[DaveBlack]

I used to think the K-5 lowered the mirror when taking a shot in live view (the K20 and K-x do), but it doesn't. I've checked without a lens, it's just the shutter. That would be dependant on the sensor, not if you have a mirror or not.

Depends on how the af method is set. If PD AF is set the mirror does drop down to get the focus. If CD AF is used the mirror stays up. In Live view I use CD AF.

Dave

[cfraz]

what technical advantage can a mirrorless K camera provide over a Sony SLT one?

Avoids that whole taking a picture through a window thing.

[drougge]

Depends on how the af method is set. If PD AF is set the mirror does drop down to get the focus. If CD AF is used the mirror stays up. In Live view I use CD AF.

Of course it lowers the mirror if you "ask it to". But the predecessors absolutely always do it. (To be honest, I practically forgot there was such a thing as AF. )

I do care about the damn noise of a dslr, which in 36 pages no one has mentioned. Mirrorless is the future, slapping mechanical mirrors is on the way out with the dinosaurs.

At least on the K-5, the shutter makes about as much noise as the mirror. What you want is electronic shutters, or leaf shutters (as in your Mamiya 6).

[Anvh]

If I understood correctly, a problem with a OLED is that it will block more light when turned off, so the display will have to be on all the time which will affect battery life. And when it is on you still can't get all light to pass through.

IMO one of the best features of OVF is that they do not need any power top be used.

Who said that lights must past through the OLED???
Google Pepper's ghost and you see the way it must be done.
You can have it display infromation like the brackets, focus points and things like that when using the optical option.
With digital the mirror goes up so most of the light of the OLED will the be reflected with the glass and you get an EVF.
I believe the fuji works like this.

[Brangdon]

I'm excited about this rumour because I had already come to believe that a mirrorless APS-C made perfect sense in a K-mount. The main part of this I don't understand the is 40mm kit lens. They already have a DA 35/2.4, and isn't 40mm a bit close to 35mm? Regardless, I do approve of bundling prime lenses in camera kits. I imagine the other kit lenses will be the usual zooms.

I doubt I'll be buying the new body because my K-x still works, but it's great to think that the K-mount will live on. (Not that I'll be buying any more lenses, either, as I already have all the lenses I could ever need.)

Should I keep my DA Ltd. for coming K-mount MILC?
Will the new MILC support AF for DA lenses without built motor?

Yes.

(As far as anyone can tell prior to official announcements. That's what K-mount means.)

Wouldn't it be meta if Ricoh bought Kodak film division out of bankruptcy?

Kodak used to have a sensor division, but it was profitable so they sold it. It would have been fun if Ricoh had bought that and Pentax could make their own sensors.

[DeadJohn]

Allow me to respectfully disagree here ... but I feel that if you specifically want a camera to be all black, then it's just as much a "fashion accessory" for you as it is for the person who wants some color in theirs. It just so happens that your camera fashion sense is more in line with what's currently accepted as the traditional color for cameras.
But then again, hey, cameras have always been all black right?

I don't care about a traditional color, I want a color that makes the camera less noticeable to the people around me. I think Pentax's matte black works well for that. The K-r is/was made in urban camouflage, too, and I'd be willing to try that if I could see one in person first.

[gazonk]

The main part of this I don't understand the is 40mm kit lens.

I guess the main point of that is to show off how small the camera is. They did the same thing in 1977 when the M-40/2.8 was introduced together with the Pentax ME (you could choose it as a kit lens, but you could also choose the M-50/1.7, the M-50/1.4 or even the K-50/1.2, AFAIR).

[Fogel70]

Who said that lights must past through the OLED???
Google Pepper's ghost and you see the way it must be done.
You can have it display infromation like the brackets, focus points and things like that when using the optical option.
With digital the mirror goes up so most of the light of the OLED will the be reflected with the glass and you get an EVF.
I believe the fuji works like this.

It was not my idea, I was just pointing out the disadvantage in doing this.

As I said earlier a mirror in the prism like Fuji do is probably the best way for this, but with a semitransparent mirror the OVF gets dimmer. And a TTL APS-C DSLR OVF is smaller and dimmer to start with than the OVF Fuji use. A FF sensor is probably needed in a DSLR to get as big and bright OVF.
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-news-rumors/172213-new-k-01-mirror...ml#post1789496

The Fuji hybrid VF is using semitransparent mirror sandwiched between two prism, and the EVF image is reflected by the mirror.
FinePix X100 | features - A Perfected Fusion of Optical and Electronic Viewfinder | Fujifilm Global

[rparmar]

I kept quiet earlier but now you're starting to appear blinded by a dislike of Apple. You previously wrote "Apple are not now and have never been a computer manufacturer." That's inaccurate hyperbole. They used to do their own manufacturing. And today, even if Apple doesn't personally assemble their products, they are still a valid computer company.

You are correct, Apple used to do their own manufacturing. I was dead wrong on that point. Not sure why I made such a fundamental error. In fact, I could not believe I had written what you quoted until I double-checked! Mea culpa.

However, everything else I said is a matter of fact and applies equally to other computer brands. It is also clear that Apple continuously lie about making their own computers, both on their websites, in promotional literature and elsewhere. They do not publicly disclose the activities of their Cork plant, since removing all manufacturing from it. They won't even say how many people work there. Compare with Dell who, when they had a plant in Limerick, were not nearly so coy about the fact they simply assembled parts from the far east. In fact, they'd take you on a tour to show off how well they did it.

