[ryankarr]

Would have to be FF to get my attention. Hard to use legacy lenses with a 2x crop factor as seen in m4/3.

[juu]

The same source. China. Pentax Shanghai.

Same source as what?

Wish it were true anyway, but I don't think it makes sense as the LX body is large.

[KungPOW]

If Hoya does make an EVIL based on the LX, it would be an admition that they have no plans, or they are not able, to develope a small high spec FF DSLR, that has the same gestalt.

The logical choice for a Pentax EVIL camera name would have been derived from the 110. But they just used that in a point and shoot. The 110 SLR is a film version of a possible Pentax EVIL. It was small, and it used a different lens lineup.

But back to the LX design. Using a name based on "LX" ie L-x would signify we will never see a DSLR with the same design concept, or feel as the LX. Imagine if Chevy stopped production of the Corvette. Then, 20 years later introduced a 4 door hatchback called the Corvette. Do you think you would ever see another high spec sports car from Chevy called a Corvette?

[ogl]

Width will be less than LX.

[ryan s]

If Hoya does make an EVIL based on the LX, it would be an admition that they have no plans, or they are not able, to develope a small high spec FF DSLR, that has the same gestalt.

The logical choice for a Pentax EVIL camera name would have been derived from the 110. But they just used that in a point and shoot. The 110 SLR is a film version of a possible Pentax EVIL. It was small, and it used a different lens lineup.

But back to the LX design. Using a name based on "LX" ie L-x would signify we will never see a DSLR with the same design concept, or feel as the LX. Imagine if Chevy stopped production of the Corvette. Then, 20 years later introduced a 4 door hatchback called the Corvette. Do you think you would ever see another high spec sports car from Chevy called a Corvette?

Dodge did it with the Charger... If you ignore the fact that it's now a sedan that is Chevy Impala and Monte Carlo and Malibu off the top of my head...

Devil's advocate aside, it appears that lots of companies are bringing back old school names...in name only...banking on their "legacy" to sell products. I don't agree with it. If an LX (or L-x) is going to come back, it needs to be a top of line camera to deserve those letters.

The new I10...it's loosely based off the 110 camera. Small, pocketable...and oh yeah, small Pentax would be throwing away the LX title with anything less. Can't wait for the digital M-x!

[mattdm]

If Hoya does make an EVIL based on the LX, it would be an admition that they have no plans, or they are not able, to develope a small high spec FF DSLR, that has the same gestalt.

What do you mean that it'd be an admission? They've outright said many times that they have no plans to make full-frame dSLR, "small high spec" or no.

[Wheatfield]

Same source as what?

Wish it were true anyway, but I don't think it makes sense as the LX body is large.

Pentax appears to be moving towards a full frame sensor sized camera. The recent lenses that have been released cover the 35mm format, which would be pointless to do if they weren't moving in that direction with their camera bodies, and they pretty much have to move that way if they want to be taken even halfways seriously.
An LX sized FF camera would not be a large camera.
I know you are smitten with the idea of a 4/3 camera, but I doubt very much that Pentax is going to be supporting 4 lens lines, which they would have to do if they were going to release a 4/3 camera.

[juu]

The recent lenses that have been released cover the 35mm format,

Which recently released lenses besides the 100mm DFA macro cover FF?

but I doubt very much that Pentax is going to be supporting 4 lens lines, which they would have to do if they were going to release a 4/3 camera.

One of the advantages of mirrorless is smaller size for lenses and bodies due to smaller distance between lens and sensor - however that requires a new mount (or adapters which usually limit functionality). So they may still have to support 4 lens lines to take full advantage of mirrorless even if they do it as FF.

So even if their recent lenses have been FF that wouldn't make a mirrorless FF that much more likely.

OTOH there are no mirrorless FF mounts/systems out there and being the first there would be a real differentiator, if successful.

[Rondec]

I think both the 60-250 and DA *55 are full frame. Some have thought that reason for the long delay on the 60-250 was to make sure it was full frame compatible.

[Wheatfield]

Which recently released lenses besides the 100mm DFA macro cover FF?

One of the advantages of mirrorless is smaller size for lenses and bodies due to smaller distance between lens and sensor - however that requires a new mount (or adapters which usually limit functionality). So they may still have to support 4 lens lines to take full advantage of mirrorless even if they do it as FF.

So even if their recent lenses have been FF that wouldn't make a mirrorless FF that much more likely.

OTOH there are no mirrorless FF mounts/systems out there and being the first there would be a real differentiator, if successful.

