[Clavius]

I would point out that video, contrary to what has been said is not without cost.
It is tied to live view, which means a terrific drain on batteries and even worse, increases heat and hence image noise. I will not be surprised if manufacturers release a 'stills only' camera in the interst of the ultimate image quality. Will that be Pentax? I don't know, but they sure have precious little to loose in the video department.

Pardon my ignorance. But I would imagine that the extra drain on batteries, the extra heat and image noise would not be an issue when not using the video function. IOW, I was under the impression that just the fact that a camera has a video function would not be detrimental to stills capabilities.

[eyeswideshut]

Surely that's simply not an issue if you're not using the video mode. Having video on a camera doesn't impact one iota on your stills performance, configuration, usability, battery life if you don't use it etc. It's like any other of the operational modes that you chose to use or not on the mode dial. If Pentax just made some smarter decisions on how they implemented video (stop assuming we want a substandard bitrate to save file size for instance?!) then even their existing products would compete much better.


Not having video makes it niche, which is cool and all, but you might as well drop live view, electronic levels, focus peaking etc as forms that aren't pure etc. The video mode just uses the same hardware in a different fashion, taking multiple pictures with an electronic shutter. It doesn't detract in a practical way at all. FF, being the same size as traditional film, seems like an ideal platform to go stills only though, given that would mimic traditional film most accurately. Frankly I expect they'd sell more of the video enabled product though, unless you want to compete directly with the Df from the get go?


The major obvious point of Pentax FF difference is to go mechanical stabilisation. They've done that for years, and it's in the Q even.

You see right through me . Indeed I would rather they dropped live view alltogether and throw out focus peaking, image magnification and a thousand other things while they are at it. Not because these sorts of things are not useful but because other cameras already have them in abundance. My ideal of a first Pentax FF would have 'back to basics' written all over it.

Now, I don't say that simply from some sort of romantic luddite impulse (although a mild disgust with featuritis does play into it). There have already been rumors before that Pentax engineers struggle with the larger sensor. We basically want Pentax to shake the sensor to a) clean it b) stabilize the image c) combat moiré and d) do whatever else the ingenuity of Pentax engineers can come up with. Then they must scale that contraption to full 35mm format, all the while increasing mass because on a live view enabled sensor heat dissipation becomes a major issue (wether or not you use it, it has to be built into it). And finally of course we want it priced less than the competition. I'm not an engineer but common sense tells me that something has got to give in this equation sooner or later and I am suggesting it should be live view (and inter alia video mode).

Isn't it intersting that Sony had IS on the ff A900 (no video) and then dropped in body stabilization on the A7/r but retained video? The a99 has both, but video is said to be horrible and it really is a MILC in DSLR clothing anyway.

So from my own very personal perspective I would like to see a digital K1000 with stellar iq and old style optical view finder (interchangeable). No customizable buttons please. Indeed - and now I'm taking my luddism to extremes - I would rather they dropped autofocus than compromise on the ground glass micro/split prism goodness of the viewfinder. If they can bring phase detection back in on the chip, fine. But if the price is a semi-translucent portion of the main mirror which then interferes with the viewfinder I would rather they didn't.

PS. This of course assumes they are working on a DSLR and not some MILC camera.

---------- Post added 23-06-14 at 15:30 ----------

Pardon my ignorance. But I would imagine that the extra drain on batteries, the extra heat and image noise would not be an issue when not using the video function. IOW, I was under the impression that just the fact that a camera has a video function would not be detrimental to stills capabilities.

Well, it would have to be built into the sensor unit, see my speculations above.

[ElJamoquio]

Considering the Nikon DF, which sell quite well as far as i know, Pentax can do that.

In fact, suppressing the video mod (but keeping the LV), would probably allow to reduce the size of the camera (thickness) due to the lesser need of dissipating heat. A small camera with a silent shutter
could be very appealing.

They can put video in another iteration of the body then.

I thought the df was selling poorly. I don't recall what I base this flaky memory on though so I could be quite wrong.

[clackers]

. My ideal of a first Pentax FF would have 'back to basics' written all over it.

With all due respect, EWS, your caveman style camera would do a lot of damage to both the Ricoh and Pentax brands.

[richandfleur]

With all due respect, EWS, your caveman style camera would do a lot of damage to both the Ricoh and Pentax brands.

Agreed. Hey I like the idea in concept, but personally I'd sink my money into something that could do video decently also, but that's just me.
Given we've only got ISO, Aperture and Shutter Speed to play with really, why isn't there a dedicated ISO dial for example?
Regardless though, retro styling is a likely fad will probably pass, and making a full monty FF mechanical digital camera is likely too niche for lots of sales, even if it was don't perfectly first time around.


