40mm F2.8 Macro. (which extends pretty well into housing). No mirror complexity.

All of this likely was shaped by my initially learning on an old Spotmatic 'match needle' a 'few' years ago. (After an H3v actually). So all manual is no big deal - used to it.

Try it a bit. Maybe you can borrow a K-01 before you buy it and try it with something like the 50MM F4 MACRO SMC Tak, 50MM 1.4 SMC Tak, 200MM F5.6 Preset (really easy to use manually)

Good Luck!

ChopperCharles · 12-27-2013, 09:56 PM

I don't understand you manual focus people. Yes, in live view with peaking it's not only possible, but relatively doable. But PDAF vs viewfinder? PDAF will always win. There is no way manual focus is even possible without live view.

Charles.

Steve.Ledger · 12-28-2013, 07:29 PM

Originally posted by monochrome

Pentax MX-1 with Tilting LCD - more than 3mm

Geezsh, you guys have no imagination. Please account for the thickness of the LCD unit which is already taking up space in the body of the K-01 and then imagine that this LCD unit is simply hinged rather than fixed. Surely you guys can see this, any additional thickness would be minimal and so what if it sticks out a bit more? Surely this would be an exceedingly small price to pay for superior viewfinder usage? I have the MX-1 and find the additional protrudance of no consequence at all. Have faith in the Pentax designers and engineers, no need to second guess them is there?
Sorry, don't mean to sound rude, honest - but I'm shakin my head why a simple fun suggestion and photographic mashup should generate so many nay sayers & negatives.
Cheer up for goodness sakes..

Happy New Year.

JPT · 01-02-2014, 02:28 AM

The Olympus EPL5 has a movable screen and is 38mm thick. The EPM2 is a very similar camera without the movable screen and it is 34mm. So it seems that the screen adds 4mm in this case. I chose those cameras because they were released at the same time and have in-body SR.

And incidentally, since the K-01 is quite thick anyway, I would not mind a movable screen at all. Actually, it would have been useful today, when I was trying to take a group portrait from that awkward height between standing and squatting.

NitroDC · 01-04-2014, 01:46 PM

I have my film MX right next to me and I feel like they could easily shove a bunch of electronic stuff in there and turn out with a mirrorless with the same shape and size.

**monochrome** · 01-04-2014, 03:05 PM

Originally posted by NitroDC

I have my film MX right next to me and I feel like they could easily shove a bunch of electronic stuff in there and turn out with a mirrorless with the same shape and size.

FWIW, before I pre-ordered my K-01 I played around extensively with my MESuper, holding it and "shooting" with it as if it had only an LCD. The MESuper is VERY close in many dimensions to the K-01.

In the end for the camera designer / engineer, the problem will always be the battery. They always have to make some compromise between capacity and size. I've come to believe the entire reason for the modern camera grip is to house the battery.

12-21-2013, 12:39 PM	#35
cahudson42 Inactive Account Join Date: Oct 2011 Posts: 147	FF K-02 Mirrorless Originally posted by Doundounba Personally, instead of shrinking the registration distance, I'd like them to grow the sensor. If they could produce a FF mirrorless K-mount camera that isn't much bigger or heavier than the K-01, and still has in-body image stabilization, I'd be pretty interested... What a great idea! FF Mirrorless Pentax with K-mount! My slew of M42 Takumars become 'normal' again. No 1.5 Now if they don't ruin it with Sony Alpha 7R pricing - or worse...

12-27-2013, 04:12 PM	#40
cahudson42 Inactive Account Join Date: Oct 2011 Posts: 147	K-01 and M42 Taks Originally posted by ivanvernon "The K-01 is unbeatable for use with M42 Takumars IMO." Would you please explain why you think this? (Not doubting, just curious about your reasoning.) First, focus peaking, Next, shake reduction, Next - cheap in part because K-01 CDAF auto-focus stinks - but I will never use it. So I can set everything optimized for manual focus. Similar - not paying for PDAF which I also will never use. 30120 Pentax adapter eliminates any need for 'gaffer tape' or other work-arounds with later K lenses. I leave the 30120 adapter in 'permanently' and use only M42 Primes (Well - one exception. An old Vivitar 85-205 F3.8 Kiron I only use for occasional video...). Green button can be set to toggle Focus Peaking. AF/AE-L can be set to Exposure Lock. Exposure control is great. In normal situations I let the ISO float. But in difficult/backlit situations I switch via ISO button to a fixed ISO, and can easily adjust + or - with E-dial, getting the shutter speed/F-stop I want by manually setting F-stop - or resetting the fixed ISO (I don't see much noise up to 3200 - so a lot of flexibility there). No mirror. No risk of crashing mirror into my Kilfitt 40mm F2.8 Macro. (which extends pretty well into housing). No mirror complexity. All of this likely was shaped by my initially learning on an old Spotmatic 'match needle' a 'few' years ago. (After an H3v actually). So all manual is no big deal - used to it. Try it a bit. Maybe you can borrow a K-01 before you buy it and try it with something like the 50MM F4 MACRO SMC Tak, 50MM 1.4 SMC Tak, 200MM F5.6 Preset (really easy to use manually) Good Luck!

