[reh321]

It could have been a case of Pentax being a very Japan-centric company. Some of the color combinations seemed right out of the world Hello Kitty.

I had expected to purchase a silver-and-black Q-7.
I did purchase a yellow-and-black Q-7, because that is what was available used at the time.
I would have purchased a K-01, of any color combination, but my Q-7 experience reinforced my dislike of using LCD in direct sunlight.

[Rondec]

Even if the K-01 had an EVF it would have failed, as no modern mirrorless camera maintains the flange distance of their DSLR predecessors.



The K-01 wasn't designed for the kinds of people that frequent forums like this. It was designed for a younger, fashion forward generation that looked at black DSLRs as devices that their parents used.

I think a lot would have depended on its functionality. I really think that is the thing being glossed over in this thread. Make a K-01 with an EVF and it still would have been a camera with a raw buffer of three images (and that only obtainable using multi exposure mode), terrible tracking auto focus, and relatively poor video functionality for an MILC. Its main feature, as you mention was its styling.

The K-01 was a weird blocky camera -- a K-30 stuck in live view mode, but with much worse overall specs.

Could a K-02 work? Sure. It just would have to have decent functionality, good specs, and be similar size to other MILCs on the market. The reason I don't think Pentax will release one is because they don't want to make the investment in mirrorless tech to make a camera that was at, say, a A7r IV's level.

[Henrico]

State of technology now makes it possible to develop a K mount series MILC (K2 for FF and K4 for APS-C) with all the advantages of the A/R/Z's of this world. Only disadvantage would be the longer flange distance of the K-mount, but personally I think that's not a real issue looking at all those huge lenses nowadays. Big advantage would be the backwards compatibility of all this K-mount glass and the precise manual focusing ability MILC cameras favor over DSLR's.

But from a business point of view, most K-mount owners are aging now. For sure those who still use legacy K-mount lenses. So that buyers market is shrinking. Young people who buy from the green field a first MILC will not choose the bigger K-mount MILC. So in case Ricoh/Pentax would really develop a K2 / K4 MILC series, there might be a lot of camera buyers, but there will not be much demand for new lenses. The competition is doing well on that also and can use all the profits of that sales for further R&D in the system.

I used to own a white K-01, I glued a Hoodman-pro on it and used it all those years as an ideal body for precise manual focussing of all that legacy glass, even in bright sunlight. It looked a bit odd but it delivered wonderful pictures (K5-quality). Unfortunately a few months ago the shutter stucked, Pentax could or would not repair it anymore so I bought me a KP as a little brother besides my K1ii. I like that little camera a lot. IQ-wise a step upwards, a bit Leica looks & feel and a flipping screen. But I miss that view I had through my K-01 / Hoodman combo. In case Ricoh/Pentax would develop that K2/K4 series I would be very interested. But I think because of a economical point of view that will not happen.

So first let's see and wait what that K-new brings and how it will be accepted. As long as Pentax produces cameras I will be loyal to the brand.

[reh321]

State of technology now makes it possible to develop a K mount series MILC (K2 for FF and K4 for APS-C) with all the advantages of the A/R/Z's of this world. Only disadvantage would be the longer flange distance of the K-mount, but personally I think that's not a real issue looking at all those huge lenses nowadays. Big advantage would be the backwards compatibility of all this K-mount glass and the precise manual focusing ability MILC cameras favor over DSLR's.

But from a business point of view, most K-mount owners are aging now. For sure those who still use legacy K-mount lenses. So that buyers market is shrinking. Young people who buy from the green field a first MILC will not choose the bigger K-mount MILC. So in case Ricoh/Pentax would really develop a K2 / K4 MILC series, there might be a lot of camera buyers, but there will not be much demand for new lenses. The competition is doing well on that also and can use all the profits of that sales for further R&D in the system.

I used to own a white K-01, I glued a Hoodman-pro on it and used it all those years as an ideal body for precise manual focussing of all that legacy glass, even in bright sunlight. It looked a bit odd but it delivered wonderful pictures (K5-quality). Unfortunately a few months ago the shutter stucked, Pentax could or would not repair it anymore so I bought me a KP as a little brother besides my K1ii. I like that little camera a lot. IQ-wise a step upwards, a bit Leica looks & feel and a flipping screen. But I miss that view I had through my K-01 / Hoodman combo. In case Ricoh/Pentax would develop that K2/K4 series I would be very interested. But I think because of a economical point of view that will not happen.

So first let's see and wait what that K-new brings and how it will be accepted. As long as Pentax produces cameras I will be loyal to the brand.

I spent the money I had been saving for a Pentax MILC on a Pentax KP.
I would still look at a Pentax MILC if it had an EVF, but I have given up ever seeing one.

[dbs]

What flange distance is normal for current MLC cameras.?
Does a MLC camera have to use an adapter to mount all the different lenses it can use ?
My thinking is an adapter for mounting K mount lenses also to the MLC so you keep the small form factor and basically you can use any lens ( plus adapter ) on the camera

[reh321]

I think a lot would have depended on its functionality. I really think that is the thing being glossed over in this thread. Make a K-01 with an EVF and it still would have been a camera with a raw buffer of three images (and that only obtainable using multi exposure mode), terrible tracking auto focus, and relatively poor video functionality for an MILC. Its main feature, as you mention was its styling.

The K-01 was a weird blocky camera -- a K-30 stuck in live view mode, but with much worse overall specs.

I seldom - if ever - used burst mode on my K-30, but I certainly would have missed the viewfinder.
I took my Q-7 out shooting this morning - the power company had the power off and it was a nice sunny day - and the lack of a viewfinder was my only complaint, as usual.