Example review:

You Tube

You Tube

Basically I'm hearing that it shouldn't be image stabilsed because it takes up too much space.
And it shouldn't be video and live view capable, as that creates too much heat, and that requires more cooling/mass to dissipate it sufficiently, which in turn takes up too much space.


Mirrorless sounds like the way to go then, given it reduces all that extra space taken up by the mirror mechanism.


Actually, why aren't new DSLR's providing the type of features present in mirrorless cameras these days, for use in live view mode?
eg 10+ fps shooting etc. Mirrorless on it's own realy only saves size and removes the optical through the lens view, so why aren't DSLR's packing more punch than they are?


This has been mentioned previously to some degree, and I agree with it, in that how about we get a hybrid viewfinder? - You could get optical in DSLR/mirror mode, and electronic in live view mode / more appropriately mirrorless mode.
That could be quite a point of difference, merging the best of both worlds.


Most of this is not FF related sorry

[eyeswideshut]

Agreed. Hey I like the idea in concept,

Me too!

but personally I'd sink my money into something that could do video decently also, but that's just me.

That's OK, it is your money after all. However, virtually every single camera out there gives you video already and as I suggested, video is not without cost. There are trade-offs.

Given we've only got ISO, Aperture and Shutter Speed to play with really, why isn't there a dedicated ISO dial for example?

But why wouldn't/couldn't/shouldn't there be one? Don't take my remark about a digital K1000 too literally. A K1000 (I could have said MX or LX or whatever) just fits my theme of 'back to basics' well, that's all.

Regardless though, retro styling is a likely fad will probably pass, and making a full monty FF mechanical digital camera is likely too niche for lots of sales, even if it was don't perfectly first time around.

It is not really about retro styling at all. It is about a user experience that is focused on the essentials of photography and yes, sometimes the old styling was better at that. If you have ever shot those old lovelies for any length of time you know that they focus you in a peculiar way on the task at hand, in a manner that current DSLRs simply don't.

The question is what can Pentax give the photographic community that has not been done, that will ensure sufficient sales to make the sojourn in 35mm worthwhile. Offering either an uber-K3 à la CaNikon or a Sony A7 imitation will disappoint. True, it will give Pentaxians an 'upgrade path' if they really need it. But you and I know very well that anyone who Really Needs 35mm has long since gotten one from some other company. Anyone who needs 35mm plus very good video plus a very good stills camera already has a Canon 5d. Those who still do not have this, do not really need it and are thus not likely to shell out money on a Pentax imitation effort. Conversely, if it should be a mirrorless offering like the Sony's, Pentax will simply be late to the party. Most damaging of all, it is very unlikely that such cameras will entice users of other brands to switch.

Pentax needs a unique selling proposition and the answer I am proposing revolves around the optical viewfinder and points out some of the trade-offs involved in getting one that is really, really good.

There is a reason why manufacturers 'crippled' the viewfinder in the course of the last 30some years. They did it to accomodate phase detect autofocus. If there is a way of getting back to the quality finders of the past without giving up phase detection, well halleluja! I am all for it but I am not sure how, though. Interchangeable finders would be one way - optical pentaprism, waist level, electronic what have you. But again - it may be that the electronic finder will necessitate live view which might clash with ibis.

Basically I'm hearing that it shouldn't be image stabilsed because it takes up too much space.
And it shouldn't be video and live view capable, as that creates too much heat, and that requires more cooling/mass to dissipate it sufficiently, which in turn takes up too much space.

No. I plainly said that to the extent that there are trade-offs and choices to be made (and the example of Sony going from the a900 to their current line up of 35mm cameras suggests that there are trade offs) it should be live view / video that goes out.

Mirrorless sounds like the way to go then, given it reduces all that extra space taken up by the mirror mechanism.

That is a real option - but I already have the Olympus OM-D and it serves me well for the things it does well. Manually focusing lenses through an optical viewfinder, however, is not one of it's strengths . Same goes for the Sony's of course.

Actually, why aren't new DSLR's providing the type of features present in mirrorless cameras these days, for use in live view mode?
eg 10+ fps shooting etc. Mirrorless on it's own realy only saves size and removes the optical through the lens view, so why aren't DSLR's packing more punch than they are?


