[RonHendriks1966]

It would be possible to use a pop-up EVF that sits behind the LCD when not in use. Just like Sony use on RX100 III.

Just thinking of how to make the K-mount camera thinner.


The K-01 is thinner then the K-dslr are, since it lacks the AF module (I guess). The backscreen is one of the things making the dslr thivker then analogue camera's where.

So loose the backscreen and the mirror and add a large EVF. So the camera (with ff sensor) can get even thinner then the K-01 is.

[Not a Number]

Just thinking of how to make the K-mount camera thinner.

The Shake Reduction apparatus may account for some of the thickness.

[reh321]

Just thinking of how to make the K-mount camera thinner.
The K-01 is thinner then the K-dslr are, since it lacks the AF module (I guess). The backscreen is one of the things making the dslr thicker then analogue camera's where.
So lose the backscreen and the mirror and add a large EVF. So the camera (with ff sensor) can get even thinner then the K-01 is.

I'm guessing that most of the current customers prefer LCD over EVF. I would prefer an EVF, but those raised with cell phones, etc, would probably not buy it without the LCD. I believe that they could satisfy both groups (many MILCs do), but since this is the smallest MILC, maybe that is a poor comparison. We can state our preferences, but the engineers have to find a way of doing it, and the marketers have to justify it to the bean counters.


In the past week, I came very close (twice) to buying a Q7, because at then-prevailing prices I have convinced myself that I could add stuff to make it work for me. However, Cyber Monday ended sooner than I had expected, and I lost out on an eBay auction for a gently used one.

[IchabodCrane]

That might be technically possible, but would most likely mean making the LCD screen smaller too - where would Ricoh put the EVF? How large will the eyepiece be? Let's remember that the sensor in the Q is right smack in the middle of its height (due to SR mechanism, and other factors), unlike the film roll in an Auto110, where it was nearer the bottom plate, like in all film cameras.

Since it's possible to design a m4/3 camera that's fractionally smaller than the Q-S1, adding an EVF shouldn't change much to the Q's dimensions. Below is the size comparison for the Q-S1 and Panny GM1. They don't have the GM5 (w/ EVF) in their database yet but looking at the specs, it's only very marginally larger than the GM1.

Compare camera dimensions side by side

[reh321]

Since it's possible to design a m4/3 camera that's fractionally smaller than the Q-S1, adding an EVF shouldn't change much to the Q's dimensions. Below is the size comparison for the Q-S1 and Panny GM1. They don't have the GM5 (w/ EVF) in their database yet but looking at the specs, it's only very marginally larger than the GM1.
Compare camera dimensions side by side

The GM5 doesn't have in-body stabilization; I don't know how that affects the innards of the body, but it might create some kind of issues.

Formerly, I didn't care about stabilization, but last week I took a picture of one of our cats in the linen closet. I used a Canon Rebel with a stabilized lens. I doubt if the picture would have worked well without stabilization; I have developed a very steady hand over time, because I shot using Kodachrome25 at one time, but when I saw that the final shutter speed was 1/6, I was floored and immediately had new respect for stabilization! I'll need it even more in the next few years as I reach an age where my body no longer can do certain things.

[mijakame]

Professional support really is only a thing for sports photographers, isn't it? Other professional users wouldn't get support anyway. I'd say ignore the sports crowd, the cameras aren't suitable for that anyway. I do think plenty of professional users need good video. They may be hired to do both at the same time, and if they can't, well, there's a competitor that does it. Job offers I've seen recently more or less say "people who don't do video too need not apply".


Pentax is not competitive in the video sector, and it does not matter how good they are for stills. In any case any DSLR takes good enough stills, and has for the past 5 years at least.


The weird thing is that it's mostly software tweaks that could make Pentax competitive. Nikon uses pretty much the same hardware and gets better results. Sony too, though their processor is a better one, giving them a nice advantage. Invest a bit in the firmware, hire people who actually do video and know what is needed on the semi-professional to professional market (instead of thinking video users are absolute beginners in that segment).


Canon can't go all in on video, because they intend to sell cameras at 2x the price because they have a few firmware tweaks optimizing them for video, and they have really expensive cameras to protect. Sony is in a similar position, though I don't see how they artificially limit the pretty amazing A7S (unlike Canon, who does do that). Panasonic has a professional video arm too, but is still able to do such a hybrid camera with a reasonable price tag. Olympus seems to start to get it, Nikon has gotten the memo but is moving a bit slow. Pentax seems to not care, not notice, I don't know.


