[reh321]

The thing is, as always, it's a compromise. So, Camera has a very thin stainless steel frame which gains rigidity by being connected to the magnesium alloy body. Removing the stainless steel frame and replacing that with, say, a carbon fibre frame, would be a poor solution because the carbon fibre frame would require a bulkier camera. Likewise, the magnesium alloy body could be changed to plastics, but, it will again result in greater bulk.

So, while that may satisfy those that want a few extra grams it will upset those that want less size.

My Canon cameras with no metal in the frame didn't feel any larger.

[Bophoto]

A long time ago Woody Allen had a book that clearly stated "Ever since the Swiss discovered that you can reduce the size of anything by simply making it smaller...".

Now I don't know who to believe

Shorter knife blade on Swiss is probably as a smaller sensor.
Both of them can be sharp.

[xandos]

A bit more bulk is not an issue. Pentax cameras arent too big. They are just too heavy. Besides - little more realestate doesnt hurt. More room for direct controls.

Well, different people have different opinions. I am fine with the weight of the cameras, I think really good build quality and robustness comes with some weight, and a very rigid frame (magnesium and steel are good, carbon fibre and plastics can be strong but are not as rigid) is probably necessary for the IBIS to function.
On the other hand, I'd really like the cameras to be smaller, closer to film-era sizes, which would allow me to carry more things in my backpack. The compactness of Pentax cameras compared to other brands was one of the reasons (together with low-light capability) that made me decide on pentax when I bought my first 'serious' camera.

[squareeyes]

They did???
Compact Camera Meter

(The D FA* image is not quite a proper one...)

But look what a 6-year old camera with a 20 year old lens does with K mount...
Compact Camera Meter

[Trickortreat]

Well, different people have different opinions. I am fine with the weight of the cameras, I think really good build quality and robustness comes with some weight, and a very rigid frame (magnesium and steel are good, carbon fibre and plastics can be strong but are not as rigid) is probably necessary for the IBIS to function.
On the other hand, I'd really like the cameras to be smaller, closer to film-era sizes, which would allow me to carry more things in my backpack. The compactness of Pentax cameras compared to other brands was one of the reasons (together with low-light capability) that made me decide on pentax when I bought my first 'serious' camera.

Dunno really. Pentax crop cameras weighting as much as d750. Dunno if anyone handled that particular Nikon but its a pro level built camera built to last.
About ibis - wouldnt say that a steel frame is needed for ibis to swing a light silicon chip. Olympus has it in rather plasticky body. Sony A7ii also isnt an epitome of well built camera and it has great ibis.
Anywho... not saying that Pentax cameras should be lighter than direct competitors as i know focus motor and ibis do carry some weight, just that Pentax should aim to make subsequent iterations ligher. Just like Nikon and Canon are doing to their d7xxx and x0d lines.

[Kunzite]

One trick of making lighter cameras is to find out how much you can compromise on build quality before your customers notice.
But we like to think it's all about advanced materials

[reh321]

One trick of making lighter cameras is to find out how much you can compromise on build quality before your customers notice.
But we like to think it's all about advanced materials

From an engineering pov, it is about choice of materials, and how those materials are used. I mentioned earlier that I worked with a guy who had been part of the team that designed the Apollo capsule. They couldn't "compromise" on build quality - but they did reduce weight by how they used that weight. For example, when they needed a certain level of strength at one point, they used a 'honeycomb' structure instead of a solid piece of equivalent strength. Don't assume that people are always out to fool you with compromises they don't tell you about.

[Kunzite]

Consumer cameras are not the Apollo capsule.
That was one of the worst comparisons (in terms of potential for build compromises) that you could make.

[reh321]

Consumer cameras are not the Apollo capsule.
That was one of the worst comparisons (in terms of potential for build compromises) that you could make.

I have known enough engineers to know that they all are trained to think along the same paths. I don't believe any engineer would choose materials because he could 'get away with it'. If they could change materials and get a lighter, even smaller case, they would be thrilled by the prospect, and having to stick to certain metals because that is what makes long-time users comfortable would be 'a real downer'.

[Trickortreat]

Consumer cameras are not the Apollo capsule.That was one of the worst comparisons (in terms of potential for build compromises) that you could make.

And yet in the same class of consumer cameras competition is reducing weight without compromise on build quality... go figure
And you dont have to go far as apolo capsule. Every consumer item there is is probably getting lighter and lighter. Cars for example are getting lighter and they fare better and better on crash tests. Laptops are getting ligheter and becoming more sturdy and so on....
Heavy =/= well built

[H.Abendsen]

I really dont know, why you guys seem to have problems with the K-1's weight...? does anybody in here suffer from myatrophy... ? I dont think so, cause otherwise he would use a m43 system.

My Pentax 645N dwarfs my K-1 even when there is a prime mounted on the 645... I feel quite okay with the weight and how it balances against the DFA* 50mm 1.4 SDM AW.
Its only kinda exhausting if I take the 645 also with me in addition to the K-1.

I mean we stepped into pro-land with the Pentax K-1. Some of us even carry 2-3 cameras when shooting important events that pay off real good. So why moan about 200g plus or less.
I really dont get the point sorry.

