[reh321]

I didn't see anything in the Nikon patent to suggest whether they are considering a new short-register-mount or a legacy mount (but a legacy mount wouldn't require a new 18-55 kit lens design). A legacy mount is going to run into the same issues the K-01 ran into - large and with less features compared to other ILC offerings, because of that big empty space in the middle of the camera. If anything, I would expect Nikon to go the same direction Canon has already gone with the M series.

Yes, the discussions elsewhere are going the same place that K-01 tend to go here - those with old glass would like an MILC continuing the legacy mount ... but this patent makes sense only if they're thinking in going the same way Canon did with the EOS-M family. If the two giants go the same way, Pentax still seems to have three choices
(1) do what the big boys are doing, because they must know what they are doing
(2) go counter to what the big boys are doing, because they must be leaving a niche there
(3) forget the whole thing and just concentrate on K-mount DSLR. Their actions appear to say this is what they are doing.

[johnmflores]

My brother tried the Canon EOS-M system. His major issues were lack of lenses and the fact that the size of APS-C lenses more or less eliminated any size advantage of the smaller body. He ended up with a Canon SL1 and is pretty happy, this week at least.

[reh321]

My brother tried the Canon EOS-M system. His major issues were lack of lenses and the fact that the size of APS-C lenses more or less eliminated any size advantage of the smaller body. He ended up with a Canon SL1 and is pretty happy, this week at least.

Yes, it is said that Canon built the small SL1 to compete with mirror-less designs. I've been disappointed that Pentax, despite their heritage of small SLR cameras, has not made a reduced-size DSLR. I bought my K-30 solely because I got a good price on it; I would really prefer that they find a way to make a slimmed-down body - either a K-02 or a K-S3.

[THoog]

(1) do what the big boys are doing, because they must know what they are doing

Not necessarily because they trust someone else's judgment and are following in their footsteps. The practical limitations on volume and how many features you can cram in a body are the same for everyone. Pentax tried something different, and the results did not support continuing in that direction. (There have been plenty of discussions about the one thing that would have made the K-01 a hit, but frankly, I don't believe there was a silver bullet.)

(2) go counter to what the big boys are doing, because they must be leaving a niche there

Pentax did this with the Q. The question is: how big is the niche? How sustainable? Lots of folks say that a full-blown legacy-mount MILC in a DSLR body would be a hit, and that it's just stick-in-the-mud conservatism that keeps it from happening. They might be right.

(3) forget the whole thing and just concentrate on K-mount DSLR. Their actions appear to say this is what they are doing.

For now, at least.

Do you not consider the K-S1 a reduced-size DSLR? In some dimensions, it's smaller than the SL1. They trimmed the corners off the K-01 block, added a small grip, and restored the OVF.

[reh321]

Not necessarily because they trust someone else's judgment and are following in their footsteps. The practical limitations on volume and how many features you can cram in a body are the same for everyone. Pentax tried something different, and the results did not support continuing in that direction. (There have been plenty of discussions about the one thing that would have made the K-01 a hit, but frankly, I don't believe there was a silver bullet.)

Pentax did this with the Q. The question is: how big is the niche? How sustainable? Lots of folks say that a full-blown legacy-mount MILC in a DSLR body would be a hit, and that it's just stick-in-the-mud conservatism that keeps it from happening. They might be right.

For now, at least.

Do you not consider the K-S1 a reduced-size DSLR? In some dimensions, it's smaller than the SL1. They trimmed the corners off the K-01 block, added a small grip, and restored the OVF.

And yet, the K-S1 weights 558g compared to the SL's 407g - so the weight of the SL1 is 63% the weight of the K-S1, and the K-S1 isn't even WR, so none of the "extra" weight can be blamed on WR.

[RobA_Oz]

Do you not consider the K-S1 a reduced-size DSLR? In some dimensions, it's smaller than the SL1. They trimmed the corners off the K-01 block, added a small grip, and restored the OVF.

The K-S2 is only slightly wider and less tall than the K-S1:

[THoog]

And yet, the K-S1 weights 558g compared to the SL's 407g - so the weight of the SL1 is 63% the weight of the K-S1, and the K-S1 isn't even WR, so none of the "extra" weight can be blamed on WR.

