[reh321]

2. Pentax will have a "lean"version for next K1 with basic functions and low price as if to make film camera with FF sensor and advance autofocus system output even to only DNG raw file.

So are you believing that the "lean" version would include no "developer" to produce file variants other than DNG??

[beholder3]

2. Pentax will have a "lean"version for next K1 with basic functions and low price as if to make film camera with FF sensor and advance autofocus system output even to only DNG raw file.

A K-1 I is already ultra low price segment these days. The way to survive is to shed all the "low price" old customers and offer premium products aimed at the $3000+ market.

"low price" is a topic for stripped down K-50 style APSC cameras, e.g. smaller battery, no motor for screw drive, no pentaprism etc.

[biz-engineer]

A K-1 I is already ultra low price segment these days.

Can be bought used for under $1K, without any compromise on feature set.

[Kunzite]

Can be bought used for under $1K, without any compromise on feature set.

And a camera as requested ("basic functions", imitating the cameras of old) would be anything but cheap.

[Kobayashi.K]

... 2. Pentax will have a "lean"version for next K1 with basic functions and low price as if to make film camera with FF sensor and advance autofocus system output even to only DNG raw file.
Thanks.

A lean K1 for me means with half the amount of buttons and controls it has now, a fixed rear screen, no built in flash. Leaving out JPEG (or RAW) has no influence on the price and it wards off buyers. However, a lean version from K1-II or K3-III alongside the standard version with the same built quality is a good idea, but I would see that as a minimalistic style (think Leica), and not for the purpose of reducing the price. When the camera is based on an existing model it could be produced with almost no extra development costs, and it gives the customer more choice.

[Kunzite]

A lean K1 for me means with half the amount of buttons and controls it has now, a fixed rear screen, no built in flash. Leaving out JPEG (or RAW) has no influence on the price and it wards off buyers. However, a lean version from K1-II or K3-III alongside the standard version with the same built quality is a good idea, but I would see that as a minimalistic style (think Leica), and not for the purpose of reducing the price. When the camera is based on an existing model it could be produced with almost no extra development costs, and it gives the customer more choice.

Cutting the amount of buttons and controls won't reduce the price either - the older model will still be cheaper.
And you'd get a worse product, because you'd have the same complexity while cutting down your ability to control it.

Leica is not a good example, Pentax can't possibly get away with what Leica does. And even Leica was forced to modernize.

[Kobayashi.K]

Cutting the amount of buttons and controls won't reduce the price either - the older model will still be cheaper.
And you'd get a worse product, because you'd have the same complexity while cutting down your ability to control it.
Leica is not a good example, Pentax can't possibly get away with what Leica does. And even Leica was forced to modernize.

I said "... and *not* for the purpose of reducing the price". I also don't say Pentax should imitate Leica, it is about the minimalistic style I propose and many users would prefer, which can be implemented as desired. Reducing the number of buttons and controls would preferably imply weeding out the corresponding functions or otherwise make them available via the menus only. You can't make a lean camera without ditching functions, or the other way around, current models suffer from feature creep (well known to software developers).

P.S. Pentax and the many posters on this thread should read this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feature_creep

---

Last edited by Kobayashi.K; 06-12-2021 at 06:47 AM.

[TwoUptons]

I said "... and *not* for the purpose of reducing the price". I also don't say Pentax should imitate Leica, it is about the minimalistic style I propose and many users would prefer, which can be implemented as desired. Reducing the number of buttons and controls would preferably imply weeding out the corresponding functions or otherwise make them available via the menus only. You can't make a lean camera without ditching functions, or the other way around, current models suffer from feature creep (well known to software developers).

P.S. Pentax and the many posters on this thread should read this:
Feature creep - Wikipedia

There have been mixed results when companies have tried that before...

Pentax basically did that with the K-01, which was in many ways a decontented version of a different camera (didn't even have a viewfinder...)

And Nikon did that as well, with the result being something that wasn't terribly successful and probably cost a lot to develop.

I don't think Pentax is in the market environment where the former approach would work terribly well, and the latter would cost too much...

That said, I think a KPii using the sensor out of the K3iii with a simplified body (single card slot, simpler controls, simpler prism) would sell well.
But one thing Pentax has always been good at is ergonomics, so they would need to be careful to not ruin that...

