[Zygonyx]

Adding a periscope on top would be nice.

And usefull if combined with a submersible box.

[Kunzite]

You don't have to go to another forum for that suggestion. It has been suggested numerous times on this one by several people. The first one a decade ago at least.
I suggested many years ago that this was a way to make a mirrorless Pentax without discarding the OVF, but as an option; with a EVF on the camera the mirror stays in the up-position transforming the camera for all practical purposes into a mirrorless.

Right; we remember the LX and various people thought of applying the interchangeable viewfinder concept to a digital camera - and EVFs.

As always, there are tradeoffs:
- the affordable camera would be more complex than a fixed viewfinder one.
- with the EVF on, it would make a poor mirrorless - larger than necessary.
But actually what makes me unsure about this idea, is that unlike with the LX a DSLR's pentaprism housing contains much more than a viewfinder system - the metering system being most essential (but there are also some ancillary components like the GPS antenna). At least some solutions, like a waist level finders, won't work because of that; and optical viewfinders would have to include each its own metering system.
The LX managed because of its OTF metering.

This being said, I'm not particularly against this; even though I wouldn't buy the EVF.
Two viewfinders on the camera, now that's something I'd definitely avoid.

[Class A]

- the affordable camera would be more complex than a fixed viewfinder one.

It wouldn't be more complex to the customer and the increased cost of producing it (compared to a traditional one) should be amortised by reusing the same body across all camera variations.

- with the EVF on, it would make a poor mirrorless - larger than necessary.

MILCS are getting larger and in many cases the small mirrobox advantage they have is negated by the same space being transferred to the lens (cf. Sigma using the same optical designs for DSRLs and MILCs). Having the equivalent of a mirrorbox in the lens is worse when you start carrying multiple of these lenses around. In any event, most modern lenses are so big and heavy that the small reduction of depth by omitting a mirrorbox isn't really making much of a difference.

unlike with the LX a DSLR's pentaprism housing contains much more than a viewfinder system - the metering system being most essential (but there are also some ancillary components like the GPS antenna).

The GPS antenna could be placed elsewhere or could just be integrated in each viewfinder alternative (except perhaps in the most basic one).

Same for the metering system. Where is the problem in integrating the metering system in each viewfinder? On the contrary, this distribution of hardware components would mean that a basic viewfinder could come with a basic metering chip while the more capable ones (enabling eye-AF, etc.) would be reserved to the high-end and more expensive viewfinder models.

[Kunzite]

It wouldn't be more complex to the customer and the increased cost of producing it (compared to a traditional one) should be amortised by reusing the same body across all camera variations.

Of course it would. A sliding/locking mechanism, contacts for power and electronic communication, weather sealing - things would be more complex.
It might be feasible in a FF DSLR or high-end APS-C; I'm not saying it can't work.

The GPS antenna could be placed elsewhere or could just be integrated in each viewfinder alternative (except perhaps in the most basic one).

Same for the metering system. Where is the problem in integrating the metering system in each viewfinder? On the contrary, this distribution of hardware components would mean that a basic viewfinder could come with a basic metering chip while the more capable ones (enabling eye-AF, etc.) would be reserved to the high-end and more expensive viewfinder models.

Cost.
If the viewfinder accessory is too pricey, few would buy it.

[biz-engineer]

If the viewfinder accessory is too pricey, few would buy it.

Very often, it's the available accessories that make people buy the camera even if they never buy the accessories, it's like for lenses, many people complain about lack of lenses but do not buy any when they are released.

---------- Post added 30-05-19 at 12:35 ----------

camera without compromise?

It's a camera with infinite mega pixels, depth of field programmable with a dial (without changing the lens aperture), unlimited dynamic range, unlimited burst rate, perfect autofocus, not too big for people with small hands, not too small for people with large hands, and very cheap.

[MarkJerling]

Very often, it's the available accessories that make people buy the camera even if they never buy the accessories, it's like for lenses, many people complain about lack of lenses but do not buy any when they are released.