I like the materials used and hope they keep it that way. Because i am 90% sure if they pick something else, they wouldnt pick the right material. Because the right material to replace the alloy, that would make it even more imperishable just would not look as good as one wants a camera to look like.

[Trickortreat]

I really dont know, why you guys seem to have problems with the K-1's weight...? does anybody in here suffer from myatrophy... ? I dont think so, cause otherwise he would use a m43 system.

My Pentax 645N dwarfs my K-1 even when there is a prime mounted on the 645... I feel quite okay with the weight and how it balances against the DFA* 50mm 1.4 SDM AW.
Its only kinda exhausting if I take the 645 also with me in addition to the K-1.

I mean we stepped into pro-land with the Pentax K-1. Some of us even carry 2-3 cameras when shooting important events that pay off real good. So why moan about 200g plus or less.
I really dont get the point sorry.

I like the materials used and hope they keep it that way. Because i am 90% sure if they pick something else, they wouldnt pick the right material. Because the right material to replace the alloy, that would make it even more imperishable just would not look as good as one wants a camera to look like.

There are various alloys that are lighter and stronger than steel u know...
+200g maybe doesnt bother you but might other people who dont do kind of photography you do. Or just would carry something else.
Besides, you dont even see what materials are inside. Cameras are covered in plastic so dunno about what you talking in the last paragraph.

[Kunzite]

I don't believe any engineer would choose materials because he could 'get away with it'.

That was not my point.
As always, we're talking about a compromise - between build quality, weight and cost. You don't do thing just to spite your customers, you do to meet certain targets for the 3.

---------- Post added 06-10-18 at 01:55 AM ----------

And yet in the same class of consumer cameras competition is reducing weight without compromise on build quality... go figure
And you dont have to go far as apolo capsule. Every consumer item there is is probably getting lighter and lighter. Cars for example are getting lighter and they fare better and better on crash tests. Laptops are getting ligheter and becoming more sturdy and so on....
Heavy =/= well built

Are you sure cars are getting lighter? A compact used to weight less than 1 ton, you know?

Are you sure the ultra light laptops are as sturdy as the old IBM Thinkpads?

Are you sure the weight reduction doesn't compromise build quality? Any tests to prove that?
Kudos to Sony for their ultra efficient design, but the original A7 was the first camera I've seen which required a 3rd-party reinforced mount. And the next A7 series increased in size and weight.

[H.Abendsen]

Cameras are covered in plastic so dunno about what you talking in the last paragraph.

I am saying they would not dare to choose the material that would be the right from a logical point of view, because it may not look as good as the actual design.
Even though it would be better.
short: I do know, (what you call"plastic" gets used quite a lot.
But there are materials... f.i. "super hard but still a bit soft kinda silicone" -(honestly i dont know what kind of material it actually is, but i know it exists and i wouldnt go so far to call it plastic)
... that just dont look good.

Plastic is not plastic.

and on the contrary what reh321 is stating, I do believe many engineers have to choose materials so they 'get away with it', since the "Design" department said and some uberboss confirmed that it has to look this or that way.


Cameras(just like Cars) get designed on a board by designers... designs have to be approved...

designs go into rendering... get rendered in 3d... as close as possible as they should look like in real world,

actually exactly as they should look like in real life ... look ----> Pentax K-1 3D model - Hum3D


OK, you have a few rendered 3d models now...

only a very few of those get approved for further development.
not until then, engineers have to choose the right materials to get, to make the camera look like in the rendering.
designer chooses material that fits.
Endostory. - OK, actually we only have reached the point of where discussions start on how to make it way cheaper ... leave this out or dat out, do people actually dig our "feature X" - beta tester said no. - leavin dis out dat out.

And so i think, many things that would actually make sense...(so for instance choosing more durable or imperishable materials of what kind soever...)
... just get lost at the crossroads of R&D all the time.

It shouldnt be like that but it is... And actually i am pretty happy with the result(s)... K-1 for instance...

even though, I think, there should be an evolution, nothings perfect and also a K-1 could use some additional feature or leave other out:
Shortly product should improve... and we are on the same side, when you say: It would make sense to use "kinda plastic" materials ... where it makes sense...
and where it doesnt leave back a bad impression of the product in its entirety.

[bhbrake]

Although it is a very different industry, I engineer plumbing systems for large commercial buildings. Many of our projects are for large corporate developers and the term "Value Engineering" is a borderline curse word that is used far too liberally in the application of engineering and design. Whether it is a camera, a car, or a building - everything is build to a performance specification that is dictated by the investor/owner that is selling the product. Engineers pick the material and configuration that best meets the need of the application while maintaining budgetary constraints. It is exceptionally rare for an engineer to be given a blank check in the design of any product, but it does occasionally happen. This is where the "Value Engineering" term comes in- it is supposed be a method of meeting similar or identical performance demands with a lower cost design by eliminating components or materials that are overbuilt with no obvious benefit and using more ingenious schematics, but, 9 times out of 10 it becomes an exercise in scope reduction and blatant cheapening of the product.