-Eric

[reh321]

I said "... and *not* for the purpose of reducing the price". I also don't say Pentax should imitate Leica, it is about the minimalistic style I propose and many users would prefer, which can be implemented as desired. Reducing the number of buttons and controls would preferably imply weeding out the corresponding functions or otherwise make them available via the menus only. You can't make a lean camera without ditching functions, or the other way around, current models suffer from feature creep (well known to software developers).

As a former developer, I am well aware of "feature creep", but only Pentax managers will know which ones cost money to add {and which ones would cost money to exclude}.
A question of that sort could be very interesting - but I'm not sure they could answer it without telling others more than they want to.

[Kobayashi.K]

As a former developer, I am well aware of "feature creep", but only Pentax managers will know which ones cost money to add {and which ones would cost money to exclude}.
A question of that sort could be very interesting - but I'm not sure they could answer it without telling others more than they want to.

An interesting aspect in the Wikipedia article, at the bottom is:

"Feature creep combined with short deadlines will often lead to a "hacky solution". The desired change may be large enough to warrant a redesign of the existing project foundation, but deadline pressure instead requires developers to just "make it work" with a less elegant approach."

The K3-III is actually plagued with hacks. Without expanding on that too much I'll mention four of them:

1. In some places the menus are using the INFO button to advance into the structure instead of OK or the > button. It is a lazy hack, because the INFO button is supposed to give information.
2. The menu structure for setting the smart functions is a mess, and it looks implemented in great haste.
3. The DCU software is baked into the camera to replace the CD, but it cannot be updated, while software is supposed to be upgradeable during its lifetime. So after one upgrade (which already happened) the DCU is sitting in the camera for nothing.
4. The functionality for using M- and K-series lenses in automatic modes uses exposure measurement at full press of the shutter with all sorts of ugly consequences. Exposure measurement should always be done at half-press. They have done that to prevent users complaining about the sound of the aperture closing with the green button functionality every time you touch the shutter button with a half-press.

[reh321]

An interesting aspect in the Wikipedia article, at the bottom is:

"Feature creep combined with short deadlines will often lead to a "hacky solution". The desired change may be large enough to warrant a redesign of the existing project foundation, but deadline pressure instead requires developers to just "make it work" with a less elegant approach."

The K3-III is actually plagued with hacks. Without expanding on that too much I'll mention four of them:

1. In some places the menus are using the INFO button to advance into the structure instead of OK or the > button. It is a lazy hack, because the INFO button is supposed to give information.
2. The menu structure for setting the smart functions is a mess, and it looks implemented in great haste.
3. The DCU software is baked into the camera to replace the CD, but it cannot be updated, while software is supposed to be upgradeable during its lifetime. So after one upgrade (which already happened) the DCU is sitting in the camera for nothing.
4. The functionality for using M- and K-series lenses in automatic modes uses exposure measurement at full press of the shutter with all sorts of ugly consequences. Exposure measurement should always be done at half-press. They have done that to prevent users complaining about the sound of the aperture closing with the green button functionality every time you touch the shutter button with a half-press.

So, you disagree with design decisions made by the designers - but that has zero connection with how they are implemented, which is where the word "hack" is appropriate.

As a professional, I would never describe these as "hacks". The word "hack" may be used to describe the implementation, but neither of us knows exactly what the code looks like.
You, in your great expertise, may disagree with the decisions made, but neither of us knows why they were made, and - incidentally - I don't see why any of them would be classified as "feature creep".
"Feature creep" refers to adding feature after feature for lack of a good reason - for example, adding a flashlight onto a camera.
"Feature creep" plus short deadlines may lead to "hacks" - but you cannot run the logic backwards and say that "hacks" 'prove' "feature creep", and we have no evidence of short deadlines in this case.
For all either of us knows, this system is exactly as they planned it to be - perhaps not understandable to your logic, but proof of nothing but disagreement between you and them.

[Kunzite]

I said "... and *not* for the purpose of reducing the price". I also don't say Pentax should imitate Leica, it is about the minimalistic style I propose and many users would prefer, which can be implemented as desired. Reducing the number of buttons and controls would preferably imply weeding out the corresponding functions or otherwise make them available via the menus only. You can't make a lean camera without ditching functions, or the other way around, current models suffer from feature creep (well known to software developers).

P.S. Pentax and the many posters on this thread should read this:
Feature creep - Wikipedia

Tri_BK did say "basic functions and low price"; and I'm always seeing these two requirements together. What I'm not seeing is, "basic function and a significantly higher price" - which is what would happen.

