[rawr]

It would be really nice if the mainboard could be swapped from a port..

Like M.2 SSD's or mobile phone SoC's. Plenty of options, I think, to do something that enables compact, flexible and high-performance hardware plug-ins to enter the system.

Ricoh kind of went down that path with the now discontinued GX-R APS-C system. I'm not sure how practical it would be to to extend the GX-R concept into a DSLR system, however. But Ricoh have solid experience with that kind of modular system approach. So I wouldn't totally rule that out in future.

[thibs]

Could you please point out one native E-mount lens (not a multi-mount third-party lens originally designed for SLRs and then adapted to E mount) with such feature?

I myself witnessed the thing though i'm not sure if it was E or FE lenses.
Then, instead of being that suspicions, absence (or présence) of patents for the new lenses should hint at the situation pretty quickly, dont you think ?

[Mountain Vision]

Having the K-3 evolved in the body of the K-1 would kill my interest in APS-C. Now that FF get cheaper and cheaper, APS-C real force is more than never size and weight. I would love to have a k-1 like body, but it has to be smaller... and cheaper than K-1.

If you want and APS-C in the k-1 body, just way for the k-1 evolved with a 42-48 mpxls sensor, that with have 20-24 mpxls in crop mode and voilà but personally I prefer a k-3/kp sized body to fit my APS-C lenses.

I agree. Any APS-C body has to be sized like a K-3II/K-5II because the advantage of it over a K-1 is the size of the body and lens system is significantly smaller in total than the equivalent 35mm system.

The K-5II body was small/light enough compared to the K-1 body to justify its existence. The KP is, imo, too much of a compromise in terms of ergonomics. No top LCD, shallow/no grip, not really ideally designed for larger lenses. Perfect for the DA limiteds or smaller zooms. They definitely need something designed for the DA* lenses.

[D1N0]

The K-5/K-3 is about the right size for a serious compact camera system. The more serious mirrorless camera's are also gravitating towards that size. Once you make a decent grip the shallower registration distance loses it's advantage size wise. Just Look at the Panasonic Lumix DC G9 It is about the same size as the K-5/K-3. For more casual shooters mirrorless offers more compactness.

[Tan68]

I agree. Any APS-C body has to be sized like a K-3II/K-5II because the advantage of it over a K-1 is the size of the body and lens system is significantly smaller in total than the equivalent 35mm system.

The K-5II body was small/light enough compared to the K-1 body to justify its existence. The KP is, imo, too much of a compromise in terms of ergonomics. No top LCD, shallow/no grip, not really ideally designed for larger lenses. Perfect for the DA limiteds or smaller zooms. They definitely need something designed for the DA* lenses.

Yes, the K5 was a good size, I think. The K3 was a little bigger and this may have been to give a little more camera to grip.. who knows. I don't think an APS-C camera that is the size of K-1 and also the size of D500 would sell well for Pentax. The camera would not be a D500 and would give back the advantage of smaller size for APS-C.

Comparing a KP to K5 (both so, so similar in size) isn't an easy one to make. It is like comparing a convertible to a coupe. KP is a whole different camera and ..I think it's hard to compare ergonomics across the two :^) [ unedit..]

[thread becoming a camera body thread again...]

---------- Post added 02-05-19 at 05:41 AM ----------

Having the K-3 evolved in the body of the K-1 would kill my interest in APS-C. Now that FF get cheaper and cheaper, APS-C real force is more than never size and weight. I would love to have a k-1 like body, but it has to be smaller... and cheaper than K-1.

If you want and APS-C in the k-1 body, just way for the k-1 evolved with a 42-48 mpxls sensor, that with have 20-24 mpxls in crop mode and voilà but personally I prefer a k-3/kp sized body to fit my APS-C lenses.

Pentax wouldn't make another K5-size camera. The K3 is too big. I bought a K-1 because it has a K5 inside and I couldn't be happier. Much better than the K5. Size is just right.

[biz-engineer]

Yes, the K5 was a good size, I think. The K3 was a little bigger and this may have been to give a little more camera to grip.. who knows. I don't think an APS-C camera that is the size of K-1 and also the size of D500 would sell well for Pentax. The camera would not be a D500 and would give back the advantage of smaller size for APS-C.

As a matter of fact, people don't use camera bodies only, they use camera with a lens mounted on the camera. That is why there is no advantage , except fitting wrong logic, to have a small camera body with a big lens on it: the lens will increase the size of camera bag needed and the too small grip will create the less good handling of the camera. All camera bodies are more or less having the form factor of a brick (like a cube but rectangular), the lens disrupt that efficient form factor leading to require a larger camera bag. For example, an apsc camera with a 16-85 zoom lens occupy more volume than a full frame camera with a compact prime on it, and the full frame camera with the prime is more comfortable to handle. A lot of people purchased some Sony camera bodies based on the small size of the bodies, ended up needing a big bag to fit the big lens. Typically, a Sony A7III or A9 with a 24-105G anyhow require a bigger camera bag than a full frame DSLR with 50mm prime, the DSLR being clearly better to handle.

[Mistral75]

A reply to that post - IIRC by Digitalis - listed several Quicskhift Pentax lenses that have an aperture ring. I can’t find it though.

Ahem!...

The smc Pentax-D FA 100mm f/2.8 Macro (the first version, not the subsequent WR version) both had an aperture ring and supported the Quick-Shift focus system.

smc PENTAX-D FA MACRO 100mmF2.8 / Macro Lenses / K-mount Lenses / Lenses / Products | RICOH IMAGING

Same with the smc Pentax-D FA 50mm f/2.8 Macro.

smc PENTAX-D FA MACRO 50mmF2.8 / Macro Lenses / K-mount Lenses / Lenses / Products | RICOH IMAGING

[superdave]

The KP is, imo, too much of a compromise in terms of ergonomics. No top LCD, shallow/no grip, not really ideally designed for larger lenses. Perfect for the DA limiteds or smaller zooms. They definitely need something designed for the DA* lenses.