This has been mentioned previously to some degree, and I agree with it, in that how about we get a hybrid viewfinder? - You could get optical in DSLR/mirror mode, and electronic in live view mode / more appropriately mirrorless mode.
That could be quite a point of difference, merging the best of both worlds.

That could perhaps be done, but in terms of the 'best optical viewfinder' as I conceive of it it would probably be neither fish nor fowl.

Most of this is not FF related sorry

This is very much FF related. Larger sensor => larger Finder => nicer viewing and focusing.
I am just getting all excitetd about the usual stuff like mp, dr, dof and equivalism. But it is very much ff related.

---------- Post added 24-06-14 at 11:25 ----------

With all due respect, EWS, your caveman style camera would do a lot of damage to both the Ricoh and Pentax brands.

Neolithic? No. Basic - and good!

[richandfleur]

But why wouldn't/couldn't/shouldn't there be one?

Fully agree. I'd like to see that approach actually, something revolutionise the way the interfaces are presented.


How about dump the mode dial altogether?
Have 3 physical rotating dials, one for shutter speed, one for iso and one for aperture.
Have A options on all of them if you want to put that value into auto metered mode. Most of the present mode options are just combinations of this anyway.
Aperture is the tricky one, as the available limits must change based on the lens you had attached. Maybe an LCD above this dial, but which also had an A option too.


And you could switch between camera and video mode via a two option physical switch level also




Personally I'd love the idea of a retro approach, but one that was not just surface deep like others are presenting.
Something that was taking it seriously, which was designed to the core as something that did return you to that film era physical engagement in the photography process.


But I'd see it as very risky from a business perspective.

[jonby]

With all due respect, EWS, your caveman style camera would do a lot of damage to both the Ricoh and Pentax brands.

I have to chip in to disagree with this. I generally support where eyeswideshut is coming from here. Although I would advocate that Pentax's first FF camera should be relatively 'mainstream' (ie a FF K-3 with a few upgrades), I do think there is a gap in the market for an additional niche camera along the lines of what eyeswideshut is advocating, which I believe could be designed and manufactured with minimal additional R&D costs to Pentax and offered alongside the 'mainstream' FF camera. My ideas about what this camera should be are as follows:

This would be a stills-only, manual focus-only, RAW-only camera with contemporary controls and design. In short, a camera which generally puts the photographer in full control of all photographic parameters and removes controls not important to the photographic process, but which is housed in more or less the same body as the proposed mainstream FF. The removal of video, AF and JPEG capability would allow the simplification of hardware and software, repurposing or removal of control points and simplification of the menu system. There are at least 7 physical controls and ports on the K-3 relating to these systems for starters.

Money saved by the removal of these systems would instead be spent on an optical viewfinder capable of allowing the photographer to gain really accurate focus on the subject whilst composing, and to see as much detail as possible in their subject whilst also having a sense of the whole scene - two key photographic capabilities which have sadly been missing in the majority of cameras since the Eighties. How this is achieved exactly I'm not sure; a larger viewfinder magnification would certainly be needed; manufacturing tolerances relating to the focusing screen/mirror/sensor placement may need to be reduced, and probably some development would need to go into the focusing screen itself.

Although I don't agree with the opinion that top-plate manual dials for shutter speed etc are necessarily only about aesthetics and nostalgia, I personally find that the front and back e-dial system is generally a better way to do things, and I don't believe that a camera optimised for manual focus necessarily needs to have 'traditional' controls. A traditional shutter speed dial does not give direct access to fractional-stop speeds without requiring additional controls, which negates the 'simple interface' and 'constantly visible setting' advantages. The e-dial system could partially gain these advantages by making the shutter speed (plus ISO and aperture) visible on the top-plate LCD when switched off, and by finding a visual means of differentiating whole stop values from fractional ones in the same LCD. Maintaining a similar control system to current cameras would also help to keep design and manufacture costs down to a viable level.

Ok, so the idea of a DSLR without video, AF or JPEG capabilites is likely to be dismissed out of hand by many (it certainly has by the camera manufacturers to date); but is it so hard to believe that there is a substantial group of photographers who rarely use AF in their work, who always shoot raw, and who would heave a huge sigh of relief when all those buttons, icons and menu items that they never use are gone from their camera interface? Those same photographers will be even more pleased when they can accurately focus and view the effect of focus distance on the whole scene without resorting to a clunky live view interface. Almost every photographer will be pleased to have a large, immersive, uncluttered real-time view of the scene they are photographing, which is easily visible no matter what the lighting conditions.

