[ogl]

Yes the x pro 1 and the x e1. Compared to the xt series it wasn't a runaway success, tho. It was successful. So they started putting flippy screen on the x series cameras too. Starting with the xm1. That was one hell of a camera. Every since then, they have had flippy screen.

Flippy screen is a really useful tool and adds to the camera experience. A lot of Pentax SLRs have removable tops, for better usability

Maybe K-new has very fast transmission speed with smartphone...Who knows...If it has touch screen and good software to connect with phone, there is any sense not to use tilting screen...Need to wait a bit...I'm not sure that Ricoh could produce really cool software for connection and operation with smartphone, but we can't rule out the possibility of it....

[ogl]

Ricoh could upgrade K-P and K-1II next year - it will have tilting LCD and if it's no good for us to have fixed LCD, we could buy new K-PII or K-1II or K-1III....

[Serkevan]

BTW the KP has a 3" screen. The K-new is rumored to be touch 3.2" Just another reason for your comparison to be invalid.

So now you move the goalposts... AND say something I already said? We are talking about *thickness* here. The distance from mount to LCD.

Additionally, the K-New is wider and taller than the K-3 by 3 mm each. If I go by the reactions to the thickness a flippy screen would add, then it stands to reason to think that there will be pitchforks for that tragic size increase.

I knew I shouldn't have come back to this mess of a thread.

[MMVIII]

There's a cutaway from one of the exhibitions:

File:Pentax KP (black) battery grip cutaway 2017 CP+.jpg - Wikimedia Commons

Obviously sub-mm is an approximation from the calculated measurements (which are limited by the resolution of the image), but the point is that the KP is not noticeably thicker despite having a flippy screen. For the sake of argument, let's assume I grossly missed the alignment and it's a whopping 3 mm thicker than the K-New. Even then, barely noticeable and definitely not a factor in terms of nose smushing against the LCD. The fact that the right side of the K-New is thicker than the screen side (so much so that some people imagined a notch being there for a year, that's the size of the protrusion) should also be a clear sign that thickness is not the main reason for the fixed screen - there was extra "space" without making the camera itself thicker.

---------- Post added 09-06-20 at 04:45 PM ----------



Yes I can. The cards and battery don't go between the sensor and the LCD, so it's irrelevant for the camera's thickness. The KP compromised the grip size for the battery and extra slot. The K-7 had a single slot and the K-3 has two in the same space. Clearly, that's metaphysically impossible

I accept their explanation about the size of the LCD (it's flush with the left hand side which means that any flippy screen would have compromised that), which is a perfectly fine reason by itself.

---------- Post added 09-06-20 at 04:52 PM ----------



I'm more inclined to believe it's marketing to "justify" the design decision precisely because they know it's controversial. The K-3ii is far more featured than the K-7 and it's... almost identical in size. LCD tech also improved with time. If you look at the cutaways from the K-5, its fixed LCD is thicker than the LCD+support assembly on the KP, which is undoubtedly part of the reason why the KP is so compact.


My main point of contention is that a number of people really sound like adding a flippy screen would have made the camera thicker than the 645Z.

---------- Post added 09-06-20 at 05:04 PM ----------



Definitely not explicitly about the rear screen, but they do mention it's equipped with excellent weather sealing and capable of working "in any difficult conditions". One would be forgiven to think that they consider the entire KP a robust machine - necessarily including the LCD.


The eye relief distance is a weird argument. I wear thick glasses (Anywhere from 2 to 5 mm) and the K-1's eyepiece doesn't protrude over the LCD (in fact I'd wager it's recessed a mm or two). I can see the entire viewfinder without issues, like I could with the K-7. I also use the O-ME53 magnifier, which adds a good 6 or 7 mm of clearance... and with all this extra relief, I still get in close enough contact with the screen: nose, cheeks, lips, the whole package . Two mm on the back of the camera 100% wouldn't make a difference to me (and I'm one of those who are supposed to need the extra relief).

I thought you are working in science, but if you claim that you 'measured' from this image and used false precision to make your point leaves me somehow disappointed.

[rawr]

a rough idea of how the K1 AF stuff

The K-1 AF assembly has a different layout from the K-3/KP etc, due to the larger FF image field and the need to handle more AF points, so has a 'folded' light path and two mirrors instead of one.

K-3:

K-1:


If the K-new has more AF points and also a bigger field of view (' the viewfinder provides an angle of view almost equal to that of full-frame SLR models'), it may also follow some of the K-1's AF design lead in order for the K-new AF assembly to remain as compact as possible.

[Serkevan]

I thought you are working in science, but if you claim that you 'measured' from this image and used false precision to make your point leaves me somehow disappointed.