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
K-01 vs K200D, some thoughts	prime.partisan	Pentax K-01	13	01-02-2014 03:49 PM
A few thoughts on my K-01- a ? and some snaps	Billy Joe	Pentax K-01	4	08-11-2013 11:51 PM
Waiting on my first mirrorless: K-01!	Penta	Welcomes and Introductions	2	01-30-2013 05:49 AM
Some thoughts as a new owner of K-01	elpolodiablo	Pentax K-01	15	06-18-2012 07:51 PM
a few quick (i hope) questions on the K-01 from a Pentax and DSLR newb	krugorg	Pentax K-01	7	03-13-2012 06:22 AM

12-21-2013, 07:49 AM	#31
squareeyes Site Supporter Join Date: Aug 2010 Photos: Gallery Posts: 189	Right, the minimal addition is two layers of case behind the sensor and behind the LCD, 3mm max.

12-21-2013, 10:19 AM - 1 Like	#32
Doundounba Pentaxian Join Date: Dec 2012 Location: Montréal QC Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,351	Personally, instead of shrinking the registration distance, I'd like them to grow the sensor. If they could produce a FF mirrorless K-mount camera that isn't much bigger or heavier than the K-01, and still has in-body image stabilization, I'd be pretty interested...

12-21-2013, 10:48 AM	#33
THoog Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Aug 2012 Location: North Carolina Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,685	Originally posted by Steve.Ledger You seem to be forgetting that the LCD screen assembly is already part of the camera which is already using space internally in the camera body. The tilting screen just requires it to be on a hinge. Anyhow, I didn't post this to incite an argument, was just a fun mashup I hoped people would enjoy and one that actually would work as well... Nope, not forgetting the LCD at all - that's why I listed it as 3mm of body thickness. When I looked for real-world examples of a tilt-screens, the average thickness was 8mm. If I'd found a tilt-LCD that was only 3mm thick including folding arm or whatever, I'd say it could be done. Even your mashup looks to be at least 6mm thick. I'm not trying to be a wet blanket, just explaining engineering realities based on the real world (which is, I guess, being a wet blanket). If it was easy to cram 4 pounds of crap in a 2-lb sack, everyone would do it. Instead, everyone (except Pentax) discarded their legacy requirements, which gave them more room to work with. Actually, Pentax went one further in the Q by discarding a big sensor.

12-21-2013, 11:03 AM	#34
THoog Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Aug 2012 Location: North Carolina Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,685	Originally posted by Doundounba Personally, instead of shrinking the registration distance, I'd like them to grow the sensor. If they could produce a FF mirrorless K-mount camera that isn't much bigger or heavier than the K-01, and still has in-body image stabilization, I'd be pretty interested... I think it's possible. It doesn't seem like the SR chassis has to be thicker for a bigger sensor, just wider. There's the question of image circle and shake-the-sensor IS, but that's been chewed to death elsewhere. We know from Sony's latest how small a 35mm body (w/o IBIS or a legacy mirror box) can be. Unfortunately, that means a K-01-sized FF would be slammed for being unnecessarily big, even though it DOES have the K-mount and IBIS constraints (and twice the shot count).

12-21-2013, 02:19 PM	#36
Steve.Ledger Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Far North Qld Posts: 3,301	Originally posted by THoog If it was easy to cram 4 pounds of crap in a 2-lb sack, everyone would do it. Instead, everyone (except Pentax) discarded their legacy requirements, which gave them more room to work with. Good grief, can't you just enjoy a good idea and not turn a 'positive' into so many negatives. Merry Christmas.

