[Rondec]

Yeah. An updated K-01 with hybrid on-sensor PDAF would be great IMO -- I don't even think it would need to be much smaller than the current model, but I'd like to see an EVF and a deeper cut for the hand grip.

I think current size, keep the boxy shape, improve the hand grip a little.

[RonHendriks1966]

And then put a full frame sensor inside the K-02.........(oh wait that would be the K-11)

[aleonx3]

I think current size, keep the boxy shape, improve the hand grip a little.

I like that idea too... EVF and bit more on the grip plus a couple of improvements (button placement and memory card door) would be perfect.

[magkelly]

I don't want to lose the potential AA battery compatibility. That's a main reason I like the lower end DSLRs they make vs the higher end ones and I don't particularly want a top LCD either. If I did I'd be using a K-5/K5II/K3 not a K30. The more I read in this thread the more it sounds like you guys want the K-60 to be more like the K5/K5II/K3. But it's not meant to be just like it. Too close to it and people looking for a high end vs the less expensive entry level camera or a mid range model would not want the high end model. Why would they if they could get most of the same features in a cheaper camera? They have to save something "extra" for the cameras that cost $1200 vs the ones that cost less, don't they?

When I was looking at K5II vs K30 it was those very same things AA capacity, top LCD screen that I finally considered when deciding whether or not to get a more expensive K5II vs a K30. The K30 was close enough in almost every other way that mattered to make spending more redundant, for me. I just didn't need what that extra $250-300 would have brought to the table. There just wasn't that much a K5II would have given me that my K30 could not actually. If they made the next K-30/K50, the K60 or whatever you want to call it, even closer to the K3? Then I'd see no reason for the K3 really for a lot of people.

I've said this before but honestly the K3 is just more camera than I will ever need. I'm just not all that interested. The K5II I still rather like but until I can get one sub $500 I just don't care to go there. Not when I can get K30's well under that now. (Or K-50's if I wanted, same difference. Same insides, different chassis and I just like the K-30 better. I think it's sexy, grin.) I could get a K5 for less now, but I don't want a K5 I'd want a K5II if I was going to go there. Likely I'll probably just end up with 2 more K-30's even though I like the K5II just because I like the K-30 so much, and they are less expensive to buy used than K5II's are. But a K3? Why? It's just a waste of $$$ for me money I'd rather put into better WR glass.

Bottom line the closer the entry level and the mid level cams get to the flagship model the less desirable the flagship becomes. People always want more, but they're also looking to spend less and less these days too. You give them "everything" they want there's just no reason for them to upgrade to the more expensive camera you want them to buy and that's bad for the company and it's bottom line...

The bane of the Sony NEX system. It's a pack of cigarettes next to a can of beer.

You cannot really put a can of beer in your pocket.

Unfair caricature. You certainly can put a can of tuna fish in your pocket.

---------- Post added 07-09-14 at 19:27 ----------

I have zero interest in a K-60 unless it turns out to look as interesting as the K30. I'm so darned happy with mine that I just want six of them on the shelf!

Well, Pentax did carry out a market survey, according to which a vast majority did not like the looks of K30. I was one of those who found it to be a remarkably hideous camera.

[Eulogy]

The DA Zoom on the roadmap could be a new kit lens.
http://www.ricoh-imaging.co.jp/japan/products/lens/images/K_Mount_Lens.pdf

Probably just a Pentax version of the 17-85 Canon has had for ages.

[boriscleto]

No, not an SLT. Yes i mean a K30/50/5 with an EVF. Because the K-01 is mirrorless, so the supposed k-02 we spoke about, will be mirrorless too. And basicaly a K -01 with better frame rate, better buffer, is a K5 without mirror box or OVF.

So Yes i mean a K30/50/5 with an EVF.

In other words you want a Sony A3000.

Sony A3000 Review | New Camera News

[jcdoss]

I think current size, keep the boxy shape, improve the hand grip a little.

[aurele]

In other words you want a Sony A3000.

Sony A3000 Review | New Camera
News

i don't want a damn things. And not, it's not like a A3000 : it will have a Pentax K mount :]

[Uluru]

We love the K-01.
Pentax, please make it
— fatter, with a tilting LCD,
— bigger, with an EVF, and
— more colourful;

I suggest
— one model in rainbow pattern
— one in black-white zebra pattern
— one totally transparent, clear plastic.

On top of built in flash added changeable
— Spock of Vulcan style ears
— plush bear style ears
— Cavalier King Charles Spaniel style ears

---------- Post added 07-10-2014 at 09:09 AM ----------

...and the K-mount registration distance is the same as the Praktica/Pentax M42 mount that dates back to the time of the dinosaurs.

What a cool factoid!!!! And your point is?

That Ricoh had no rational excuses for their action: to allow release of the new TC for the old K-mount later than the new WC for the new GR.
Because the history of that registration distance is so well cemented in history, the task is so much easier to accomplish, much more profitable, as it satisfies infinitely more users.

