i'm not necesseraly asking for a 200% maginification, but really 100% on APS-C is still small ...
Something like 135% should be good. it should create an APS-H VF

It depends on what crop factor you want to compare to.


The actual viewfinder found in a Canon 5D3 DSLR is visually just +31% larger than the one in the K-3 (and still larger than a D810 viewfinder). So if you compare to these consumer type DSLRs, you just need a little bit of more magnification and your 135% would already maker it larger than what the mass market now get's under the title "ff".


A Pentax MX or 645D or 645Z obviously are in a totally different league and there the difference to the viewfinders of larger crop factor cameras such as the Canon 5D is a LOT bigger (a whopping +131% step).


Imagine you had an even smaller crop factor such as a full 67 viewfinder...

[Rondec]

Nope, it will be a K-mount DSLR (they said that in interviews). It's illogical to base the 35mm product line on a failed project.

I don't see why a K-02 with a full frame sensor, EVF, body based image stabilization, PD AF on the sensor and more Pentax-like ergonomics wouldn't be a big seller. I think Pentax has indicated that they are keeping an optical viewfinder, so that's probably not going to happen, but if you want a small full frame camera, that would probably be about the best you could do, while still keeping the K mount.

I don't think the K-01 was a failed project, anyway. It was just a mis-informed project. They sold like hot cakes once they priced it normally. If it had launched at 500 dollars and dropped to 350 after several months, people would have been happy. Launching it at 800 dollars (I think that was the initial price) was crazy -- it was supposed to appeal to hipster, fashion oriented people. But it turns out that few of them were wowed by it and few sold (except to Monochrome) till the price dropped.

[Kunzite]

I can think of several reasons:
- it would be a pointless product, with a mismatch between the camera capabilities and the mount (registration distance). There is a perfect time to change the mount (with implications for the decades to come), and that is when you introduce a new, large sensor MILC system. You wouldn't want to make it K-mount at first, build up a line of K-mount lenses and later to change the mount, starting all over again.

K-01 was different in a significant aspect: it was meant as an experiment, a solution coming from a fund starved division which could not launch a new large sensor system. Even as an experiment it was supposed to have lenses specifically made for it, with protruding rear elements - no such thing was launched on the market, and I'd say this is telling about the project's success.
A FF product line won't be a mere experiment, Ricoh won't take such risks.
And if the K-01 sold OK-ish after a dramatic price cut, the DSLR line did much better.

- you'd have an unnecessarily large camera without the benefit of an optical viewfinder. In terms of thickness you'd save nothing; otherwise, it's just the PDAF system on the bottom and the pentaprism (replaced with an EVF which might be a bit smaller)

- the DSLR market is still significantly larger than the MILC one, and Pentax' traditional userbase are SLR users; IMHO a SLR will be better received by us (even assuming the same mount).

- I won't buy one.

[Rondec]

I can think of several reasons:
- it would be a pointless product, with a mismatch between the camera capabilities and the mount (registration distance). There is a perfect time to change the mount (with implications for the decades to come), and that is when you introduce a new, large sensor MILC system. You wouldn't want to make it K-mount at first, build up a line of K-mount lenses and later to change the mount, starting all over again.

K-01 was different in a significant aspect: it was meant as an experiment, a solution coming from a fund starved division which could not launch a new large sensor system. Even as an experiment it was supposed to have lenses specifically made for it, with protruding rear elements - no such thing was launched on the market, and I'd say this is telling about the project's success.
A FF product line won't be a mere experiment, Ricoh won't take such risks.
And if the K-01 sold OK-ish after a dramatic price cut, the DSLR line did much better.

- you'd have an unnecessarily large camera without the benefit of an optical viewfinder. In terms of thickness you'd save nothing; otherwise, it's just the PDAF system on the bottom and the pentaprism (replaced with an EVF which might be a bit smaller)

- the DSLR market is still significantly larger than the MILC one, and Pentax' traditional userbase are SLR users; IMHO a SLR will be better received by us (even assuming the same mount).

- I won't buy one.

Losing the mirror, even if the registration distance remained the same would decrease the size of the camera, at least somewhat. I think it would be crazy for Pentax to release a new mount unless they plan to completely abandon the K mount. As it is they have the Q Mount, the 645 mount and the K mount to support. To release a shorter registration distance camera would require a whole new line up of lenses. If Sony struggles to get those out for the FE mount, I would doubt even more Pentax's ability to do it. I also think that there when you are using full frame cameras, too small is a problem as well.

If an EVF decreases cost and makes the camera cheaper to produce and if it decreases the size of the camera, I don't see why Pentax wouldn't think about making another k mount mirrorless in the future.

[RobA_Oz]

Nope, it will be a K-mount DSLR (they said that in interviews). It's illogical to base the 35mm product line on a failed project.

I wasn't saying that. I actually said that the failure of the K-01 may have forced a re-think, if they were considering a 35mm sensor body based on it. I didn't say they might still have continued on with the concept, after the K-01 was obviously not succeeding. Let's be clear: I think there would be merit in building a mirrorless Pentax body of that type, but I wasn't suggesting it was likely.

[LensBeginner]

Nope, it will be a K-mount DSLR (they said that in interviews). It's illogical to base the 35mm product line on a failed project.

The K-01 was a design and marketing (and pricing) failure.
It is still a very capable image-taking machine, and its only downsides are probably:
1. fashionable design (that didn't appeal some, I personally don't mind it)
2. poor ergonomics (green and red button placement, small grip etc.), see point N.1.
3. kneecapped firmware (a lot of easy-to-implement functions are missing, software-side)
4. price at introduction too high for that feature set.