[reh321]

What flange distance is normal for current MLC cameras.?
Does a MLC camera have to use an adapter to mount all the different lenses it can use ?
My thinking is an adapter for mounting K mount lenses also to the MLC so you keep the small form factor and basically you can use any lens ( plus adapter ) on the camera

MILC camera differ, just as DSLR cameras do.
You need a different one for each lens-mount to camera-mount combination, especially since the better ones provide electrical connections.

[dbs]

MILC camera differ, just as DSLR cameras do.
You need a different one for each lens-mount to camera-mount combination, especially since the better ones provide electrical connections.

The other manufacturers have a range of lens mount to camera adapters ie nex - minolta , nex - canon , nex - nikon etc So why cant Pentax / Ricoh do the same ?
I know you need a different adapter per lens mount thats not the issue.
The camera - adapter - lens Pentax can still play in that game with an MLC camera.

[reh321]

The other manufacturers have a range of lens mount to camera adapters ie nex - minolta , nex - canon , nex - nikon etc So why cant Pentax / Ricoh do the same ?
I know you need a different adapter per lens mount thats not the issue.
The camera - adapter - lens Pentax can still play in that game with an MLC camera.

The other manufacturers have a series of new lenses for their new MILC mount.
Honestly, I was never impressed by Pentax's K-to-Q adapter.
If they developed a new mount for new MILC(s),
looking at how slow they have been to release new DFA lenses,
I seriously question whether they could {in a timely fashion} develop new lenses for the new mount
[u]plus[/u-] a new adapter that would allow the new MILC(s) to operate K-mount lenses full-functionally,
even for the easy case - an adapter for KAF4 lenses only.

[LittleSkink]

bit late to this party (and been in a similar thread over in Pro photos about Pentax rangefinder) but I think there is a niche here that could be exploited - a bit like when Land Rover raided the parts bin to create the Discovery and made a fortune

Pentax has some great IBIS tech and some great limited primes - and variants of those that can fit Leica registration distance already exist

Ricoh has a rangefinder history so we dont need to dilute Pentax brand values or DSLR focus

Fujifilm have proved rangefinder, with fixed lens (X100) or interchangeable (X-Pro) has a market. And an enthusiast market that will pay good money. But Fujifilm left out IBIS and arent as compact / friendly as they could be

A compact rangefinder style body (like Fujifilm X100 / X-Pro) with IBIS and either a fixed Limited lens (X100 variant) or short registration interchangeable Limited (X-Pro variant) would be amazing. If they went down the interchangeable lens route then only the smaller Limiteds need be offered - if you really want to put a zoom on it then a K to Ricoh adaptor would allow any legacy lens to work

Frankly a Ricoh branded X100/X-Pro variant with IBIS and pancake would be my ideal next purchase - I dont care if its APSC or FF (though I dont know what cost different that creates)

[reh321]

bit late to this party (and been in a similar thread over in Pro photos about Pentax rangefinder) but I think there is a niche here that could be exploited - a bit like when Land Rover raided the parts bin to create the Discovery and made a fortune

Pentax has some great IBIS tech and some great limited primes - and variants of those that can fit Leica registration distance already exist

Ricoh has a rangefinder history so we dont need to dilute Pentax brand values or DSLR focus

Fujifilm have proved rangefinder, with fixed lens (X100) or interchangeable (X-Pro) has a market. And an enthusiast market that will pay good money. But Fujifilm left out IBIS and arent as compact / friendly as they could be

A compact rangefinder style body (like Fujifilm X100 / X-Pro) with IBIS and either a fixed Limited lens (X100 variant) or short registration interchangeable Limited (X-Pro variant) would be amazing. If they went down the interchangeable lens route then only the smaller Limiteds need be offered - if you really want to put a zoom on it then a K to Ricoh adaptor would allow any legacy lens to work

Frankly a Ricoh branded X100/X-Pro variant with IBIS and pancake would be my ideal next purchase - I dont care if its APSC or FF (though I dont know what cost different that creates)

Frankly, Pentax has their hands full supporting their own brand.
They don’t need to be supporting someone else’s.
If you want to .... it is your money.

[repaap]

It is interesting. Before K-3 III landed and after all of things we have seen since. This is less and less possible. It could be that Ricoh would make one, but already now they are making DSLR more compelling. And it can be even more so in the future.

[dbs]

Offer a GR with a K mount also


Done

[Henrico]

A K-mount MILC wouldn't be too appealing for those who don't own K mount glass already. It always will be bulky compared by the CaNiSo options. For an entire new mount is no R&D capacity and no commercial interesting market area anymore.

So if Ricoh does launch a K-01 successor, the focus should be on the existing customer base.

I always had in mind the K2 & K4 positions are reserved for K-mount MILCs (FF & APS-C). In such a body there is so much space they could reintroduce the old aperture slider for K/M/A lenses. That would be very attractive for owners of that zillions old lenses out there.

Such cameras with a decent EVF and modern stacked sensors in it might be produced profitable. But it fits not in the communicated Pentax vision & strategy.

In mine opinion the biggest advantage of live view is accurate manual focusing with longer telephoto lenses and bright lenses wide open. Matt screens and AF-assist are not reliable enough for that.

[reh321]

Offer a GR with a K mount also


Done

A GR with a true K-mount would just be a K-01 with different styling; still no EVF - but larger than usual GR, so still no reason to believe anyone would buy it {I wouldn’t}.

Give it a smaller flange distance would make it smaller, but take us back to our usual MILC discussion and the need to build lenses for yet another mount when people are frustrated about the speed of releasing lenses for current mounts.

{Not done at all.}