This camera is likely to appeal to people doing considered work in landscape, cityscape, architecture, interior, product, studio and macro to name a few. In fact any work on a tripod or which doesn't include quickly moving subject matter would potentially be better done on a camera like this. That's a big market - and one which could extend to users of other systems, since no-one else makes such a camera.

Pentax will struggle to challenge Nikon, Canon and the others with technological innovation, but I believe with some clear (and bold) thinking about the primary purpose for which their tools are used - photography - they have a chance to regain some lost ground. The Df illustrates that Nikon are thinking along similar lines, and that there is a market somewhere on this ground. Fortunately for Pentax, they got it completely wrong. They couldn't decide whether it should be a rich guy's toy or a practical tool, tried to make it both and came up with something Mary Shelley might have dreamed up. I suspect the designers wanted to ditch AF and JPEG but got overruled after the director had a heart attack, while the e-dial and top-plate guys kicked the c**p out of each other before agreeing to keep both. Come on, Pentax - have the guts to do it right!

[clackers]

Ok, so the idea of a DSLR without video, AF or JPEG capabilites is likely to be dismissed out of hand by many

That's because it's nuts, Jonby, will lose money, and anyone developing it will have a hard time finding future employment.

But it's exciting and I'm giving you 5 million of my proxy votes for the next Ricoh AGM.

[eyeswideshut]

I have to chip in to disagree with this. I generally support where eyeswideshut is coming from here.

Welcome to the cave! And don't worry, it is not such a lonely place after all. I personally know no avid enthusiast photographer over the age of forty who does not wish such a camera were available. Plus it fits in marvelously well with Pentax' lens philosophy.

---------- Post added 25-06-14 at 09:41 ----------

But I'd see it as very risky from a business perspective.

No risk, no fun. And certainly not anymore risky than an uber-K3 with a full set of modern primes and zooms...

---------- Post added 25-06-14 at 09:45 ----------

That's because it's nuts, Jonby, will lose money, and anyone developing it will have a hard time finding future employment.

But it's exciting and I'm giving you 5 million of my proxy votes for the next Ricoh AGM.

Well that is just giving short shrift to what we have been saying. At least I tried to engage my grey matter a little to make my case plausible. How do you know that this would lose money and result in unemployment - or even worse 'unemployability' by dint of gross stupidity in their previous employ?
You may recall the excitement the Nikon df generated when first unveiled - and the great disappointment that followed when people realized it it really was just another very good camera and that 'pure photography' in Nikon's teaser ads only meant No Video! So that niche of excitement is where I believe Pentax ought to focus.

[Kunzite]

I'm all for focusing on the basic features - image quality, viewfinder, ergonomics, with lenses to match. However, I don't think they should do it by removing features. What would be gained? Remove AF, and modern lenses would become pointless; you'll get an expensive camera designed to be used with second-hand lenses. Remove stabilization and other systems where you have this choice would be more attractive. Remove live view and people using it won't be happy. It's difficult to both remove features and:
a. compensate through other functions
b. explain people why you did it.

Indeed, such a product would do a lot of damage and no, it would not fit into the Pentax' lens philosophy: the FA Limiteds are modern lenses, so are the * lenses.

Besides, too often I hear about this removal of features as a way of getting a cheaper camera. The same people would go Sony or second hand anyway, if having to face the reality i.e. a niche thus expensive product. Other times the justification is something like "force the customers to buy new products", as if we'd comply so easily (instead of getting angered when products are crippled for no good reason); for example, switching from in-body SR to in-lens SR for no reason other than this.

[eyeswideshut]

I'm all for focusing on the basic features - image quality, viewfinder, ergonomics, with lenses to match. However, I don't think they should do it by removing features. What would be gained? Remove AF, and modern lenses would become pointless; you'll get an expensive camera designed to be used with second-hand lenses. Remove stabilization and other systems where you have this choice would be more attractive. Remove live view and people using it won't be happy. It's difficult to both remove features and:
a. compensate through other functions
b. explain people why you did it.

Indeed, such a product would do a lot of damage and no, it would not fit into the Pentax' lens philosophy: the FA Limiteds are modern lenses, so are the * lenses.

Besides, too often I hear about this removal of features as a way of getting a cheaper camera. The same people would go Sony or second hand anyway, if having to face the reality i.e. a niche thus expensive product. Other times the justification is something like "force the customers to buy new products", as if we'd comply so easily (instead of getting angered when products are crippled for no good reason); for example, switching from in-body SR to in-lens SR for no reason other than this.

