[lotech]

That's sound good to me, I believe that will attract new comers especially youngsters to the hobby to start shooting with DSLR, to learn the fundamental and arts of photography, but did it say SLR ? after decades with digital I started to get bored with it, there is nothing really innovative to me on digital only AF speed and resolution keep advancing which is expected, so I started to "go back" to film to play with the basic but it is hard, due to limited resources and the cost to pay nowadays. I am wondering if Pentax can insist on D/SLR and promoting it, the Mirrorless camp can do the same with Range Finder, both types are great for different uses.

---------- Post added 02-16-22 at 09:18 AM ----------

This is making more sense, all of a sudden. If Pentax is positioning itself as THE SLR brand, a modern film SLR that can accommodate modern K mount (KAF4?) lenses as well as vintage glass would look very appealing for film shooters.

I think that is almost impossible, until there is a company willing to produce different types of film in large quantity, like in the "good old days" ! I always hoped that Polaroid or other company will "re-invent" the self develop instant film kit with high IQ at affordable cost, so that hobbyist can do it at home.

[RobA_Oz]

Sorry-forgot people are wedded to AF lenses! I'm a luddite and never use it in an SLR or DSLR.

I’m wedded to neither, so you might describe me as poly-amorous.

What is the possibility of a hybrid camera?
A camera that could shoot both film and digital?

Practically zero unless you want to pay a great deal more. Such things (digital backs) exist, but mostly to convert old film medium format bodies into digital.

[Pete82]

What is the possibility of a hybrid camera?
A camera that could shoot both film and digital?

Or at least a hybrid camera that allows you to preview the image digitally before taking the film shot. Then the sensor etc. could be cheaper.

[TwoUptons]

What is the possibility of a hybrid camera?
A camera that could shoot both film and digital?

Anything's possible, right?

With an electronic film SLR, the metering/AF sensors were part of the secondary mirror path, and they could be used as places to put an image sensor, I suppose...
You might not get full coverage of the viewfinder image, but it might be close enough for a preview.

But on 35mm film, even with recent price increases, I don't think there's anywhere near the economics for such a thing.
And you still have the option to develop B&W in caffeinol, which is inexpensive...

With medium format, I think there's less call for such a thing, though with interchangeable backs you could presumably do both digital and film on the same body... even if that is not the instant preview we've got used to on digital SLRs...

-Eric

[MMVIII]

Anything is possible, true. The legacy of Pentax and Ricoh includes:
Exchangable viewfinders, in 35mm Pentax LX and in 6x7
Exchangable back, in Pentax 645
Exchangable lensor, in Ricoh GXR
Exchangable mount, M-mount in Ricoh GXR
Pellicle mirror, Pentax El2000.

There are a lot of possibilities, but I am afraid that they all involve a lot of optomechanical development, which seems to be something that the market trendsetters seem to cut down, as probably the development and production/testing costs might be higher than with electronic advancements and computational "enhancements and corrections".
I see some chance for something that on one hand can help reducing mechanical complexity and offer new possibilities. But as Kunzite pointed out, there are some things to solve, like the avoidance of light leaks from the viewfinder, if, like he pointed out, a construction with the main sensor as the only measuring device would be a future path. If the Reflex is kept it could be kind of hybrid (but not for the recording medium of course), offering another shooting mode without compromising classic DSLR qualities. I can't say if this could support "medium hybridity" by exchangeable backs, viewfinder hybridity by exchangeable tops, mount variability by exchangeable front

If this would be more within the possibilities of a possibly workshop like producer than for mass production manufacturers, is nothing I can judge. I don't expect too much extraordinarity though, to be honest.

Edit: added El2000 with pellicle mirror

[Sandy Hancock]

I would LOVE a modern Pentax 645 film SLR, as a full frame 645 digital SLR would be beyond the reach of most amateurs.

A modern 35mm film SLR would also be awesome, but the existence (and relative affordability) of digital full frame makes that less of an imperative for me.

Pentax might be onto something here.

[Serkevan]

I would LOVE a modern Pentax 645 film SLR, as a full frame 645 digital SLR would be beyond the reach of most amateurs.

A modern 35mm film SLR would also be awesome, but the existence (and relative affordability) of digital full frame makes that less of an imperative for me.

Pentax might be onto something here.

I'd like to try my hand at medium format but the choice between gambling on a 40-year old 645n (or Bronica ETRS), or spending a very substantial amount on... still 20 year old bodies, isn't very appetizing.

[Wheatfield]

Hmm... the DSLR with AF and metering on the sensor would not only simplify DSLRs (by removing the need of a dedicated AF and metering systems), improve performance (burst in mirror down mode), simplify the mirror system (from 2 to 1, with less alignment issues) but it would also possibly allow for interchangeable viewfinders.
They'd have to add a viewfinder (or matte screen?) shutter,

Since we are still talking SLR, metering and AF would have to be done with the shutter open and mirror out of the way so there is your viewfinder blind
Oh wait, then the viewfinder is blacked out during composition.
Oops.