It's a camera with infinite mega pixels, depth of field programmable with a dial (without changing the lens aperture), unlimited dynamic range, unlimited burst rate, perfect autofocus, not too big for people with small hands, not too small for people with large hands, and very cheap.

You forgot to add: "And 8K Video."

[deus ursus]

You forgot to add: "And 8K Video."

I agree if you lay down that '8'. ;-)

[Pål Jensen]

As always, there are tradeoffs:
- the affordable camera would be more complex than a fixed viewfinder one.
- with the EVF on, it would make a poor mirrorless - larger than necessary.
But actually what makes me unsure about this idea, is that unlike with the LX a DSLR's pentaprism housing contains much more than a viewfinder system - the metering system being most essential (but there are also some ancillary components like the GPS antenna). At least some solutions, like a waist level finders, won't work because of that; and optical viewfinders would have to include each its own metering system.
The LX managed because of its OTF metering..

True. It might be cheaper to make a hybrid viewfinder provided such a concept is technically feasible...

[mecrox]

It's an intriguing idea but I wonder who would buy it or whether there'd be enough interested Pentax-owners to make it feasible? I suppose this would be selling customers on from the K1 level to the next and newest level, a kind of K1 Mark III with a newer sensor et al inside it too. Presumably Ricoh would do some market research first.

[photoptimist]

In the past I suggested that Ricoh could make a camera with dual VF: one OVF in the center, and one EVF in the corner, so that the user can use both eyes, some kind of stereo VF. The user wouldn't even have the change the view finder, he would be able to switch between the two different view finder tech with the blink of an eye.

Love it!

And Pentax makes really nice binoculars - the back end of the camera could use the eyepeices from those binoculars.

I've often thought that a binocular-shaped camera body that is held more like binoculars with straight wrists and both hands supporting the body and lens would be more ergonomic than the traditional DSLR/MILC design which forces the right wrist to bend nearly 90° to hold the grip. It's amusing that after 2 decades of digital cameras, camera bodies still use the same shape that was dictated by the geometry of the 35mm film cartridge system.

Why are digital cameras still shaped like film cameras?????

[monochrome]

The diopter adjustment(s) and eye separation mechanics would be interesting. I recall the earliest digital cameras were essentially a box with a rear porthole and a 3.5” floppy disk slot.

Love it!

And Pentax makes really nice binoculars - the back end of the camera could use the eyepeices from those binoculars.

I've often thought that a binocular-shaped camera body that is held more like binoculars with straight wrists and both hands supporting the body and lens would be more ergonomic than the traditional DSLR/MILC design which forces the right wrist to bend nearly 90° to hold the grip. It's amusing that after 2 decades of digital cameras, camera bodies still use the same shape that was dictated by the geometry of the 35mm film cartridge system.

Why are digital cameras still shaped like film cameras?????

[Kunzite]

I don't think looking with one eye through an OVF and with another through an EVF would be comfortable, or practical.

[phoebus]

Love it!

And Pentax makes really nice binoculars - the back end of the camera could use the eyepeices from those binoculars.

I've often thought that a binocular-shaped camera body that is held more like binoculars with straight wrists and both hands supporting the body and lens would be more ergonomic than the traditional DSLR/MILC design which forces the right wrist to bend nearly 90° to hold the grip. It's amusing that after 2 decades of digital cameras, camera bodies still use the same shape that was dictated by the geometry of the 35mm film cartridge system.

Why are digital cameras still shaped like film cameras?????

There was a super 8mm camera like that:Kodak XL 55 - Super8wiki

Imagine that shape of camera with the DFA 150-450 hanging off the front... ...not sure ergonomic is the word to use.

;-)

[TwoUptons]

Why are digital cameras still shaped like film cameras?????

Like the Canon Photura?
PHOTURA - Canon Camera Museum

I also own a dial 35 half-frame that is unique, ergonomically speaking...

-Eric

[thibs]

OptioMX was shaped as such as well.