That's thanks to the steel SR chassis versus plastic in the SL1. I'd be curious to see what Pentax could do with a polycarbonate frame, but they prefer steel. With the OVF but a smaller battery, the K-S1 weighs 2g less than the K-01.

The K-S2 is only slightly wider and less tall than the K-S1:

The K-S2 isn't "large" by any means, but with higher "shoulders" and a much larger grip than the K-S1. The K-S1 is about as small as a K-mount DSLR can be.

Comparison of K-S1 and K-S2:


Comparison of K-S1 with SL1, K-x, and K-01 (K-S1 overlayed on each):

[reh321]

That's thanks to the steel SR chassis versus plastic in the SL1. I'd be curious to see what Pentax could do with a polycarbonate frame, but they prefer steel. With the OVF but a smaller battery, the K-S1 weighs 2g less than the K-01.

The K-S2 isn't "large" by any means, but with higher "shoulders" and a much larger grip than the K-S1. The K-S1 is about as small as a K-mount DSLR can be.

Compare the Super Program on the left side of my signature to "modern" cameras; there are people today who demand large grips, but we did just fine with them back when one hand spent part of its time focusing. I suppose that IBIS might force the body to be slightly bigger, and so might WR, and then there is the battery, but I believe that the form of an ME or Super Program (my first two SLR cameras) are reasonable, and attainable, goals for the size of a camera.

[THoog]

Compare the Super Program on the left side of my signature to "modern" cameras; there are people today who demand large grips, but we did just fine with them back when one hand spent part of its time focusing. I suppose that IBIS might force the body to be slightly bigger, and so might WR, and then there is the battery, but I believe that the form of an ME or Super Program (my first two SLR cameras) are reasonable, and attainable, goals for the size of a camera.

I shot an ME Super from the early 80s until I finally switched to a DSLR.

The problem is all the stuff that has to go behind the film plane. The battery, motors, and flash capacitor (which is the size of a AA battery) can more or less take up the space that was the film and mirror/shutter mechanism in a film camera, but the sensor stack, SR chassis, main circuit board, and LCD have to go behind what was the back of the camera. That's at least 15mm of stuff behind the film plane, compared to about 3mm in an ME. So no matter what, the overall dimension mount-to-LCD is going to be about half an inch thicker than a film SLR.

To keep the body thin, you could make the 'snout' much longer (Pentax DLSRs generally do have longer snouts than their SLRs), but there are probably limits to how far the mount linkages can be from the motors, and the motors appear to be too large to fit in the snout and have to be buried in the body. (Unless you want a body as thin as an ME, but with a snout like a 6x7.)

MILCs with a much smaller register distance (~17mm versus ~45mm) can move everything forward into the empty space that was the mirror box and have lots of room left in the body. Some of the Olympus bodies are the size of a film SLR but actually have more space behind the film plane than a DSLR.

[johnmflores]

I shot an ME Super from the early 80s until I finally switched to a DSLR.

The problem is all the stuff that has to go behind the film plane. The battery, motors, and flash capacitor (which is the size of a AA battery) can more or less take up the space that was the film and mirror/shutter mechanism in a film camera, but the sensor stack, SR chassis, main circuit board, and LCD have to go behind what was the back of the camera. That's at least 15mm of stuff behind the film plane, compared to about 3mm in an ME. So no matter what, the overall dimension mount-to-LCD is going to be about half an inch thicker than a film SLR.

To keep the body thin, you could make the 'snout' much longer (Pentax DLSRs generally do have longer snouts than their SLRs), but there are probably limits to how far the mount linkages can be from the motors, and the motors appear to be too large to fit in the snout and have to be buried in the body. (Unless you want a body as thin as an ME, but with a snout like a 6x7.)

MILCs with a much smaller register distance (~17mm versus ~45mm) can move everything forward into the empty space that was the mirror box and have lots of room left in the body. Some of the Olympus bodies are the size of a film SLR but actually have more space behind the film plane than a DSLR.

