[Uluru]

I agree, but I can guess that those who complain about it are afraid that Pentax doesn't look like a "serious" camera maker by offering colour choices. No doubt Ferrari isn't a "serious" car maker, because it doesn't limit its colour range to red (although it might possibly get away with it, if it did - every rule apparently has an exception).

Me, I think a "serious" camera has a tough, chrome-plated brass or steel body, with real dead cow for decoration ("decoration"? Do I mean a range of colours?) and grip. A "non-serious" camera would have snakeskin on the body.

.

Leica X a la carte

Most customisations available for Leica cameras cost as much as a whole K50 camera from Pentax fully customised.
Is Leica more "serious" with cow-, ostrich-, alligator-, kangaroo-, etc. leather wrap?

Leica also does engraving.

[RobA_Oz]

.

Leica X a la carte

Most customisations available for Leica cameras cost as much as a whole K50 camera from Pentax fully customised.
Is Leica more "serious" with cow-, ostrich-, alligator-, kangaroo-, etc. leather wrap?

Leica also does engraving.

I rest my case. Apparently, Leica isn't "serious" any more, either. Of course, there's a faction that would say that, at the prices they charge for their gear, they can't be serious.

[CypherOz]

Yep, all (non-phone) cameras use DOS. So even earlier than Windows 3.1.

With the recent exceptions of those using Android by Samsung and Nikon.

They don't use DOS!! Memory cards are usually FAT32 (sort of a DOS hangover) but that is it.
The firmware in camera's is proprietary, and usually has a lot of specific assembler code where speed is needed.
Typically some form of micro-kernel software architecture on customer chip designs.

[Kunzite]

Pentax AFAIK uses Fujitsu's Softune/RealOS, Nikon possibly the same.

[arnold]

Those figures are not sensor sizes, even though they're related. Just Google search for "sensor sizes" and you'll get plenty of results, relevant charts and explanations.
For example, 1/2.7" is ~5.37x4.04mm with a 6.72mm diagonal, and 1/1.8" is 7.20x5.35mm with a 9mm diagonal.

Well thanks for the explanation. I have followed it up and here, finally is the answer I was looking for, that is, the actual relevance of the numbers - they are in inches!?!?:
"- For small cameras, they use a bizarre fraction like “1/2.5 inches.” This is a diagonal measurement; divide 1 by 2.5, and you find out that the sensor is actually 0.4 inches diagonally. In other words, a smaller denominator is better. For an S.L.R., though, sensor sizes are published as millimeters on a side, like “24 x 16 mm.” If you convert that to inches, and then calculate the diagonal, you find out that that’s 1.14 inches diagonally."
Larger sensors just use height and width in MM. Can't believe I am the only one who was puzzled by this.

[ElJamoquio]

Well thanks for the explanation. I have followed it up and here, finally is the answer I was looking for, that is, the actual relevance of the numbers - they are in inches!?!?:
"- For small cameras, they use a bizarre fraction like “1/2.5 inches.” This is a diagonal measurement; divide 1 by 2.5, and you find out that the sensor is actually 0.4 inches diagonally. In other words, a smaller denominator is better. For an S.L.R., though, sensor sizes are published as millimeters on a side, like “24 x 16 mm.” If you convert that to inches, and then calculate the diagonal, you find out that that’s 1.14 inches diagonally."
Larger sensors just use height and width in MM. Can't believe I am the only one who was puzzled by this.

That's not actually correct, though. It was originally spec'd to something in inches, I forget the whole story, but 1/2.3 or 1/2.5 or 1" overstate the sensor diagonal. A sensor that's 1/2.5 is ~5mm on the diagonal (I'm not looking it up, it's approximate), whereas 1/2.5 = 0.4" = 10mm or so.

[arnold]

That's not actually correct, though. It was originally spec'd to something in inches, I forget the whole story, but 1/2.3 or 1/2.5 or 1" overstate the sensor diagonal. A sensor that's 1/2.5 is ~5mm on the diagonal (I'm not looking it up, it's approximate), whereas 1/2.5 = 0.4" = 10mm or so.

Perhaps the size includes the frame mount?

[Mistral75]

It's a bit different and goes back to the first video cameras and their "viewfinders" (monitors) as well as televisions and other video monitors (oscilloscopes, radars and so on).

Back to the 20th century those were CRTs i.e. Cathode Ray Tubes: vacuum tubes containing an electron gun / electron emitter and a fluorescent screen used to view images.

What was important was not so much the diagonal of the image than that of the tube since people had to mount them into various devices, racks, etc. So people use to designate them through the tube's diagonal.

Since the vacuum level inside the tube was ultra-high vacuum, the glass envelope of the tube had to be thick and comparatively thicker (relatively to the image's diagonal) for smaller tubes.

Hence a difference, for smaller tubes like those of viewfinders, of around 50% between the tube's diagonal and the image's diagonal and, for larger tubes like those of televisions, of around 15%.

Nowadays LCD and plasma screens are denominated according to the actual diagonal of the image but, as for imaging sensors and for marketing purposes (make it look bigger), the habit has remained to denominate them according to the "equivalent diagonal" of a CRT producing an image of the same size.

This is the reason why a sensor called 1/2.5" is 5.76mm x 4.29mm i.e. has a diagonal of 7.18mm when 1/2.5" = 10.16mm.