[JPT]

And everyone else's point is that the registration distance has nothing to do with the ease or difficulty of designing a modern teleconverter. I would also add that the teleconverter seems to work very well with a large range of lenses, so the time they spent on it was worthwhile. If you'd had to wait all those years and then it didn't work with the lens you wanted to use it with, you'd be pretty disappointed.

The GR cameras have always been released with a wide converter. It's part of the product concept. It has nothing to do with the K-mount teleconverter.

[stevebrot]

And then put a full frame sensor inside the K-02.........(oh wait that would be the K-11)

Yep, that is the answer to satisfy everybody...or not


Steve

[Uluru]

And everyone else's point is that the registration distance has nothing to do with the ease or difficulty of designing a modern teleconverter. I would also add that the teleconverter seems to work very well with a large range of lenses, so the time they spent on it was worthwhile. If you'd had to wait all those years and then it didn't work with the lens you wanted to use it with, you'd be pretty disappointed.
The GR cameras have always been released with a wide converter. It's part of the product concept. It has nothing to do with the K-mount teleconverter.

I we consider:

• the hiatus in significant new lens development since acquisition
• the fact that TC was ready to be made even before the acquisition (it was on the roadmap),
• that Pentax had its future lens roadmap developed well ahead
• that Pentax is an optics company first and foremost and knows their lenses inside out before they put them in production (which means they design them with future development of other elements in mind)

I see no rational explanation why the TC should be postponed for so long.

So I apologise, your answer does not satisfy. It's a form of our everyday rational attempt to make our mind rest at peace by imposing some meaning in things that really don't make any sense.

And that is what we do in Pentax land all these years.

[mee]

I don't think Pentaxians would have been happy with any camera like the K-01. If, Pentax had come out with a "true mirrorless," with a new mount, shorter registration distance, new lenses and an adapter sold separately, people would have complained, asking what the point was and why they shouldn't get a NEX or similar camera. Once you decided to keep the mount the same and an auto focus motor inside, a certain amount of the size of the camera is predetermined. The Sony Nex 7 is 16 mm thinner than the K-01 and 12 mm shorter and weighs 150 grams less, but doesn't include a focus motor or shake reduction in the body. People talk as though there is a huge difference in size, but there really isn't. Once you decide to stick an APS-C sensor in a camera, mirrorless or not, it isn't going to be tiny.

If Pentax came out with a K-01 with an EVF, better frame rate, better buffer and it sold in the 400 dollar range (I got my original K-01 for 250), I think it would fly off the shelves. Not necessarily to people here on the forum, but just in general.

But what about the GR and all of the compact APS-C cameras? They're pretty much pocketable. The only issue is limited lens support.. and by limited I mean nonexistent! hehe


I think if Pentax made thinner K-02 with a really nice EVF, and upped the drive speed to maybe 20 or 30 fps with a fairly sizable buffer, they'd have something really fun. But no where near the 400 dollar range haha. More like 1400. Which sort of sinks this idea... for now.

Really.. without a mirror box and the need for that shutter clacking back and forth, why can't we have massive burst framerate now? THAT would be something that would make me consider a mirrorless system.

---------- Post added 07-09-14 at 08:38 PM ----------

Yep, that is the answer to satisfy everybody...or not

That would be the K-42 I believe.

[Aristophanes]

I we consider:

• the hiatus in significant new lens development since acquisition
• the fact that TC was ready to be made even before the acquisition (it was on the roadmap),
• that Pentax had its future lens roadmap developed well ahead
• that Pentax is an optics company first and foremost and knows their lenses inside out before they put them in production (which means they design them with future development of other elements in mind)

I see no rational explanation why the TC should be postponed for so long.

So I apologise, your answer does not satisfy. It's a form of our everyday rational attempt to make our mind rest at peace by imposing some meaning in things that really don't make any sense.

And that is what we do in Pentax land all these years.

There's not a lot of FLs and so forth to really cover with the lens array as it now stands. Adding lenses to cover the remaining 2% of demand might use 15 of optical resources and not be worth the effort. Smaller sales than Canikon mean, like Sony and even Olympus, K-mount will have less options.

TCs are odd beasts with very limited hobbyist demand in the absence of a significant pro Pentax user base.

I see a TC as being a problem in that t make future lenses compatible wit one they have to think it through a lot more. Any future lens of the longer FLs now has o factor in the TC option. This may actually constrain lens development, which is maybe why Canon recently made a TC part of a single lens offering:

Canon EF 200-400mm f/4L IS USM Extender 1.4X | Canon Online Store

Having a TC (Canon calls them extenders) that work with only a handful of lenses, or just one jack-of-all-trades beast, is potentially a good idea for companies and consumers. I would look for more of this. I think Canon is onto something.