I agree, KP is too small to put a normal battery in it, and it have no GPS unit
A such body is not scalable enough to last 3 or 4 generations, such as K-7, K-5, K-5II, K-3, K-3II. There was room for new hardware in the original K-7 body.

[Larrymc]

Having the K-3 evolved in the body of the K-1 would kill my interest in APS-C. Now that FF get cheaper and cheaper, APS-C real force is more than never size and weight. I would love to have a k-1 like body, but it has to be smaller... and cheaper than K-1.

If you want and APS-C in the k-1 body, just way for the k-1 evolved with a 42-48 mpxls sensor, that with have 20-24 mpxls in crop mode and voilà but personally I prefer a k-3/kp sized body to fit my APS-C lenses.

To each his own.

[ThorSanchez]

For example, an apsc camera with a 16-85 zoom lens occupy more volume than a full frame camera with a compact prime on it, and the full frame camera with the prime is more comfortable to handle. A lot of people purchased some Sony camera bodies based on the small size of the bodies, ended up needing a big bag to fit the big lens. Typically, a Sony A7III or A9 with a 24-105G anyhow require a bigger camera bag than a full frame DSLR with 50mm prime, the DSLR being clearly better to handle.

What's better is an APS-C or mirrorless with a pancake prime. I can put a K-3ii or a KP with a 40 LTD in a big coat pocket. I'm pretty sure I don't own anything with a pocket big enough for a K-1 with any lens.

I think the argument that camera size doesn't really matter because of big lenses is a little bit disingenous, because with a big camera you don't even have the option of making it a small system with small lenses. Yes, a KP with a 70-200 will be bigger than a K-1 with a 43 LTD. But a KP with a 40 will be smaller than a K-1 no matter what.

[twilhelm]

While I wait for the email that my 11-18 is ready to ship...

I would really be surprised to see anything like a K-1 sized Aps-c offering from Pentax. That would fly in the face of 40 years of design philosophy from Pentax, to build high quality, very compact cameras. Could the K-1 have been smaller? I have no doubt. But the design of the camera is spot on for its intended use. And as someone pointed out in another thread, it seems to take some design from the 67.

The K5/K3 bodies were a perfect compromise for a professional Aps-c camera. Yes, they could use some improvements in areas, but every camera is a compromise.

We have the Limiteds which are designed to be compact. We have * series lenses which are designed with the professional in mind. With my * lenses, I add the battery grip and have a well balanced system. I have choices.

[biz-engineer]

I think the argument that camera size doesn't really matter because of big lenses is a little bit disingenous, because with a big camera you don't even have the option of making it a small system with small lenses. Yes, a KP with a 70-200 will be bigger than a K-1 with a 43 LTD. But a KP with a 40 will be smaller than a K-1 no matter what.

. Sure. In nature, every choice compete with each other. So we have two choices, independant from camera format. If I use a K3 instead of K1 , I save 13mm in my camera bag. If I use a pancake lens instead of a zoom, I save 80mm. So, I prefer to use a pancake lens because saving 13mm on the camera isn't going to save me much in the camera bag, but the 80mm saving actually permit a smaller bag becuase the 80mm saving is done on an axis perpendicular to camera. I see a lot of people who bought a Sony A7 because they wanted something small, but then they use a 24-105 G master, which render their buying argument totally irrelevant because the Sony 24-105 G is larger than the larger Pentax zoom. To compare sizes it's easy: I put a 40mm on the K1 and try to put it in the bag, I mount the same 40mm on a Kp and put it in the bag. Then I mount a 17-70 on a KP and try to put it in the bag, it doesn't fit. So for me, camera sensor format has minor impact on size, but the choice of lens is the key to portability regardless of the sensor size.

[Doundounba]

Yeah, if you offer me a Pentax APS-C body the size of a K-1, I'll... reluctantly buy a m4/3 body the size of the K-3! (Or find a smaller APS-C alternative, also in another brand.) Never say never, I guess, but I feel I am maxed out in the size (and price) of the kit I wish to carry with a K-3. I could live with a KPii with a decent buffer. I'd prefer something with an LI-90 battery, but really the buffer is the main problem of the KP for me. I just don't understand why they did that. It's not like crippling the KP's buffer (wrt to the K-3ii) is going to push people towards the buffer-monsters that are the K-1 and K-1ii...

I think the next high-end Pentax body (full-frame or APS-C) will reveal a lot about Ricoh's direction, based on where they put engineering resources to significantly improve the camera, and where things remain more or less stagnant. I am quite eager to know this...

[twilhelm]

I think (and maybe hope) the delay in camera release, and the K-1 refresh, is due to work with a new processor. The current (Milbuet?) processor is quite dated and I believe the one component holding Pentax development back.

[Rico]

Ahem!...

Here are the current D FA primes.

The Marco's were first redone in ~2004 which added quickshift. The current D FA 100mm Macro WR was released in 2009.

Sad we do not have an HD D FA 35mm ƒ2 WR after 10 years instead of a nostalgia film era lens with HD coatings that doesn't even have quickshift.

The sales price of the D FA 100mm Macro WR is around ~$450US. This lens checks off a lot of features for the price. This lens is a winning design that should be applied to other focal lengths including the FA LTD's. If Ricoh/Pentax can produce the D FA 100 Macro WR at such a reasonable price to high quality standards they should be able to do the same across focal lengths.