Thanks, but you are giving me a rehash of the same old litany . How do you propose to 'focus on the basic features' while simultaneously keeping every other feature known to man?

I went to some length to explain why imho there may be problems integrating sensor cleaning, shake reduction, anti aliasing filter simulation and live view in a 35mm sensor assembly (and put that all into a properly Pentaxian, read moderately sized, package). Certainly no one has done it yet and I believe the Sony example is instructive. The only camera that combines those features (minus anti aliasing) is the A99 and by common account it is not the best at shake reduction and downright lousy when it comes to video. Worst of both worlds type of solution. The Sony ILCs otoh seem to drop shake reduction in favor of live view / video. I am proposing to keep shake reduction and drop live view/video (remember the sensor noise and heat dissipation argument).

I also spent some time explaining how it was that autofocus and widespread use of zoom lenses led to changes of the optical viewfinder that have left manual focussing the unwanted bastard child of modern DSLRs. How would you fix that?

You yourself are forever arguing with everyone about ovf vs evf, dslr vs mirrorless, k mount vs something smaller and newer etc etc. So you know very well that there will be NO Pentax ff that'll please everyone. Whatever they do, someone will cry foul. Wether a proposal that does not meet with your personal approval will, however, do actual damage to the brand I leave for the market to decide.

As for cheaper, I cannot recall saying anything about prices. However, a $€ 4000,- ff Pentax will fly like a lead ballon.

[Kunzite]

I appreciate the effort put into explaining things, and I wouldn't dismiss it. Even so, we're not sufficiently understanding the implications of removing a feature, and what's required to improve on another.

In the case of SR, we have to properly balance the advantage of having a somewhat smaller camera to losing an USP (stabilization with all lenses). Neither of us have hard data on this, but I'd say SR should stay. They can't compete on size with the A7 series anyway, due to the registration distance and better build quality; they shouldn't even try. Pentax already makes SR-equipped DSLRs which are smaller than same-class Canon/Nikon cameras, so it's not like they are at a disadvantage in this regard.
Here's a cross section through 2 Pentax cameras, you can see not much would be gained by removing SR:
Pentax K-30 vs K-5 IIs Cross Sections - Photokina 2012 - PF Blog

Video is more complicated. First, I'm not sure why you think that removing videoor live view would save space? Hardware support is quite likely; off-the-shelf sensor (for a lower cost) + processor (likely shared with high-end APS-C models). Unless we're talking about something more drastic, e.g. a less powerful processor with a smaller buffer, but then not only video would have to suffer - all we're left with (to remove) are the connectors and internal microphone.
Cutting on video, IMO, is rather about things like 4K and stepless aperture and video AF.

The thing is, Pentax doesn't have to make products to please me; it just happens that I like the kind of products they're making What I'm trying to explain when I'm "arguing" is that very likely they will continue on the same direction. Any change or addition will have to have a strong reason, and be executed in a sensible manner (e.g. new MILC system APS-C first, then FF).
Talking about change, even Leica started to include modern features into M-series cameras. If a niche, luxury product addressed to the "retro" and "basic features" market had to include movie mode...

Indeed you didn't say anything about prices; my point is that this idea might have less support - from people willing to pay - than it appears at first sight (not restricted to this thread/forum). I agree that 4000 is too expensive, they should target first something closer to 2000-2500 (depending on the product). Well, that's what I would be willing to buy; and the thing is, if it's too cheap I might skip it
But the way of getting cheaper products is to broaden, not restrict its appeal. The "back to basics", no AF, no video, not even LV DSLR could very well cost $4000...

---------- Post added 25-06-14 at 03:48 PM ----------

How do you propose to 'focus on the basic features' while simultaneously keeping every other feature known to man?

First, I'm only talking about features which are already present in a Pentax - the K-3, and perhaps updating some in order to make the final product appear competitive when it would be launched.

One example would be a better optical viewfinder. Not as good as if removing AF altogether, but they could for example increase the magnification and eye relief, and use higher quality, HD coated optics. In addition, they could find a way to design new lenses (new DFA Limiteds?) for a long focus ring travel without impacting AF speed.
Interchangeable viewfinders would be nice, but that's too problematic (many components being in the prism housing, including the metering system).

[ChristianRock]

I don't understand why people want a camera with *only* the features they use, and want everybody else denied theirs. How egotistic and narcissistic can one get?

"I don't use video so NO ONE should be allowed to have it!"

"I only use RAW so JPEG should be OUTLAWED!!!"

Just use the features you want and ignore those you don't. Shheesh.

