[biz-engineer]

Is it just me that feels like the Pentax K1 looks a little too thick for the FA and (new) D-FA limited lenses?
What would be the ways to make a Pentax full frame camera body with a form factor closer to film SLR bodies?
I'm not looking for low priced camera body like in other threads.

I start:
- remove back LCD, review images on smartphone
- mother board electronics with a rectangle hole in the center to let the SR + sensor block move back a few mm
- use metal finish body to match the aluminum / alloy finish of limited lenses

---------- Post added 19-10-21 at 08:19 ----------

Looking at camera size : Compare camera dimensions side by side

- Nikon Df is 66.5mm thick
- Pentax K1 is 85.5mm thick

[house]

Yes I hope its Pentax next challenge to make a thinner ff DSLR! Its a really important step in achieving the pentax values. Its probably the only thing that could, perhaps make me buy a new camera before the current one breaks.

I think they could be radical about what they remove to make it happen. They charge so much for their gear now that perhaps they could produce things that are great but sell in small numbers.

Its not just the limiteds though. All primes (dfa* excluded) look to small on the camera. The DFA2.4/21 is large as well.

The thickness of the K-1 is its main downside. I disagree about the silver finish though. I want it black.

[wadge22]

I think they look pretty good. If anything the lenses could be larger diameter for K1 stylishness; I find that 77mm or more filter thread lenses look nicest on K1.

Maybe if the three amigos were updated with WR, DC, KAF4, and a D in front of the name, they could be restyled with K1iii in mind, as opposed to the other way around. As nice looking as they made this new 21, I have to assume they were looking at it mounted on a K1.


Playing along, though, I'm seeing the film bodies were wider than K1 (almost always proportionally, and usually in absolute numbers too). I wonder if making this FF DSLR 20mm or more wider would allow to displace some innards and reduce height and depth by a little. I wouldn't be surprised if not, however, since I'm sure those dimensions have some inescapable minimum constraints.

Still, a wider body would (or at least could) have a more oldschool SLR look.

Make the K1 175mm wide (yikes!), otherwise the same, and it is almost exactly like a 1.15x scaled Z1 in proportions. If you can shave 5mm depth and 8mm height, and you only need 165mm width to keep that shape (at 1.08x Z1 scale).

Of course, that's making the camera bigger, which I guess is the opposite of what you're looking for. Are we mad at the thickness because of styling, or because it's just too thick?

I personally kind of like that squat chunky look. Is it maybe slighty medium formattish? I dunno. One way or atother, the bigness reminds me that I finally bought myself a truly nice camera, which I like.

Hey, if your 77 Limited doesn't look right, just try DFA*85. Problem solved right there!


Now just one more thing tho... I surely wouldn't want to be without at least some screen on the body. I hate smartphones like poison. I don't need flippiness or touch, but I need a screen on my camera.

[sbc]

This must be what the K-3III designers had in mind when they forgo the flippy screen.

[GUB]

- remove back LCD, review images on smartphone

How about a second eyepiece with the back lcd as an EVF.
That would suit me a treat - I operate with a accessory loupe on the lcd.
I have never seen the sense in having the lcd right where your nose huffs all over it!

But when you put an older SLR beside it there is still a lot more thickness even without the flippy setup.
PS I love the flippy setup!

[house]

The only dimension of the K-1 that is too big is the depth imho. I wouldn't be to bothered with a few mm wider. Making the FA ltd's larger certainly isn't a solution It's not primarily a visual issue but a handling issue. You're basically wasting the small size of those petite lenses by mounting them on that fat body.

It's pretty obvious from the cut cameras that the ibis and the screen are the depth producing items. The moon lander really has some depth to it. Removing the rear screen is pretty radical though and I think you need a way of displaying a histogram. If you replace the top screen with more flexible tech and make it larger you could perhaps fit a histogram there. Or even over exposure blinkies. Just indicate where in an empty frame it's overexposed. If this works like a configurable 3sec preview where it shows blinkies/histogram after you take the shot for a set amount of time. Perhaps it could be an e-ink screen to save battery. You don't really need instant response.

If they manage to make a hybrid ovf this could all go in there of course. I woudn't like a ovf full of info though, even for a hybrid ovf I'd prefer a histogram that pops up as a 3sec review thing. I want it as a confirmation not as clutter whilst composing.

It's tricky for me as I do a fair bit of tripod shooting where I use the rear screen. I do think it's worth it for me to forego the screen for a nicer handling camera though.