"I am measuring from the image" does not mean that it's the actual exact measurement. Of course, it depends on the cut's precision* and what the CAD program can get (in another cut I found, at a different angle, I measured 64.2 mm, so still less than 3mm difference). Obviously I'd have preferred a technical drawing like the ones Ricoh posted in the article (why didn't they compare to the actual, direct predecessor, the K-3ii? Probably because there is no noticeable gain, it's Marketing 101). I couldn't find one and I don't have a KP on hand** so I had to "make do" (you'd be surprised about how much that is part of science work). Don't get caught up in the exact number - the KP doesn't get described as "compact" and "sleek" by Pentax by being thicker. The point is that it's not a significant difference for general use for reasons already explained in the same post you quoted. The K-1 lets you put your thumb between face and LCD without any trouble, and *that* one has the LCD protruding over the OVF.

*I'm assuming it's exactly perpendicular to the image plane, but a small angle is enough to change the result you get from such a crude method.
**If any member has a KP and can measure the thickness, I'm happy to eat my words, of course.

[MMVIII]

"I am measuring from the image" does not mean that it's the actual exact measurement. Of course, it depends on the cut's precision* and what the CAD program can get (in another cut I found, at a different angle, I measured 64.2 mm, so still less than 3mm difference). Obviously I'd have preferred a technical drawing like the ones Ricoh posted in the article (why didn't they compare to the actual, direct predecessor, the K-3ii? Probably because there is no noticeable gain, it's Marketing 101). I couldn't find one and I don't have a KP on hand** so I had to "make do" (you'd be surprised about how much that is part of science work). Don't get caught up in the exact number - the KP doesn't get described as "compact" and "sleek" by Pentax by being thicker. The point is that it's not a significant difference for general use for reasons already explained in the same post you quoted. The K-1 lets you put your thumb between face and LCD without any trouble, and *that* one has the LCD protruding over the OVF.

*I'm assuming it's exactly perpendicular to the image plane, but a small angle is enough to change the result you get from such a crude method.
**If any member has a KP and can measure the thickness, I'm happy to eat my words, of course.

I am working in research too, and false precision (why do you use decimal mm values if your estimations are +- 3mm?) is a clear sign for me as a reviewer that something is fishy... Anyway, it's not a peer review and you are entitled to use any point you want for your arguments, I see that it is just polemics and would have expected more substance, but, sure, it's just a discussion on an internet forum, what should I have expected.

[Serkevan]

I am working in research too, and false precision (why do you use decimal mm values if your estimations are +- 3mm?) is a clear sign for me as a reviewer that something is fishy... Anyway, it's not a peer review and you are entitled to use any point you want for your arguments, I see that it is just polemics and would have expected more substance, but, sure, it's just a discussion on an internet forum, what should I have expected.

The short of it was that I was tired and copypasted the value I got . It's an approximation and, when there are people making completely nonsensical claims, I'm not going to bother with any high precision work because they will just move the goalpost (see the going from "but the battery and SD card" to "but the 0.2 inches extra"), because there seem to be three camps:
Camp A believes that Pentax can do no wrong and the fixed screen is therefore the one and only possible option.
Camp B believes that Pentax can do no right and the fixed screen makes the camera unsellable.
Camp C might or might not be bummed out by the screen but in the end it's a design decision motivated by several other design requirements.

Camps A and B, of course, are digging a trench that would make generals in 1915 proud.

I'm firmly in the "no big deal" camp, but if I see people going over the supposed massive thickness imparted by the flippy screen for... I don't even know how many pages, then maybe there should be a reminder that the thickness added by said flippy screen is also not a big deal. Would posting the actual drawings get a different response? Probably not at all. Was there any point in even bothering with an approximation of the KP's thickness? Not at all, but I've already wasted a lot of keystrokes on this futility and there's at least some sense of entertainment.

This thread's been a mess for days and the best thing that can happen to it is a lock and throwing away the key.

[OoKU]

I want to buy K-new very much. Is it OK? I want to know only one thing - will AF system reach D7500 or not. All the rest I don't care....

OVF reach D500.
LV close to 90D.

[Serkevan]

OVF reach D500.
LV close to 90D.

Holy... This, right here, is the important part.

A Pentax camera with that level of performance is gonna be a slam on the table. Exciting times ahead... I bet those PLM lenses are gonna sing.

[Flubber]

Pentax, please just tell me where to throw my money already. I want this camera in my collection so badly.

[OoKU]

Twitter

translate：
I attended the PENTAX 100th anniversary meeting and asked the development team about the camera.
"Can this flagship APS-C beat the D500?"
I'll win.
"Can you beat 90d?"
"I'm going to make it the best I can think of!"
"Didn't the bar drop just now?"

[yucafrita]

I wonder if anyone here is taking pictures at all with Pentax cameras or just arguing for the sake of it...

[Serkevan]

I wonder if anyone here is taking pictures at all with Pentax cameras or just arguing for the sake of it...

Ask the weather to be better (seriously, every single weekend throughout summer has been rainy here )!

[kh1234567890]

Maybe K-new has very fast transmission speed with smartphone...Who knows...

Unlikely. It will have just a bog standard wifi module and BTLE. One or the other running at any one time.Twitter