To illustrate:


Pentax K-x vs. Pentax MX - Maybe modern cameras need to go on a diet... by John Flores, on Flickr

The K-01 trimmed the area behind the film plane, but not too drastically:


Does this mirror make me look fat? by John Flores, on Flickr


I've seen cutaways showing the size of the SR chassis along with the main circuit board and LCD stacked behind the film plane. But the circuit board and LCD do not have to go there. Someone clever could move the main circuit board to the bottom of the camera or on either side of the K-mount. And the LCD could be mounted up top where the prism currently is. IIRC, Sony did this years ago with the R1.

[mee]

The DSLR trend is toward mirrorless.

They are lighter, cheaper to manufacture and Sony, Panasonic, Olympus, Samsung even Leica are getting into it. Digital video has always been mirrorless, for example. About one in three DSLs manufactured are mirrorless. It used to be one in four a few years ago.

Sony is a technology company.. they thrive on the bleeding edge.
Panasonic/Olympus/Samsung had minimal ties to the DSLR world and largely had mirrorless P+S and compact cameras anyways. So it was an obvious move to mirrorless ILC style cameras.

Leica is partially about image of ownership and mirrorless is the hot, new trend. It is also obvious they'd be interested in mirrorless cameras.

This leaves Canon, Nikon, and Pentax.. the trend to more mirrorless is largely due to wanting to sell something new and to the fact that the DSLR world is pretty mature at this point. So we'll see less DSLR cameras as a result and more mirrorless/ILC. Same with regular computers vs tablets. Desktops and Laptops are generally 'good enough' for most consumers (outside of enthusiats). So the push has been to tablets and portable computers (cellphones and smartwatches) because it is difficult to sell someone another desktop box when the one they have still takes care of business.

Same with cameras.. mirrrorless really fails in the size advantage due to the physical principles of light.. no one has devised a way of generating thin lenses with the same performance of 'normal' lenses. So its a case of hooking a coke can to your thin, lightweight mirrorless body. awkward.

[THoog]

I've seen cutaways showing the size of the SR chassis along with the main circuit board and LCD stacked behind the film plane. But the circuit board and LCD do not have to go there. Someone clever could move the main circuit board to the bottom of the camera or on either side of the K-mount. And the LCD could be mounted up top where the prism currently is. IIRC, Sony did this years ago with the R1.

The K-01 shrank the circuit board and moved it over to the side - I think it's actually slightly smaller than the Q's main board. I'm pretty sure the K-S1 has it there, as well, but the K-S2 has a full-width circuit board, suggesting to me that they aren't entirely happy with a small board. The *ist-DS (no SR) is only 4 or 5mm thinner than the K100D (SR), so I don't think dumping SR would save that much, but if the circuit board and LCD could be moved, and SR left off, and the sensor mounted in the thinnest frame possible, you might get a DSLR just 5mm thicker than an SLR. It probably would be quite a bit heavier.

[jpzk]

Ummmm...I would think the number would be zero. The "R" in dSLR stands for "Reflex" meaning that the viewfinder image is based on the reflection from a mirror. I suspect that you might be confusing SLR with ILC (interchangeable lens camera).


Steve

Not to nag you, Steve ! ...

So .... DSLR's are "not" ILC's ??
Yeah ... I am just trying to fry your brains !

[Tony Belding]

I have no idea what Pentax's vision of the future might be for interchangeable lens cameras -- aside from some confidence that good ol' pentaprism DSLRs will be around for a while yet.

Let's not forget, Pentax have their own mirrorless system camera with its own dedicated lens catalog. That's the Q system. But its future is a coin flip. It could be discontinued imminently, or it could grow with improved sensor technology, better LCD, EVF, new form factors, etc. Either path can be plausibly argued.

It seems to me they've got two different (but connected) strategic questions that they need to address. Question one is, what is our mirrorless lens mount? Is it Q, or is it K, or is it something new? Question two is, what's our future viewfinder? Is it OVF, EVF, touchscreen, or some combination of the above? Other camera companies have been making these decisions (except maybe Sony, who seem determined to try everything!), but I don't know where Pentax is going.

[dansamy]

I think the Q series is an excellent foray into mirror less, but I really wish they'd used a larger sensor size.