Off topic but I found this 645 cut through and was surprised to see the amount of air behind the sensor. You could almost halve the depth!


Turns out e ink screens can be made only 0,3mm thick, show colour and have a decent framerate. There could be lots of innovative ways for showing sharpness and exposure info on such a screen. UI refresh rate should be good enough to be workable as well.

You Tube

You Tube

You Tube

You Tube

[biz-engineer]

The only dimension of the K-1 that is too..

Nice images. When looking at them, it looks like the depth behind the sensor is roughly 25% to 30% of the total depth behind the lens mount. I don't have a film camera here , so I can't tell, but on a film SLR the camera back is right behind when the sensor is now on the K1, that's quite a bit less depth for the film body.

[AfterPentax Mark II]

Funny, I always thought that the K-1 would be too thick and heavy for my hands and about four weeks ago I held one and I found it actually small and not too heavy compared with my K-3 II.

[biz-engineer]

I held one and I found it actually small and not too heavy compared with my K-3 II.

That's right, Pentax K1 body only isn't much larger than K3 or K3iii, and the K1 is one of the smallest DSLR. What changes is with lenses attached. The D-FA 24-70 is feels upper size range for the K1 body, but the D-FA 28-105 feel a bit undersized for the K1, same for my FA 35, D-FA 50, and D-FA 100 (all undersized).

[StiffLegged]

Remembering recent threads about the K3iii, the forum would probably explode were Pentax to produce a DSLR without any rear screen.

Methinks an extra-thin K-whatever would cool its sensor on the user’s cheek, especially filming 8K.

[Fogel70]

Is it just me that feels like the Pentax K1 looks a little too thick for the FA and (new) D-FA limited lenses?
What would be the ways to make a Pentax full frame camera body with a form factor closer to film SLR bodies?
I'm not looking for low priced camera body like in other threads.

I start:
- remove back LCD, review images on smartphone
- mother board electronics with a rectangle hole in the center to let the SR + sensor block move back a few mm
- use metal finish body to match the aluminum / alloy finish of limited lenses

---------- Post added 19-10-21 at 08:19 ----------

Looking at camera size : Compare camera dimensions side by side

- Nikon Df is 66.5mm thick
- Pentax K1 is 85.5mm thick

A big part of the difference in thickness between K-1 and Df is the size of the grip and overhanging prismhousing. I believe the prismhousing add something like 15 mm to the thickness of K-1.
Comparing from the front of the mount to the back of the camera and the difference is much smaller than indicated above.

If using a fixed LCD on a Pentax DSLR the distance between mount and rear will be approximately the same as on Df.

[house]

That's right, Pentax K1 body only isn't much larger than K3 or K3iii, and the K1 is one of the smallest DSLR.

But is it the thickest DSLR? It may well be, it's amongst the fattest that's for sure. Grip and prism don't matter that much because any lens makes it deeper anyway. The issue is the body depth which makes handling annoying.

The K-3/K-1 difference isn't huge in mm and grams but to me it's enourmous in terms of handling. Having the K-3 across your shoulder is fine a day out and about, the K-1 is to clumsy. Like having a small unbalanced bowling ball attached to a string

I've said it before it's great in the moment of composing and shooting but it's not great carrying around. Something about the shape and weight distribution I think. People shooting DFA*70-200's won't notice but with small primes you will.

Comparing the base plate between the Df and the K-1 it doesn't look to bad but you can see that the K-1 looks like it's been inflated and the mount pushed out.

[JPT]

The K-01 is the thinnest K-mount digital camera Pentax has made. It was 59mm from the mount to the screen. It did have SR and a non-articulating screen. So I think it's theoretically possible to do that with FF as well. I know that the K-1 is considerably thicker than that.

The other part is the prism overhang, which makes the camera look quite bulky. The K-3 III is a complete redesign of that, and it looks better for it. I expect them to apply that to all cameras.

If Pentax could come out with a compact FF K-mount camera, I might suddenly get interested in the full frame format. At the moment, it's just too big. It undermines all the good work they have done to make compact primes like the FA Limiteds.

I'm not saying they should stop making the bulky cameras with all the bell and whistles. I'm just saying they should add a smaller model for people who don't want that.

[biz-engineer]

The K-01 is the thinnest K-mount digital camera Pentax has made.

The K-01 doesn't have the mirror box / ovf thing. Is there is cross-section so we can see how K-01 is inside?

[house]

Just thought of a K-1 vs K-3 comparison