12-27-2013, 02:29 PM	#37
ChopperCharles Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: Durham, nc Photos: Albums Posts: 957	They could concievably make the K-02 use K-mount lenses, but be physically thinner, if they used a folded light path. It wouldn't be cheap though. Charles.

12-27-2013, 03:03 PM	#38
ivanvernon Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Oct 2012 Location: Medina, OH Photos: Albums Posts: 7,224	Originally posted by cahudson42 Yep - we can only dream of a K-02 - one perhaps with a digital viewfinder like the Sony Alpha 7R (at $2298 body only? Without 'image stabilization' (shake reduction) - am I reading the 7R specs correctly? If so - unbelievable. ) My Daughter, now 30, was 'brought up' using my Spotmatic F and then ES II at 15, - with M42 lens (50, 85, 105, 135, 500). High School Camera Club, trip to Europe, developing and printing own B&W stuff, etc.. I had given her a G12 at her wedding two years ago - something for 'point and shoot'. Not to replace it but to complement it, I just got back from giving her a K-01 'kit' setup for manual M42 only, with F3.5 35, F1.4 50, F4 50 Macro , 135, 200, 300 and one Vivitar Zoom ( for 'video only'..:>). I think she was thrilled to be 'back in control' - and we spent hours going over each lens and its use. Which fortunately, she started from a good base of experience. I'm guessing Husband will now usually shoot with the G12, while she will be breaking in the K-01 kit. The K-01 is unbeatable for use with M42 Takumars IMO. Hopefully, Ricoh won't feel 'burned' by the K-01 flop - treat it as a 'learning experience' - and deliver us the 'Next Generation'. Perhaps with encouragement from Forum Members and Admins - they might do so. Chris "The K-01 is unbeatable for use with M42 Takumars IMO." Would you please explain why you think this? (Not doubting, just curious about your reasoning.)

12-27-2013, 03:54 PM	#39
monochrome Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Working From Home Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 26,276	Pentax MX-1 with Tilting LCD - more than 3mm

12-27-2013, 09:56 PM	#41
ChopperCharles Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: Durham, nc Photos: Albums Posts: 957	I don't understand you manual focus people. Yes, in live view with peaking it's not only possible, but relatively doable. But PDAF vs viewfinder? PDAF will always win. There is no way manual focus is even possible without live view. Charles.

12-28-2013, 07:29 PM	#42
Steve.Ledger Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Far North Qld Posts: 3,301	Originally posted by monochrome Pentax MX-1 with Tilting LCD - more than 3mm Geezsh, you guys have no imagination. Please account for the thickness of the LCD unit which is already taking up space in the body of the K-01 and then imagine that this LCD unit is simply hinged rather than fixed. Surely you guys can see this, any additional thickness would be minimal and so what if it sticks out a bit more? Surely this would be an exceedingly small price to pay for superior viewfinder usage? I have the MX-1 and find the additional protrudance of no consequence at all. Have faith in the Pentax designers and engineers, no need to second guess them is there? Sorry, don't mean to sound rude, honest - but I'm shakin my head why a simple fun suggestion and photographic mashup should generate so many nay sayers & negatives. Cheer up for goodness sakes.. Happy New Year.

01-02-2014, 02:28 AM	#43
JPT Pentaxian Join Date: Jan 2012 Location: Tokyo Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,821	The Olympus EPL5 has a movable screen and is 38mm thick. The EPM2 is a very similar camera without the movable screen and it is 34mm. So it seems that the screen adds 4mm in this case. I chose those cameras because they were released at the same time and have in-body SR. And incidentally, since the K-01 is quite thick anyway, I would not mind a movable screen at all. Actually, it would have been useful today, when I was trying to take a group portrait from that awkward height between standing and squatting.

01-04-2014, 01:46 PM	#44
NitroDC Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 342	I have my film MX right next to me and I feel like they could easily shove a bunch of electronic stuff in there and turn out with a mirrorless with the same shape and size.

01-04-2014, 03:05 PM	#45
monochrome Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Working From Home Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 26,276	Originally posted by NitroDC I have my film MX right next to me and I feel like they could easily shove a bunch of electronic stuff in there and turn out with a mirrorless with the same shape and size. FWIW, before I pre-ordered my K-01 I played around extensively with my MESuper, holding it and "shooting" with it as if it had only an LCD. The MESuper is VERY close in many dimensions to the K-01. In the end for the camera designer / engineer, the problem will always be the battery. They always have to make some compromise between capacity and size. I've come to believe the entire reason for the modern camera grip is to house the battery.