My understanding is that the DA*55 and DA*60-250 cover the 35mm frame, and I'd be quite surprised if the 200 and 300 mm lenses don't cover the 35mm frame as well.
Regarding the advantage of small size for a mirrorless system, this advantage is there because the present mirrorless cameras are small sensor cameras. As sensors get larger, it makes less and less sense to design a short flange to focal plane distance. The present K mount flange to focal plane distance is close to ideal for a 35mm film sized camera, no matter what the capture medium is.
It isn't ideal for APS-c, which would ideally have a flange distance of ~30mm.
All this still doesn't address the very real fact that the electronic viewfinders of mirrorless cameras suck at the present level of technology, and are, inexplicably, more expensive than SLR cameras, if I am not mistaken.
We are in agreement that a mirrorless full frame camera likely isn't going to happen, at least not until electronic viewfinders improve to the point of usability.
The advantage of the EV is that it can be made larger than that of a small sensor SLR finder, which seem to be tied to the size of the capture medium.
Pentax has not been at the forefront of the technology game for a very long time. The last big gamble they took (the 6mp full frame DSLR) is probably the one that cost them to the point they had to sell the company.
Electronic viewfinders may be inevitable, but I expect Pentax won't make one until the technology has matured to the point they are both better and economically more viable than a conventional SLR viewfinder.
This may well mean they never release one, as I have doubts about EV's ever improving to the point they are better than full frame SLR viewfinders. I truly believe that if they want to stay in the SLR game, they will have to offer up a full frame camera at some point, and I think sooner rather than later is what is needed.
What confuses the thing for me is the 645 digital. It has very little market appeal. If it is compatible with older 645 lenses, there will perhaps be a steady market for bodies, but they aren't going to fill their bank account off this camera.
However, they seem to be going ahead with it, and will have to make a few lenses available for it.
There is a possibility that they could get away with skipping the 135 format and calling the 645 their big gun digital flagship.
Historically, they survived for a very long time by selling consumer grade 35mm cameras and treating the professional market as medium format.
Staying with APS-C and offering the 645 digital would mirror what worked for them in the past.
I am surprised that the I-10 (?) isn't an electronic viewfinder camera. It's a catchy looking camera, and the fake hump is probably empty, so could hold the required doodads.
It would have been a very good vehicle as a first foray into the EVF market.
As it is, it is a bit of Pentax nostalgia that may or may not be cute enough to keep alive.

[Miserere]

How about the option: I would buy a NON-mirrorless LX with a digital sensor?

If Pentax managed to put out a DLX (with APS-C sensor is fine) for under $2,000, I'd most likely buy it. An EVIL LX? Probably not...but not because "I don't care. I prefer DSLR".

.

[Asahiflex]

OTOH there are no mirrorless FF mounts/systems out there and being the first there would be a real differentiator, if successful.

I thought the Leica M9 is exactly that, a mirrorless FF camera? However, it's not an EVIL camera because it does not have Live View on the 2,5" screen.

[PaddyB]

I haven't seen or read anything about this camera but I would wager it is just LX inspired in the same way that the K-7 is.

I would also guess that other new series will follow this ruggedness trend as well (perhaps not the Kx replacement as thats a different marketing segment).

For example, the LX inspired EVIL camera will have an LX inspired FF counterpart.

Thats my 2 cents (but a defunct currency no doubt). Maybe ogl knows more...

[Jasvox]

The Fat man walks alone. Diamonds are grown in Innsbruck. The Eagle has landed.

That's all I know right now.

Jason

[juu]

I'm in nearly perfect agreement with you, Wheatfield.

My understanding is that the DA*55 and DA*60-250 cover the 35mm frame, and I'd be quite surprised if the 200 and 300 mm lenses don't cover the 35mm frame as well.

Fair enough.

Regarding the advantage of small size for a mirrorless system, this advantage is there because the present mirrorless cameras are small sensor cameras. As sensors get larger, it makes less and less sense to design a short flange to focal plane distance. The present K mount flange to focal plane distance is close to ideal for a 35mm film sized camera, no matter what the capture medium is.

It seems kind of logical that if the lens is closer to the sensor you at least have the option to make the lens smaller - at least for wide angle lenses. But I'm no expert on optics so I cannot state it with authority.

All this still doesn't address the very real fact that the electronic viewfinders of mirrorless cameras suck at the present level of technology, and are, inexplicably, more expensive than SLR cameras, if I am not mistaken.

Well, they suck in some ways, but are better in others. However, for the FF camera which already has a large bright OVF the ways that the EVFs are better don't matter as much as for a smaller m43 camera (as you said in the next paragraph).

I truly believe that if they want to stay in the SLR game, they will have to offer up a full frame camera at some point, and I think sooner rather than later is what is needed.

I believe that the FF DSLR is a lot more likely and might even make more sense from Pentax at this point than a FF EVIL.

If the size advantage doesn't kick in for EVIL in the FF format then I don't think the other advantages outweigh the drawbacks yet.

What confuses the thing for me is the 645 digital. It has very little market appeal.

Agree. Unless they have figured out something that Hasselblad/etc. haven't then I don't see how it makes them a lot of money.

I am surprised that the I-10 (?) isn't an electronic viewfinder camera. It's a catchy looking camera, and the fake hump is probably empty, so could hold the required doodads.
It would have been a very good vehicle as a first foray into the EVF market.
As it is, it is a bit of Pentax nostalgia that may or may not be cute enough to keep alive.

I agree.