[Wired]

I say Pentax should make it even smaller. How about like a ME Super? Pentax seems to have a history of "small". The should extend it!

P.S. I know a ME Super may be too small but they can try.

Is it physically possible to make a DSLR with OVF that small while keeping the rear menu/review screen?

I think they could with EVF and no rear screen. Everything is done through the EVF....actually that could be cool, while really gutsy.

Allow it to be hooked up via USB to adjust settings (so you don't gotta stare at a tiny tv) and fine tune things. Then while shooting everythings done through EVF with an MX/XT1 style layout. Ship it with the Ricoh Flu-Card for wifi access, or build it in...and make it faster (the XT1 version is a lot faster)

Then spend all the money on the rear screen in improving the EVF

[VoiceOfReason]

Definitely need another camera for birding and wildlife - I am currently using a Nikon V1 for this purpose, but will likely get a longer lens for either my Pentax system (especially if 135-480 or whatever emerges)

If Pentax were to release a 135-480 WR then I may have to sell my Sigma 150-500. Of course I'd love to see a 250-600 rereleased, cheaper, but WR. If they could do a 250-600 f/4.5-6.3 WR and do it for 1000-1200 I'd have to save my pennies (or whip out the credit card) for one.

[monochrome]

This is just a guess - but I expect any new Pentax lens to be EXPENSIVE.

If they could do a 250-600 f/4.5-6.3 WR and do it for 1000-1200 I'd have to save my pennies (or whip out the credit card) for one.

[VoiceOfReason]

This is just a guess - but I expect any new Pentax lens to be EXPENSIVE.

Unfortunately you are right. Imagine of they made the new Sigma 18-35 f/1.8. I'd expect it would be WR and over 2,000 dollars. I also expect if they somehow talked Tamron into rebranding the 150-600 they would sell it for at least 400 more.

[JPT]

Is it physically possible to make a DSLR with OVF that small while keeping the rear menu/review screen?

My MZ-3 is 53mm from the mount to the back of the casing (not the VF). My K-01 is 58mm to the back of the screen. So I conclude the LCD adds 5mm.

I think something like the ME would be attractive to a lot of customers and it's appeal could cross over to people considering cameras like the XT-1 and OMD. We all know Pentax had a good range of small lenses to go with it.

I can't see why this would be impossible. A lot of the space in film cameras was taken up by the film spools and in some cases CR2 batteries. Into this space they have to put the electronics and a battery. Some of the smaller mirrorless cameras show that this can be very small indeed.

[IchabodCrane]

I mean specifications like this (in the 'EV Sensitivity' columns), which Fujifilm is doing it's best to hide:

Does anyone really go by these numbers anyway? I've never heard of a formal independent test protocol to measure low light AF functionality. Most important, I have a very hard time believing there are two MILCs that can focus at -4 EV when essentially everything else (even with virtually identical cameras -- Sony A7 series) have 0 EV focusing. Some or all of these numbers just don't make much sense, IMHO.

[ElJamoquio]

I was screwing around, focusing indoors with just the street+moonlight coming in through the window yesterday, via the A7R. Did much better than I expected. I'll have to check the settings on the camera but it was a pretty low EV scene.

[rawr]

I've never heard of a formal independent test protocol to measure low light AF functionality

'Functionality' is a very general term. 'EV sensitivity' is more specific and measurable.

'Funtionality' brings in all the other settings and features of a camera. 'This camera AF is not functional unless it can do BIF in low-light', 'this camera is not functional unless I can track the eye of a model as she moves across a dark room'. Etc. 1,000,000 things to measure with 'functional'.

By now, after producing cameras with both AF and electronic metering for several decades, I would be surprised if there were no Japanese or other standards that set a framework for measuring both AF and metering EV sensitivity which all the camera makers used. Except Fuji

[JimmyDranox]

This is just a guess - but I expect any new Pentax lens to be EXPENSIVE.