EVFs do get better all the time. I could imagine a 3 color OLED screen that uses a prism or so to combine the colors (i.e. 3 CCD/CMOS sensor cameras in reverse). That way you can stack the 3 different colours on top of each other, drastically improving pixel density. The A7 is already pretty good, though I still, at this point, prefer a good OVF.


Sony is just randomly trying things, throwing them at a wall, and see what sticks, but that works well. (But Pentax is probably not in a position to do so).


I'd be excited by a 4K APS-C Pentax DSLR or mirrorless with improved shake reduction (especially towards rotation). Basically the sensor has to be exactly 4096 pixels wide (and 2730 high), i.e. an 11 MP sensor.


Video stuff:
Enable shake reduction for video. Clean HDMI with 4K resolution (4096x2160) and 10 bit video. That way a 1.9:1 aspect ratio 4K video for movie productions can be used with 1:1 pixel mapping, leading to a very sharp picture devoid of aliasing etc. (Other resolutions, like 16:9 would simply be cropped). 11 MP is plenty (just look at the Sony A7S everyone goes ooooh and aaaah over), in turn you get pretty good low light capabilities and dynamic range. Not as good as the A7S, but better than most other cameras. The same camera could also be offered with a different sensor, like 24 MP, for people who require more stills resolution, rather than better low light capabilities. Basically "imitate" the Sony A7 A7R A7S family. A minimum of 3 options for 1080p recording: 1. Read all pixels, bin them together. Gives a sharp picture with minimum aliasing and moire. Rolling shutter just like in 4K mode. Very low noise, good dynamic range. 2. Only read the needed pixels. Very fast readout allowing high frame rates as well as eliminates rolling shutter, at the expense of artefacts like aliasing and moire, noise, etc.. Sometimes one, sometimes the other is preferable (if you're moving very fast with the camera, in a shaky handheld way, you won't ever notice the aliasing or moire, but you will very much notice the rolling shutter wobble. 3. Punch in zoom... take a 1920x1080 crop from the center of the sensor. 4. Varying steps between 1 and 2.
Allow fine control over the shake reduction, again giving several options at least. In 1080p there can be no SR (uncropped or cropped sensor turning it into a 2x crop/mFT size), movie SR (electronic, sensor cropped (2x crop)) and sensor shift based SR (cropped or uncropped), as well as a hybrid SR (cropped, having the sensor shift balance out fast movements, and the movie SR do slow movements as well as moving the sensor back into center position). Different amounts of stabilization can be configured, from handheld look to glidecam/steadicam look, with a button being available to indicate the camera one is going to pan now (so the sensor doesn't bounce back after a pan). On screen indicators telling where the sensor is in relation to the range of motion it has.



Allow different recording options, ranging from h264 (with various quality settings, including 10 bit h264) for regular consumers/when you need to take a lot, to MJPEG or h264 with I-frames only, to ProRes or raw. Give plenty of options. Heck, why not let users plug in a SSD to the USB 3.0 socket and let them write videos and photos onto that?


Stills stuff:
Implement features that for example take a few photos in short succession with the sensor being shifted slightly, in order to increase resolution once the photos are processed ON THE COMPUTER. The sensor could for example pixel, to eliminate the need for a bayer filter (in this case it could probably stitch the raw file in camera, with color information for every pixel, like that Foveon sensor). Likewise a mode that shifts the sensor as much as possible in order to if possible fill a full frame image. No processing needed on the camera. Though a preview would be nice perhaps (like a preview button that does it in liveview and quickly stitches the photos so you get an idea of the frame).


I also liked the idea of using a bigger viewfinder, maybe full frame sized, on an APS-C camera. Use a custom LCD screen to create overlays marking down the frame you'd get in the stitching mode, or that you get with APS-C (with what's outside being either being dimmed down or a line around the APS-C frame). That way you get something like what rangefinder users enjoy... an idea of what's almost in the frame, what is going to be in the frame soon, etc. Makes it easier to await the right moment.


