[ZombieArmy]

Honestly if they're going to make another mirrorless it shouldn't be aiming to be competing with Olympus and Fuji, making a whole new line of lenses makes no sense. What they should do is make a KP sized full frame. It'd be a bit bigger than the Sony counterpart but at least it's a real option and the size is justified...

[reh321]

I'm not sure. The problem is that with that thick body why not just put an optical viewfinder on. What is the advantage of the EVF over OVF - some would say the instant exposure viewing but most OVF users just use the LCD for that. EVF lovers might like it. Perhaps a less complex full frame without the extra mirror motion to avoid hitting lenses rear elements might be worth it.

I don't know about you, but my use of an LCD is completely different from how I use a viewfinder; with a viewfinder, the camera rests against my forehead, contributing to a good, stable support platform tor the camera, while with the LCD I have to use a modified "zombie hold", with the LCD several inches away from my eye. With my K-30, I use the LCD only when the OVF doesn't show enough detail for me to frame the picture, and those are times when stability is most important {because I'm typically having to lower shutter speed so I won't have to raise ISO too much} - my understanding is that the primary difference between K-30 and K-01 is viewfinder; if the only change made to a K-01 was adding an EVF, I would have purchased it instead of the K-30, because the EVF would have made it much more valuable to me. Likewise, I could easily see myself purchasing a K-70 once I get enough money, but I would switch my thoughts to a K-02 {guts same as K-70} instantly if it existed and had an EVF.

[UncleVanya]

I don't know about you, but my use of an LCD is completely different from how I use a viewfinder; with a viewfinder, the camera rests against my forehead, contributing to a good, stable support platform tor the camera, while with the LCD I have to use a modified "zombie hold", with the LCD several inches away from my eye. With my K-30, I use the LCD only when the OVF doesn't show enough detail for me to frame the picture, and those are times when stability is most important {because I'm typically having to lower shutter speed so I won't have to raise ISO too much} - my understanding is that the primary difference between K-30 and K-01 is viewfinder; if the only change made to a K-01 was adding an EVF, I would have purchased it instead of the K-30, because the EVF would have made it much more valuable to me. Likewise, I could easily see myself purchasing a K-70 once I get enough money, but I would switch my thoughts to a K-02 {guts same as K-70} instantly if it existed and had an EVF.

I agree. My point was that there is little extra value in an EVF body that is similar in size to an OVF body. But there may be some interest. An LCD only body is harder for me to get interested in for the reasons you mentioned.

[RobA_Oz]

People put too much emphasis on the mirror box, when it comes to MILC versus DSLR, in my view. Unless you're designing something that fits in a pocket, the extra bulk doesn't have to intrude on your handling of the camera. In fact, that extra space is usually put to good effect in allowing for the placement of more controls.

What does give an impression of bulk is the prism housing, particularly on the KP, where the protruding nose and the on-board flash are the elements that significantly lift the overall height and thickness of the body, over and above the eyepiece and the prism. The KP could be the basis of a K-mount MILC in APS-C, without too much trouble. It could even fit a 35FF sensor, but I doubt you'd get 5-axis in-body stabilisation in there without a lot of work, judging from the size of the unit in the K-1.

[lytrytyr]

The KP could be the basis of a K-mount MILC in APS-C, without too much trouble.

Nice thought, but that little D-LI109 won't keep a MILC warm for very long.

Pentax knew what they were doing when they chose the D-LI90 to power the K-01.

[RobA_Oz]

Nice thought, but that little D-LI109 won't keep a MILC warm for very long.

Pentax knew what they were doing when they chose the D-LI90 to power the K-01.

Agreed. The KP also has an optional battery grip.

[reh321]

Nice thought, but that little D-LI109 won't keep a MILC warm for very long.

Pentax knew what they were doing when they chose the D-LI90 to power the K-01.

When I talk about basing a MILC on the "guts of a" DSLR {usually I choose the K-70 because of the known characteristics of its sensor}, I'm talking sensor, processor, etc. Obviously VF would be different, and there would be no reason to assume the same battery, case, buttons, etc. I'm trying to minimize R&D effort, not maximize issues!

[mecrox]

When I talk about basing a MILC on the "guts of a" DSLR {usually I choose the K-70 because of the known characteristics of its sensor}, I'm talking sensor, processor, etc. Obviously VF would be different, and there would be no reason to assume the same battery, case, buttons, etc. I'm trying to minimize R&D effort, not maximize issues!

Oh well, I just hope they get on and produce a digital Spotmatic (i.e. a smallish, svelte camera with essential stuff only on board) for under the magic 1000 notes before someone else does. With an EVF. Olympus would do it very well too if they wanted to enter the larger-format market. FF if the cost can be controlled.I suppose the current nearest shot is the Fuji X-T20.