I also think that new lenses will come with high prices. And the reasons for this are not all depending of Pentax volition.

[Wired]

My MZ-3 is 53mm from the mount to the back of the casing (not the VF). My K-01 is 58mm to the back of the screen. So I conclude the LCD adds 5mm.

I think something like the ME would be attractive to a lot of customers and it's appeal could cross over to people considering cameras like the XT-1 and OMD. We all know Pentax had a good range of small lenses to go with it.

I can't see why this would be impossible. A lot of the space in film cameras was taken up by the film spools and in some cases CR2 batteries. Into this space they have to put the electronics and a battery. Some of the smaller mirrorless cameras show that this can be very small indeed.

True, but theres also the focusing motors, the shake reduction, PC boards, and everything else needed. I don't doubt that Pentax can make it incredibly small, but I don't think we can get much smaller than MZ3 size or so. Getting to MX/ME/LX sizing may be tricky.

[jatrax]

Of course I'd love to see a 250-600 rereleased, cheaper, but WR. If they could do a 250-600 f/4.5-6.3 WR and do it for 1000-1200 I'd have to save my pennies (or whip out the credit card) for one.

While I admire your optimism, and would be right behind you in line to buy one, I am afraid that is not going to happen.

The 250-600's go for 3,500+ used. So I cannot imagine Ricoh releasing one for anything less, probably a lot more. Look at the price of the DA 560mm. Big glass of any era has always been out of reach for most and I doubt that will change.

But a good 180-420 f/4 - 5.6 would be very interesting. (f/4 constant would be really interesting) Add the 1.4x TC and by some strange co-incidence you get 252-588, not sure if the AF would still work with that combo though.

[Aristophanes]

I say Pentax should make it even smaller. How about like a ME Super? Pentax seems to have a history of "small". The should extend it!

P.S. I know a ME Super may be too small but they can try.

DSLR small = a little bit smaller than the K-x, keeping IBIS, adding illuminated focal points, but likely losing AA batteries.

Mirrorless = Q for the last gasp of small sensor cameras or the Ricoh GR/GXR expansion/replacement.

An APS-C bridge camera is due.

[cali92rs]

But a good 180-420 f/4 - 5.6 would be very interesting. (f/4 constant would be really interesting) Add the 1.4x TC and by some strange co-incidence you get 252-588, not sure if the AF would still work with that combo though.

Nikon makes a 200-400mm f4. (Canon may also make one, but i am not very familiar with their products)
Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 200-400mm f/4G ED VR II Lens 2187 B&H Photo

That is the price and size you can expect (plus or minus a few hundred bucks maybe) for a constant f4.

[IchabodCrane]

'Functionality' is a very general term. 'EV sensitivity' is more specific and measurable.

'Funtionality' brings in all the other settings and features of a camera. 'This camera AF is not functional unless it can do BIF in low-light', 'this camera is not functional unless I can track the eye of a model as she moves across a dark room'. Etc. 1,000,000 things to measure with 'functional'.

By now, after producing cameras with both AF and electronic metering for several decades, I would be surprised if there were no Japanese or other standards that set a framework for measuring both AF and metering EV sensitivity which all the camera makers used. Except Fuji

That's all speculation. I've never seen any independent camera test for low light AF capability. Pentax Forums hasn't tested it. I've never seen it on DXO, etc. Have you seen one? My conclusion is each camera manufacturer has their own proprietary test and who knows what they really are and what really counts as passing?

[RonHendriks1966]

Nikon makes a 200-400mm f4. (Canon may also make one, but i am not very familiar with their products)
Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 200-400mm f/4G ED VR II Lens 2187 B&H Photo

That is the price and size you can expect (plus or minus a few hundred bucks maybe) for a constant f4.

Canon has one with build in TC and is expensive.

I think it is safe to say that Pentax will never have a lens like that with constant f4 in program.

A lens like 135-420mm would be f4.5-f5.6 or so.