Built in GPS is a given, it would be very neat. Likewise WiFi with an API (!) that lets others write software for smartphones, tablets and computers to control the camera. The amount of control must be excessive. Basically it would be very neat to write scripts for the camera or have a UI that lets you click one, combining things like the pixel shifting with exposure rows (automated perhaps? The camera takes a test photo and then determines what the optimal exposures are to get everything well exposed), sensor shift to extend the frame, focus stacking etc. Let people get creative and extend the functionality of the camera. Heck, Pentax could do an app store and earn a bit through these. The camera could take 3D photos automatically through such a system, create depth maps, i.e. Would that be something everyone would use? Of course not. But some people would. And depending on the functionality that gets added there could be something for everyone. A product photographer for jewellery could set up everything once, create a script/use a program that takes a photo with the right amount of DoF and high dynamic range and sharpness, start the script, the camera takes several photos, replace the product and start the script again. File names would be named so it's clear what belongs together and what the settings were (to make it easier to join the data). An interior photographer could have the camera take wider angle photos, and create a "video" by taking several photos with a predetermined motion, shifting the sensor from one side to the other (so it looks like the camera was on a slider). Astrophotographers can track stars (they can already with the GPS unit, but I'd guess you can do more if it's controlled by a computer).


Mirror lock up with electronic shutter, for street photographers perhaps. Or wedding photographers who are trying to shoot in a church without having the camera make a massive noise.




Basically move the camera up a notch, make it a professional tool for people who seriously invest in achieving the best quality/an optimized workflow. Later they can do the same camera with a larger sensor, and they can integrate the same stuff in the 645Z (to a certain extend, especially the API, and maybe the sensor shift, which may be used less to do shake reduction than to allow the other things it makes possible) successor. Such a move could also hurt Canikon, as they don't provide high end APS-C cameras. And Pentax would leave the K-50/500 more room to breathe.


Now people may criticize these ideas for being too nerdy and difficult, complicating the camera, that they just want to take great photos... Your computer is able to do a ton of stuff. Your smartphone too. Depending on your needs you install what you need. You activate what you need. There's no reason why Pentax could not have an option that lets you select which features you want to be able to access. Or levels of user, i.e. you can say if you're a beginner, intermediate, professional etc. user for both stills and video. Have a mode that goes excessive in terms of options, that holds nothing back out of fear it may confuse users. A Here be Dragons mode.


Oh, and of course their distribution and marketing team needs to really get going. Where are the incentives for sales people in shops? Pay them to push the cameras out there, Canikon does it. Get the cameras in stores.

Sports and Wedding are the two remaining large markets for higher end equipment. Wedding requires dual card slots and weather sealing and would be enhanced by competent video. Wedding prefers to get all this without size and weight. Wedding does NOT require super high resolution - those image sizes are just a post-processing pain. A K4 that was a K3 with Panasonic GH4 video or better combined with a Wedding oriented strong professional program (high end loaner program, $ volume discounts, and credible MARKETING) could eventually own a meaningful segment of the wedding market. Wedding photographers are generally pragmatic - if the marketing shows they could get the DR and res they need then APS-C is ok.

[Na Horuk]

So loose the backscreen and the mirror and add a large EVF. So the camera (with ff sensor) can get even thinner then the K-01 is.

I would really like to see a K-02 with a tilting LCD up on the top. It could stay horizontal (like the waist viewfinders) or be pushed down on the back of the camera for "regular" view.

[kadajawi]

I usually laugh at the idea of a viewfinder-only digital camera, because it usually seems to be from some kind of luddite perspective. But following on from the last few posts, wouldn't an EVF-only Q be an interesting camera? Imagine they put a generously sized EVF on it, like the ones Olympus has on their OMD cameras. Then they had just a small grey LCD for shooting parameters. You would review photos through the viewfinder and tether to a phone when you wanted to review them on a bigger screen. In the case of the Q, space is at such a premium and the screen takes up a lot of space where there could be controls, so it might just make sense.

Interesting idea, but I'm afraid normal, younger camera users are too used to holding the camera far away and not looking through a viewfinder. Try to convince them of a camera that doesn't have such a screen. Though if you can do that, it's actually a really nice idea. Such a small camera can really do with more stability... and that can come from it being planted to the face. Holding it far away is really not ideal. And some people can't focus closely with their eyes, so a EVF that makes it look like the screen is far away is much better than them trying to hold the camera as far away from their hands as possible. But the marketing campaign needs to be pretty good... maybe make it a bit retro too.