It's obvious why Apple do this. If they said "Buy a MacBook, made by the same Chinese company who bring you Blackberry, Kindle and Android" it would ruin their carefully constructed mystique.

Nowhere did I say Apple were not a "valid computer company", whatever that even means. I cannot see how you might think I am "blinded by a dislike of Apple" since I am quite sure I have more facts at my disposal than the usual Apple cheerleaders. So much for being blind. It is perhaps fairer to say that I dislike (to varying degrees) all lying corporate exploiters. I also have an intolerance for anyone who elevates a mere company to the level of sainthood, since this is a fundamentally unethical position.

More to the point of this thread, Apple design is not particularly good. That is, if you consider design to be about fitting form to functionality and not just a shorthand way of saying "it's thin and has rounded corners". The iPhone is a case in point. It's fundamentally badly designed as a phone. But the apps are cool.

Let's hope the new Pentax camera is well-designed in the correct sense of the term. It's hard to see how fundamental improvements could be made to the already excellent Pentax ergonomics, but I am ready to be positively surprised.

[ihasa]

OVF vs EVF... Lets have one or the other. If I want OVF I can buy the k5 replacement. As it stands I don't mind the idea of an EVF but I don't want to pay for some fiddly expensive hybrid system; or the extra size it would bring.

[konraDarnok]

Nowhere did I say Apple were not a "valid computer company",

Apple are not now and have never been a computer manufacturer.

troll somewhere else dude.

[falconeye]

I used to think the K-5 lowered the mirror when taking a shot in live view (the K20 and K-x do), but it doesn't. I've checked without a lens, it's just the shutter. That would be dependant on the sensor, not if you have a mirror or not.

Yes, one of the innovations in the K-5/7 body is that mirror and shutter can be driven separately.

Additionally, the NEX7 allows the first curtain shutter to be electronic, allowing for immediate exposure out of LV. Nevertheless, there still must be the second curtain shutter and both curtains must rewind after each shot.

[Anvh]

As I said earlier a mirror in the prism like Fuji do is probably the best way for this, but with a semitransparent mirror the OVF gets dimmer. And a TTL APS-C DSLR OVF is smaller and dimmer to start with than the OVF Fuji use. A FF sensor is probably needed in a DSLR to get as big and bright OVF.
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-news-rumors/172213-new-k-01-mirror...ml#post1789496

That's the thing it doesn't use a mirror but it use the reflection of the glass like with Pepper's ghost .
And what it the light loss of glass...several precent maybe?
The EVF might be dimmer though but it should be enough most likely since it doesn't need to fight against ambient light or anything.

here is a clear drawing.
http://www.hauntedhouse.com/haunted_house_magazine/issue5/3.html

ps. the angle doesn't need to be 90 degrees as long as the light is reflected with the same angle to the glass it's okay.
Here is another site with video.
http://snapshotscience.co.uk/spooky-science/

[monochrome]

troll somewhere else dude.

Robin is hardly a troll.

Very, very broad storkes, and someone will pick this apart -

Apple products have not traditionally been design- nor function-optimized for calculation-intensive business and science application. They were optimized for education and visual arts - and for design itself - and for casual users. The kind of people who appreciate the way the tool looks and feels while being used. Apple built an empire on the cash flow from the iPod and brilliant marketing, and totally changed a moribund industry in the process (recorded music distribution).

My iPhone apps are awful as a business tool and the iPad is worse, but my company has moved away from Blackberry and Lenovo laptops to Apple for portable communication and display tools. In addition to compatibility and the ability to develop one standard for all devices, I swear, the reason given is "response to the overwhelming demand of employees for Apple devices."

Intel-architecture PC's (IBM and Microsoft oligopoly) were traditionally designed for calculation efficiency, leaving tool interaction to users willing to learn an arcane language. As the market broadened to more casual users even MSFT had to approximate the GUI first successfully distributed by Apple (but invented, I believe, by Xerox). I suggest that Windows is the strongest argument that Apple got it right from a product design perspective, else Windows wouldn't exist - it is a resource hog and has never worked well.

I, at least, believe that Pentax products, while used by professional journalists in the 60's and 70's, have traditionally been design-optimized for critical enthusiasts who are as sensitive to the aesthetics of photographing as they are to the end product. Yet Pentax hasn't in my lifetime had a marketing home run - an iPod - to build an empire on.

I believe Canon and Nikon in the 70's correctly anticipated the rise of sports photojournalism and optimized their systems to the professional industry, then were able to extend the business applications to the other main sources of professional photography income. I once had a Takumar 500/4.5 that had been a UPI journalist's lens - it had been hacked by an internal UPI technician to a Nikon mount in 1980 when UPI dropped Pentax bodies. I've always thought that was indicative of the shift.

Two things about this K01 rumored camera:

1. If the design sells cameras and makes profit for Pentax/Ricoh, but I don't like whatever about it - then hopefully the revenue will accrue to something I do like. If it is a home run - Wow! Who's complaining?
2. Likely there can be some technology transfer to cameras that the negative posters here will want to use somewhere down the road, as there was from 645D R&D into the K-7 (before the 645D was actually produced).

But that's kind of rational.

[Clavius]

I do care about the damn noise of a dslr, which in 36 pages no one has mentioned.

Because its so unimportant.