[eyeswideshut]

I appreciate the effort put into explaining things, and I wouldn't dismiss it. Even so, we're not sufficiently understanding the implications of removing a feature, and what's required to improve on another.

In the case of SR, we have to properly balance the advantage of having a somewhat smaller camera to losing an USP (stabilization with all lenses). Neither of us have hard data on this, but I'd say SR should stay. They can't compete on size with the A7 series anyway, due to the registration distance and better build quality; they shouldn't even try. Pentax already makes SR-equipped DSLRs which are smaller than same-class Canon/Nikon cameras, so it's not like they are at a disadvantage in this regard.
Here's a cross section through 2 Pentax cameras, you can see not much would be gained by removing SR:
Pentax K-30 vs K-5 IIs Cross Sections - Photokina 2012 - PF Blog

Agreed, and I never advocated removing shake reduction. It is Live View / Video that I'm after, more specifically the argument that there are no costs involved.

Video is more complicated. First, I'm not sure why you think that removing videoor live view would save space?

My argument was not space but heat and mass resulting in more noise and less battery life. Without being an engineer, I just have the sneaking suspicion that the sensor assembly is slowly being overwrought with too many 'goodies' and the example of Sony going from a900 to a7/r and a99 seems to bear that out. It would also jibe with rumors that circulated awhile back that it was precisiely the issue of scaling the sensor to 35mm while retaining all previous capabilities that was holding back pentax engineers.

Hardware support is quite likely; off-the-shelf sensor (for a lower cost) + processor (likely shared with high-end APS-C models). Unless we're talking about something more drastic, e.g. a less powerful processor with a smaller buffer, but then not only video would have to suffer - all we're left with (to remove) are the connectors and internal microphone.
Cutting on video, IMO, is rather about things like 4K and stepless aperture and video AF.

Yes, all of it most probable.

The thing is, Pentax doesn't have to make products to please me; it just happens that I like the kind of products they're making What I'm trying to explain when I'm "arguing" is that very likely they will continue on the same direction. Any change or addition will have to have a strong reason, and be executed in a sensible manner (e.g. new MILC system APS-C first, then FF).

That is also quite likely. I'm not trying to predict the future but merely point out a camera that noone makes and many covet.

Talking about change, even Leica started to include modern features into M-series cameras. If a niche, luxury product addressed to the "retro" and "basic features" market had to include movie mode...

True enough and I admire the way Leica transitioned their M series from film to digital (well probably excluding the somewhat ill fated M8) while remeaining true to the spirit of the camera. I would love a similar feat from Pentax. The modern features (evf, live view, video) are only skin deep and can be taken off - and of course they don't do image stabilization on the sensor level - or any level for that matter.

Indeed you didn't say anything about prices; my point is that this idea might have less support - from people willing to pay - than it appears at first sight (not restricted to this thread/forum). I agree that 4000 is too expensive, they should target first something closer to 2000-2500 (depending on the product). Well, that's what I would be willing to buy; and the thing is, if it's too cheap I might skip it
But the way of getting cheaper products is to broaden, not restrict its appeal. The "back to basics", no AF, no video, not even LV DSLR could very well cost $4000...

Agreed on the likely price point, but I beg to disagree on the poor sales outlook. I have said this before - all proposals I have read on this ff sub-forum basically suggest either a better CaNikon or a better Sony a7/r (and sometimes even a lesser camera if the price is right). None of that will likely elicit more than a passing yawn from users of those brands. Pentax, however, relying solely on upselling good Pentaxians to ff will likely find that 'PentaxIsDoomed'.

A bitchin' viewfinder on the other hand (and I won't explain again why that seems to clash with af/slow zooms and perhaps video ) will get the world's attention and more than a few passing sales to CaNikon users as well as Pentaxians. Hell, even Leica users will be reminded why 'their' company almost didn't make it into the twentyfirst century. To paraphrase Bill Clinton: It's the viewfinder, stupid!


---------- Post added 25-06-14 at 03:48 PM ----------

First, I'm only talking about features which are already present in a Pentax - the K-3, and perhaps updating some in order to make the final product appear competitive when it would be launched.

One example would be a better optical viewfinder. Not as good as if removing AF altogether, but they could for example increase the magnification and eye relief, and use higher quality, HD coated optics. In addition, they could find a way to design new lenses (new DFA Limiteds?) for a long focus ring travel without impacting AF speed.
Interchangeable viewfinders would be nice, but that's too problematic (many components being in the prism housing, including the metering system).

Good and true. Pentax should remember that for FullFrame#2.