The minimalistic style you're talking about would make the camera niche in a quite extreme way, or downright impossible. I do not think you'd be able to get a reasonably large group of people agreeing on what should be kept, and what should be thrown away. I said people? Read: buyers. Talk is cheap.
Then, are you sure Leica's interface is preferred to Pentax'? I remember a while ago I remember sitting with the nice gentlemen at Leica's Photokina stand, we were trying to change some simple setting (on the S2). Couldn't figure that out.
It could've been worse, it could've been the Zeiss ZX1.

Feature creep has nothing to do with this.

[Kobayashi.K]

Tri_BK did say "basic functions and low price"; and I'm always seeing these two requirements together. What I'm not seeing is, "basic function and a significantly higher price" - which is what would happen.

The minimalistic style you're talking about would make the camera niche in a quite extreme way, or downright impossible. I do not think you'd be able to get a reasonably large group of people agreeing on what should be kept, and what should be thrown away. I said people? Read: buyers. Talk is cheap.
Then, are you sure Leica's interface is preferred to Pentax'? I remember a while ago I remember sitting with the nice gentlemen at Leica's Photokina stand, we were trying to change some simple setting (on the S2). Couldn't figure that out.
It could've been worse, it could've been the Zeiss ZX1.

Feature creep has nothing to do with this.

Everything is possible. Leica makes cameras which have only basic functions and a simple user interface, but with a high price due to extensive design efforts, top quality materials and careful production. A Lomo camera is very basic and it has a low price. What I would like to see (from Pentax) is a simple camera with the quality of the K3-III at about the same price or a tad lower. That can simply be done by removing functions as proposed above. Such a camera should be offered as an alternative alongside the standard camera as we know it for users who like a minimalistic design, and I am convinced it is a cheap way to expand the palette.

I would say, listen carefully what users are requesting to learn what could be improved, but don't implement everything right away because these users have no clue about the consequences.

The result of feature creep is always a bloated user interface. So in practice if you would honour all the requests made in this thread the camera becomes unusable. My proposal is to do the opposite: KISS.

[Kunzite]

Everything is possible. Leica makes cameras which have only basic functions and a simple user interface, but with a high price due to extensive design efforts, top quality materials and careful production. A Lomo camera is very basic and it has a low price. What I would like to see (from Pentax) is a simple camera with the quality of the K3-III at about the same price or a tad lower. That can simply be done by removing functions as proposed above. Such a camera should be offered as an alternative alongside the standard camera as we know it for users who like a minimalistic design, and I am convinced it is a cheap way to expand the palette.

I would say, listen carefully what users are requesting to learn what could be improved, but don't implement everything right away because these users have no clue about the consequences.

The result of feature creep is always a bloated user interface. So in practice if you would honour all the requests made in this thread the camera becomes unusable. My proposal is to do the opposite: KISS.

I'm afraid many things are actually impossible
You're asking for a "camera with the quality of the K-3iii at about the same price or a tad lower", by "removing functions as proposed above". In other words, you'd keep everything expensive and remove some cheap things like buttons. The result would be a camera as costly to make, but with a crippled interface. Its price will necessarily be higher because it will be sold in much lower volumes.
I have a better idea: just get the K-3iii and use a subset of its interface. There's no reason not to do so.

Adding features to a camera doesn't work like you think - they're not honoring our requests per se. Every little thing is carefully studied, its impact on the usability thoroughly investigated. For example, for the K-3iii they changed the texture of the joystick, and increased the size of the buttons - and the shutter release is a redesigned version of their high end leaf button.
The new Smart Function interface? You might call it "feature creep", but I do see the value of e.g. being able to set AF parameters with a single dial twist.

[kwb]

1. In some places the menus are using the INFO button to advance into the structure instead of OK or the > button. It is a lazy hack, because the INFO button is supposed to give information.

On ALL post-2012 Pentax bodies as well as 2012 K-30 (K-30/50/70, K-3/K-3 II, K-1/K-1 II, K-S1/K-S2, KP, and yes, K-3 III), if you want to edit Custom Image parameters, you go into Custom Image screen, choose the preset you like (Bright, Natural etc.), then press INFO to adjust parameters (saturation, hue, contrast etc.). Same for Digital Filter. Maybe there are other things I don't know about that (ab)use INFO button to transition between different menu levels.

Is it a good UI design? Honestly, no in my book. But changing it on K-3 III might have pissed off many just because it changed even though others like you and me might have been happy. It's about continuity, it doesn't seem to have anything to do with feature creep nor tight deadline for K-3 III.