[Zygonyx]

Hi guys, i am presently using KP with limited primes and zoom, and believe me, adding swivel sreen and electronic shutter when shooting street photog, you then get your best in class compact mirror + mirrorless camera from Pentax

[reh321]

Hi guys, i am presently using KP with limited primes and zoom, and believe me, adding swivel screen and electronic shutter when shooting street photog, you then get your best in class compact mirror + mirrorless camera from Pentax

Oh, the KP alone would be great from my perspective ... if only I had the money {and can get past the emotional barrier of never having spent more than $700 for a camera}

[reh321]

...and so we shall again. I am starting a betting pool on the number of responses within the next 48 hours.

Steve

Well, in less than a day, the latest "Pentax is doomed" thread managed to surpass this one in number of responses.

[Zygonyx]

Any "pentax-is-doomer" and any posters of these threads would better BUY more often than participate in those endless and useless discussions.

As a consequence of their inhability to participate to Ri's turn-over, they initiate and perpetuate this silly situation.
And now, as a current example, you can see some great reknown places like Harrods dereferencing all Pentax gear...

[RGlasel]

Well, in less than a day, the latest "Pentax is doomed" thread managed to surpass this one in number of responses.

Since that thread is closed, this one has a chance to be king of the hill again.

All I'm going to say is that for a new Pentax or Ricoh mirrorless camera to come out in the new global camera business environment, it has to offer something that isn't already available, either to current Pentax users or to users of other camera brands. There has to be something compelling about it that either displaces what is already on the market or creates a new untapped market.

Pentax has already tried an APS-C MILC that natively supports K-mount lenses. It failed and adding newer sensors and an EVF to a next generation K-01 offers nothing compelling to users of competing MILC cameras or to Pentax DSLR users (who have already decided that they prefer DSLRs). Pentax has already tried a very compact MILC with its own lens mount, the Q system is in suspended animation right now and even Canon and Nikon, who are an order of magnitude larger camera manufacturers aren't gaining big numbers of customers with their own compact MILC systems. If owners of K-mount lenses want to use them on a FF MILC by way of an adapter, Sony has a line of cameras that can do that. If Pentax decides to go away from K-Mount for a new FF MILC, it loses its appeal to the existing base of Pentax users (who have invested in K-mount lenses) and has to compete with Sony who has had a few years head start on draining this previously untapped market.

The standalone camera market is saturated and consolidation is going to continue. Every year there will be fewer, not more options for new camera buyers. If Pentax doesn't already make a system that appeals to a particular segment of the market, it won't take the risk of developing a new system to compete with manufacturers that already have such a system. No well-run company invests in low-reward/high-risk product lines.

[RobA_Oz]

...
The standalone camera market is saturated and consolidation is going to continue. Every year there will be fewer, not more options for new camera buyers. If Pentax doesn't already make a system that appeals to a particular segment of the market, it won't take the risk of developing a new system to compete with manufacturers that already have such a system. No well-run company invests in low-reward/high-risk product lines.

We shouldn't allow language to confuse our thinking with words like "saturated", which means "cannot take any more" versus "steady" which means "constant", in this case "no more sales" versus "steady sales". While sales of DSLRs have been declining, the clear trend has been toward a steady state, which MILCs have been in for some time. That doesn't mean people aren't buying, nor does it mean that people aren't migrating between the two types of camera, and it certainly doesn't mean that new options won't be considered by those who are doing the buying. What it does mean is that manufacturers have to be on their toes to ensure that they don't stick in a single line that may not contribute to their bottom line, at some point.

I'm not gazing into a crystal ball, to predict which way things are going to go, but I do think we can fool ourselves into thinking along a particular line, sometimes.

[photoptimist]

RGlasel is right. Whether the standalone camera market is "saturated" or "steady" doesn't change the issue that the only way Pentax could succeed in MILC is to produce something that makes non-Pentax owners switch to Pentax MILC. Pentax would need to beat Sony, Fuji, Oly, etc. on some combination of features, performance, ergonomics, and price. Just creating a Pentax K-mount-compatible MILC isn't going to attract a bunch of non-Pentax owners because non-Pentax owners don't care about K-mount and those MILC owners that want to use older lenses from other brands can already do that.

Introducing a MILC seems like a very expensive and risky move especially given what happened with the Q and K-01.

In contrast, Pentax clearly can produce successful DSLRs and has a decent portfolio of lenses for their DSLRs -- that's their strength. Maybe if DSLRs continue to decline in total sales, there may come a time to switch. And maybe that time will never come if some photographers continue to prefer DSLRs and Pentax continues to make money on that niche.