[Kunzite]

Since we are still talking SLR, metering and AF would have to be done with the shutter open and mirror out of the way so there is your viewfinder blind
Oh wait, then the viewfinder is blacked out during composition.
Oops.

With the current configuration, yes.
But if we remove the secondary mirror - and we're left with a (tweaked) primary mirror only - you can have metering, AF and even the exposure with the mirror down.
There would be a light loss, but MILCs can AF down to -8EV apparently; I'd be happy with only -7EV

Even in the quick-return-mirror mode, it won't be any worse than the current configuration: you'd have a short viewfinder blackout during exposure, just like now.

The viewfinder would not be blacked out during composition, only during exposure, and that would be optionally.

[Steve Beswick]

Surely it makes sense for Ricoh to make a K1000 or MX or suchlike to sell to film photographers. That would instantly entrench Ricoh/Pentax as different from mirrorless over and above Pentax dSLRs. Or are there so few film photographers that the venture wouldn't be viable?

I had to make sure, but neither Adorama nor B&H list even one 35mm SLR available new. Assuming that Pentax could release a decent quality 35mm SLR at a price that wouldn't send everyone running back to the used market, I think it could be a hit. If they could get the body out the door for ~$500, again without it being flimsy, it might even outsell their DSLR line. Every university darkroom in the world would buy a dozen!

[redrockcoulee]

My father-in-law died last month. In cleaning out his house we found some kind of old Brownie-box type camera, which I took possession of. Yes, I'm slightly intrigued by the thought of shooting a roll and getting results perhaps similar to using my Lomography Daguerreotype lens, only at $1 or $2 a shot developed, or something like that. If I can find whatever kind of film it takes. And a subject matter that's fine with a single lens, fixed focus, fixed shutter speed approach.

Guessing that intrigue will wear off after the first roll, well before contemplating purchase of even a used SLR, much less one that costs anything like a new camera.

If your Brownie uses and film other than 120 or maybe 620 which was common for Kodak, check out the Film Photography Project Store as they might be able to help if it is a 116, 616 or 127 film size.

[reh321]

I had to make sure, but neither Adorama nor B&H list even one 35mm SLR available new. Assuming that Pentax could release a decent quality 35mm SLR at a price that wouldn't send everyone running back to the used market, I think it could be a hit. If they could get the body out the door for ~$500, again without it being flimsy, it might even outsell their DSLR line. Every university darkroom in the world would buy a dozen!

I’m not sure educators are still using film - there is only also much useful to learn there.
Yes, educators did make heavy use of the K1000 at one time, but many ‘films’ are now made using entirely digital tools.

[Wheatfield]

With the current configuration, yes.
But if we remove the secondary mirror - and we're left with a (tweaked) primary mirror only - you can have metering, AF and even the exposure with the mirror down.
There would be a light loss, but MILCs can AF down to -8EV apparently; I'd be happy with only -7EV

Even in the quick-return-mirror mode, it won't be any worse than the current configuration: you'd have a short viewfinder blackout during exposure, just like now.

The viewfinder would not be blacked out during composition, only during exposure, and that would be optionally.

If they use a pellicle mirror, sure, but then you get the worst of both worlds not the best. The magnificent viewfinder experience that they tout with the new K3 would be diminished, and some of the extraordinary high iso performance would be eaten up as well.
A flip up pellicle mirror would solve the high ISO concern, but the viewfinder would still be less than it could be.

[Kunzite]

If they use a pellicle mirror, sure, but then you get the worst of both worlds not the best. The magnificent viewfinder experience that they tout with the new K3 would be diminished, and some of the extraordinary high iso performance would be eaten up as well.
A flip up pellicle mirror would solve the high ISO concern, but the viewfinder would still be less than it could be.

Not pellicle, but rather semitransparent quick return mirror (similar to the current SLRs' primary mirror, rather than to the old Pellix).

The viewfinder experience might be unchanged, depending on the transmission-reflection ratio. The current SLRs - as you are aware - do send part of the light to the dedicated AF system. Removing the pentaprism metering system might also help a little.
In low light the camera could switch to quick-return mirror mode. In good light the camera could stay in high FPS mode.

IMO this is a good compromise. I don't see Pentax developing a much more advanced AF system anytime soon - while even relatively inexpensive mirrorless have several times the number of AF points, and much better coverage than Pentax' best.

[ZombieArmy]

I agree on no new film camera; that would be as expensive as a DSLR, and no one would buy it.

I'd certainly be interested in a 67III. For 35mm it'd basically need to be an ME super with KAF4.