johnmflores:
You have talent; I'd love to see a copy after it's finished
1. Is my own estimation, based on the current entry level FF camera prices.
2. If it's cheap, OK, one can accept no AF, no automation. If you buy it with new lenses and want to use some old 50mm found at the flea market, fine.
However, if I'm a Pentax user with some quite expensive Limiteds and * lenses and I'm told that's how I must use them, that would be unacceptable.
3. The K-mount user base can and will grow. Maybe it is large enough, maybe it isn't - we'll see.
OTOH, your FF MILC starts with
zero users; how is that better???
4. Doing it different just for the sake of doing it different? You'll have to come up with a better reason
By the way, I said it in the past - since everyone seems to go mirrorless, doing it differently should mean "stay with DSLRs"
5. And now there are several strong players on the MILC market; the conditions aren't any better than on the DSLR one.
Except for the lack of a high-end solution,
which we don't know if it's required.
gazonk: I was hoping he won't notice that, but you gave me away
Anyway, I'd call what you see through an optical instrument a "natural image". The matte screen is nothing more than a surface on which that "natural image" can be projected, and with a high quality matte screen the result can be impressive.