[ElJamoquio]

No, that will not happen because that is not the company's goal.

Fast glass is big, no matter how hard you want to argue about it, and it cannot be with the photographer all the time. At least Pentax will refuse to give a photographer an excuse to go and buy a mirrorless system that is 100g lighter, and 10mm narrower as an 'excuse' for 'bulkiness of the DSLR'. .

Huh? Who said otherwise?

[derekkite]

No, that will not happen because that is not the company's goal.

Fast glass is big, no matter how hard you want to argue about it, and it cannot be with the photographer all the time. At least Pentax will refuse to give a photographer an excuse to go and buy a mirrorless system that is 100g lighter, and 10mm narrower as an 'excuse' for 'bulkiness of the DSLR'.

Users should put this more into their own perspective because it is damning paradoxical what they want. It is exactly because Nikon and Canon did make fast and big glass that this whole euphoria about 'mirrorless is small, therefore mirrorless is better' has taken off. Nikon and Canon are indeed shooting their feet.

Pentax is not going that direction. Why it is hard to accept? Because Nikon's and Canon's recipe does not work. It works in theory only, but in practice the opposite is true — when faced with realities of photography, and daily lives, people still choose smaller and lighter gear and Pentax caters for that.

RI wants to produce cameras that will always be next to photographers — clearly stated by newly appointed RI marketing manager Mr Murano. So the K-3 is perhaps the most extravagant and sturdy crop sensor camera we will see, yet is is smaller than many other DSLR. But lenses must remain small. Otherwise Pentax gives you and everyone an excuse to buy Fuji's X camera, which is 200-300 g lighter, but not as sturdy, not as uncompromising, and with lenses of same size and large diameters as faster Pentax glass. Yet people live in an illusion their gear must be better because the camera is smaller therefore 'everything is better'.

There is an enormous scale of self-induced illusions we have accepted as facts, and never bothered to think twice about them. I'm sometimes quite ashamed at the level of shallowness of thinking of the so called enthusiasts who desire paradoxical things and ruining their photography experience.

PS. And I still think that after the massive investment in various but necessary technologies (new mirror mechanism, new imaging processor, new metering sensor, new AA simulator, new software, new lens coating, new production models, etc.) Pentax really needs to speed up and deliver a small, polycarbonate K-mount body around some 450 grams in the style of classic film SLRs. As light as possible, no grip, and tailor-made for small limiteds. If I had to choose whether to have that with an inch long aluminium made DA21, or a Fuji X with a 62mm filter 23mm lens of 0.6 lb and partly made of plastic, I choose the former.

I'm amazed by the K-3 with the DA*300; a compact package that is very capable. And it has a viewfinder. Or the DA* 60-250. Very nice long where you don't need a sherpa.

[NotaxPen]

Their stated (as in: actual statement) intent is no faster than 1/4 lenses.

Right. Last time I checked, an f2 lens is not faster than an f1.4 lens, so that statement is no reason to believe they will never make another DA* lens. The DA* lenses are obviously not for the pancake lens crowd, but there are plenty of Pentax users who use the 16-50, 50-135, 60-250, 200, and 300. They are all bigger and heavier than any f2 24mm would be.

[Zygonyx]

No, that will not happen because that is not the company's goal.

Fast glass is big, no matter how hard you want to argue about it, and it cannot be with the photographer all the time. At least Pentax will refuse to give a photographer an excuse to go and buy a mirrorless system that is 100g lighter, and 10mm narrower as an 'excuse' for 'bulkiness of the DSLR'.

Users should put this more into their own perspective because it is damning paradoxical what they want. It is exactly because Nikon and Canon did make fast and big glass that this whole euphoria about 'mirrorless is small, therefore mirrorless is better' has taken off. Nikon and Canon are indeed shooting their feet.

Pentax is not going that direction. Why it is hard to accept? Because Nikon's and Canon's recipe does not work. It works in theory only, but in practice the opposite is true — when faced with realities of photography, and daily lives, people still choose smaller and lighter gear and Pentax caters for that.

RI wants to produce cameras that will always be next to photographers — clearly stated by newly appointed RI marketing manager Mr Murano. So the K-3 is perhaps the most extravagant and sturdy crop sensor camera we will see, yet is is smaller than many other DSLR. But lenses must remain small. Otherwise Pentax gives you and everyone an excuse to buy Fuji's X camera, which is 200-300 g lighter, but not as sturdy, not as uncompromising, and with lenses of same size and large diameters as faster Pentax glass. Yet people live in an illusion their gear must be better because the camera is smaller therefore 'everything is better'.

There is an enormous scale of self-induced illusions we have accepted as facts, and never bothered to think twice about them. I'm sometimes quite ashamed at the level of shallowness of thinking of the so called enthusiasts who desire paradoxical things and ruining their photography experience.

PS. And I still think that after the massive investment in various but necessary technologies (new mirror mechanism, new imaging processor, new metering sensor, new AA simulator, new software, new lens coating, new production models, etc.) Pentax really needs to speed up and deliver a small, polycarbonate K-mount body around some 450 grams in the style of classic film SLRs. As light as possible, no grip, and tailor-made for small limiteds. If I had to choose whether to have that with an inch long aluminium made DA21, or a Fuji X with a 62mm filter 23mm lens of 0.6 lb and partly made of plastic, I choose the former.

+1000
Moreover, there is most of the time a complete "farce" talking about "compacity" of new mirrorless systems : bodies are measured without lenses, hence announced as "smaller" than for example DSLR.
But not taking into account their lens systems... that often makes them ergonomically ,,insane,, or even useless for certain photography experiences...