1. has already been corrected by firing Mr. Newson
2. Pentax can do that no problem, and has already proved it in countless DSLRs
3. top-of-the-line model gets all the functions, middle and entry-level products don't, it's as easy as that...
4. just set a price that matches the feature set.

As you can see it's more a marketing/product placement/management issue than anything else.
Obviously if they are going to call it K-02, then nobody will buy it, but that's only because the vast majority of people are, well, let's say highly opinionated and prejudiced...

[Winder]

More Doom and Gloom | byThom | Thom Hogan
I think Ricoh has tough decision. DSLR sales are falling. The market is getting smaller. Expanding into a contracting market is a big gamble. Mirrorless sales have been flat, but in a contracting market that's pretty good. People who would normally be DSLR buyers are moving to mirrorless.

[Rimfiredude]

Last weekend I went to Salon de photo (a pseudo-Photokina in France) and talked to some Ricoh staffs, they confirmed that Pentax (Ricoh) full frame will be release in 2015. I asked them if it's just some news or it's official and they reply without hesitation that it's now OFFICIAL !
So one more time Ricoh confirms their full frame release. It's just a matter of months. Prepare your full frame glass and wait for the beloved camera of all time
About the price, Ricoh says that it'll be more expensive than the K3 because of the sensor size (of course) but will be very competitive over other brands
Good news ^^

PS : photo of the Ricoh stand, nice and shine ^^

I am not going to start collecting more lenses because I will never be able to afford the FF camera. The MF lenses are the cheap part though.

[Kunzite]

Rondec: as I said, lack of a dedicated PDAF system and a presumably smaller EVF (I'll now add the mirror mechanisms, too) will make for a somewhat smaller camera than a DSLR. But, the baseline is the compact A7 series, with its compromises made for cheapness and compactness. They can't even get close to that, with a SLR mount.
I agree, it's not the time for a new mount; and they won't do it with a FF camera anyway.
And please note that I'm talking about the FF project when I'm saying (repeating what Ricoh said) it will be a DSLR. Perhaps an APS-C "K-02", this time with more backing and special lenses... but this is another discussion.

Rob: I was responding to "I can't help but wonder that their talk about a 35mm sensor Pentax body being "different" means they were thinking about an evolution of the K-01, and the market failure of that product (whatever technical benefits it may have had) forced a radical re-think". But a re-think of the K-01 is still a MILC, yet they clearly said it will be a DSLR.
Of course, there's the remote chance they changed their minds in the meanwhile.

LensBeginner: still, "fixing" a failed project when you have much better points of starting? Why the failed K-01 instead of the K-3?
4. means they couldn't sell the camera except at rock-bottom prices.

I don't think Marc Newson failed in his task - the only failure was to understand that people had formed a certain image of what a camera should look like, based on old, cumbersome relics of the past. He tried a modern design instead of retro.

[LensBeginner]

*snip*

LensBeginner: still, "fixing" a failed project when you have much better points of starting? Why the failed K-01 instead of the K-3?
4. means they couldn't sell the camera except at rock-bottom prices.

I don't think Marc Newson failed in his task - the only failure was to understand that people had formed a certain image of what a camera should look like, based on old, cumbersome relics of the past. He tried a modern design instead of retro.

Because the K-01 is a mirrorless and the K-3 isn't?
For what I care they could get out a DSLR FF, I'll be happy all the same. But since a lot of the talks revolved around a Mirrorless FF, and the Q line is too small for that...

Every time I look at the K-01 in my bag I think the same thing.
Then I hold it, or try to press the green button, and I think the exact opposite...
I don't care what a camera is supposed to look like, but I care about how easy/difficult it is to push the button you need when you need it.

[Kunzite]

It's not mandatory to make it a MILC, you know?
Should we forget about information from their Head of Business Development, and go on with baseless speculation?

[LensBeginner]

It's not mandatory to make it a MILC, you know?
Should we forget about information from their Head of Business Development, and go on with baseless speculation?

I obviously know, but then why not? I'd like it!
This whole discussion is based on baseless speculation, and that's at least half the fun of it!

[Kunzite]

Speculation, perhaps; baseless, I don't think so

[normhead]

In all honesty, maybe 10 people in the history of the forum have complained about the size of the APS_c viewfinder. Those who claim they have to have it, are probably right, there is some circumstance where they have to have it, I'm just not sure that this information fits anywhere in the big picture. for most of us. But I'll be happy to take on all comers here. Show me the images where you think you've done really well with MF and a larger view finder, and I'll show you my images that I think were done really well with an APS-c viewfinder and focus confirmation.... but, I'll just add, if you haven't used the 27 point K-3 viewfinder for focus confirmation you have no clue what you're talking about. Apart from just as good IQ as a D610 it's the biggest improvement in the K-3 and a huge improvement over a K-5.

Not even a K3, a K-5, a whole generation ago, A-400 , manual focussed with focus confirmation.


OK show me a similar image and show me how it's better because you manually focussed or you had a bigger viewfinder. OK< forget that even show me any image you think is better because it's manually focussed, or shot with a bigger viewfinder. Forgive me, but I see these conversations, and I don't have a clue what people are talking about, it just doesn't relate to my experience. And please don't even start the "well ya but it's easier, nonsense. Let's stick to things we can verify.

[rawr]

The best way to appreciate current viewfinders (like that of the K-5 and k-3) is to work your way up from pentamirror viewfinders like that of the K200D or K-x