@mijakame: Sounds very reasonable, yes. I have also seen wedding photography companies that send whole teams to a shoot... 3-5 photographers, one of them a dedicated videographer with added gear to stabilize, but the others shoot video too, and all on the same brand (so they can share lenses etc.). Pentax, at the moment, is out of that market, but they could easily be in it. Really they just have to be as good as Nikon + stabilisation. 4K... it's an absolute pain to record, edit and archive, at the moment. It does offer advantages even when you don't need to output 4K, but IMHO at this point it's really not necessary, just nice to have.


I've got another suggestion: A WiFi (or BT) based flash system. Think of it. Pentax is quite far behind in terms of flashes. WiFi isn't particularly expensive to implement these days, chips that do it are everywhere. They don't have to develop proprietary tech and chips. You can transfer plenty of data over it. You can control it via the camera, which also needs to have WiFi, with the camera being able to talk to the flashes so they can run through a program for the camera to meter the flashes and adjust the needed settings automatically. Or perhaps even by using a smartphone/tablet with an app that lets the photographer control everything then. Now latency is perhaps a bit of an issue, but I'm sure smart engineers can work their way around it. Perhaps by telling the flashes to wait for a pre-flash in the next few ms. Or by knowing how long it takes the signal to reach and timing everything appropriately.


Now, imagine a system that goes through a smartphone/tablet. The camera goes through a program together with the flashes, takes a photo without any flash, then one for every flash that the photographer has placed in the scene (camera needs to be on a tripod ideally). The smartphone/tablet is able to take these photos and put them into one... with the photographer being able to adjust the brightness of each flash and get a preview for it. He can even make a couple of presets that can be selected from the camera or from the tablet, with the flashes all in place.


A higher end flash system might have a couple of built in gels on a roll that can be turned (by a motor) to adjust for the light situation. So you can even control the color temperature of the flash from the app.


Using an app on a powerful device with a large touchscreen means you can do a ton of things, say trigger the flashes at different times.

[Mistral75]

Dedicated to those of you who are craving a K-mount mirrorless camera from Pentax: Pentax Digital K, Pentax Design Studio's concept camera from 1997 shown at Photokina 2006.

[Zygonyx]

K-01's authentic predecessor...
Too bad they didn't expand the concept...

[igorskee]

In todays technology boom with everything going smaller, cameras really need to get rid of mechanical parts (mirror) and go mirrorless but, only if Pentax can make a match to Fuji or Sony. My guess is that Olympus is getting ready for APCS or FF camera too. So, why not Pentax? Unless Pentax engineers cannot develop such, then don't try stick to mirrors. but, size wise I really had to buy other brand, not Pentax. So, if Pentax had a top mirrorless competitor among famous A7 or Fuji XT1 then I would consider buying Pentax. Also, what matters is the lens line, if no quality lenses made together with the mirrorless body then nothing really matters again. Good example is Fuji. Such a great lens line as well as mirrorless technology inside.

[derekkite]

K-01's authentic predecessor...
Too bad they didn't expand the concept...

I was thinking along the lines they did here; a smaller body with a protruding flange. They could make the flange look like an extension of the lens, while keeping the rest of the body svelte.

[Zygonyx]

Absolutely.
And there was the appropriate mock-up of such a protuding lens in CP+ 2012... would they have delivered 2 or 3 of them, together with an other more "serious" weathersealed version of K-01, the concept would have succeded...

[kadajawi]

I was thinking along the lines they did here; a smaller body with a protruding flange. They could make the flange look like an extension of the lens, while keeping the rest of the body svelte.

Oh my god. That would be an ergonomic catastrophe. A camera with barely a grip, and heavy/big lenses that are far away from the grip. The resulting camera would hardly be any smaller than a regular DSLR, just way harder to hold and use.


Pentax needs to do the exact opposite. Make a K-3 that gets extremely slim around the sensor. Everything else should more or less stay the way it is. The adapter would make it look and feel like a regular K-3, but with mirrorless lenses you get the same ergonomics as with a DSLR, just smaller lenses that are closer to the sensor, so the OVERALL package is much more compact, without compromising on usability.

[reh321]

Oh my god. That would be an ergonomic catastrophe. A camera with barely a grip, and heavy/big lenses that are far away from the grip. The resulting camera would hardly be any smaller than a regular DSLR, just way harder to hold and use.

In the days before autofocus, many of us would have our left hand on the lens the whole time to be prepared to nudge the focus. A similar hold today would make it much easier to hold a (tiny) camera attached to a (long) lens.