[photoptimist]

Why would people want to remove basic viewfinder functionality from the camera and go backward to the era before the SLR. Mirrorless is not an advancement, it's a regression to pre-mirror camera architectures.

Moreover, the fact that both Nikon and Canon -- the big boys -- failed to boost MILC marketshare over the 45% mark shows that the MILC bandwagon is a lot smaller than proponents believe.

Currently, the camera market forces users to decide between OVF and EVF cameras. The truly innovative solution is to combine them and offer a hybrid VF.

Thus, the ideal "mirrorless" Pentax camera is a DSLR with a hybrid EVF/OVF system. That provides the best of both worlds. It would provide an OVF for a non-TV screen view of the actual scene, low-power consumption, low sensor temperature, and a VF that even works when the camera is off. A hybrid VF would also provide an on-demand EVF for faster chimping, digital preview, and enhanced display data, live view operations, silent operations, etc.

[ChristianRock]

Why would people want to remove basic viewfinder functionality from the camera and go backward to the era before the SLR. Mirrorless is not an advancement, it's a regression to pre-mirror camera architectures.

Moreover, the fact that both Nikon and Canon -- the big boys -- failed to boost MILC marketshare over the 45% mark shows that the MILC bandwagon is a lot smaller than proponents believe.

Currently, the camera market forces users to decide between OVF and EVF cameras. The truly innovative solution is to combine them and offer a hybrid VF.

Thus, the ideal "mirrorless" Pentax camera is a DSLR with a hybrid EVF/OVF system. That provides the best of both worlds. It would provide an OVF for a non-TV screen view of the actual scene, low-power consumption, low sensor temperature, and a VF that even works when the camera is off. A hybrid VF would also provide an on-demand EVF for faster chimping, digital preview, and enhanced display data, live view operations, silent operations, etc.

You said it perfectly.

Every now and then I'll post a comment on those photography blogs (I guess out of boredom) that have articles like "why you should care that the DSLR is dying" - basically calling the premise of the article a lie. How can something be in its final breaths when it still outsells what is supposedly killing it? I also like to point out that the viewfinder is just a user experience thing, the chassis and engine so to say don't depend on the viewfinder so neither does the image quality. At. All. Not discounting user experience, but pointing out that it's a very personal and relative thing.

[RobA_Oz]

Every now and then I'll post a comment on those photography blogs (I guess out of boredom) that have articles like "why you should care that the DSLR is dying" - basically calling the premise of the article a lie. How can something be in its final breaths when it still outsells what is supposedly killing it? I also like to point out that the viewfinder is just a user experience thing, the chassis and engine so to say don't depend on the viewfinder so neither does the image quality. At. All. Not discounting user experience, but pointing out that it's a very personal and relative thing.

Funny that – I did much the same, probably on the same site, with the same article. I’m assuming it wasn’t DPR.

Still, you have to experience these things for yourself, to make a proper judgment. I find the more recent EVFs to be a big improvement over their predecessors, and they do have the same benefits and uses as Live View, without the same level of battery draw-down. However, the weight-saving benefits of MILCs are marginal to me, unless you move down one or two formats, or spend all your time with a pancake lens mounted. I recently bought the D FA*50/1.4, which might suggest I’m not one of the latter.

So, I’m another vote either for a hybrid OVF/EVF body, so long as it’s no bigger than the K-1/ii, or an interchangeable viewfinder body, as long as they can get the electrics and the weather-sealing right (and I’d be surprised if they couldn’t).

[Belnan]

No new mount needed, all new lenses need to be able to focus quick with on sensor, phase detection. The camera should be sleek, lightweight, fast, vintage looking and have good video specs. It MUST have an EV.

[monochrome]

No new mount needed, all new lenses need to be able to focus quick with on sensor, phase detection. The camera should be sleek, lightweight, fast, vintage looking and have good video specs. It MUST have an EV.

First solve the on-sensor PDAF banding issue and the headache-inducing refresh flicker of EVF (OLED will eventually fix that). Then I will still rather look through a VF than at a VF.

[Leumas]

Keep the K-mount. New mount is highly overrated. Physics prohibit much space saving, esp for FF. Look at Sony cameras, their bodies are compact, but lenses are huge and the whole setup becomes unbalanced much sooner.

The only way I'd be in for a mount change is if they somehow managed to get in on the L-mount alliance....

But I would love a mirror-less option from them

---------- Post added 10-23-19 at 03:37 PM ----------

Why would people want to remove basic viewfinder functionality from the camera and go backward to the era before the SLR. Mirrorless is not an advancement, it's a regression to pre-mirror camera architectures.

Moreover, the fact that both Nikon and Canon -- the big boys -- failed to boost MILC marketshare over the 45% mark shows that the MILC bandwagon is a lot smaller than proponents believe.

Currently, the camera market forces users to decide between OVF and EVF cameras. The truly innovative solution is to combine them and offer a hybrid VF.

Thus, the ideal "mirrorless" Pentax camera is a DSLR with a hybrid EVF/OVF system. That provides the best of both worlds. It would provide an OVF for a non-TV screen view of the actual scene, low-power consumption, low sensor temperature, and a VF that even works when the camera is off. A hybrid VF would also provide an on-demand EVF for faster chimping, digital preview, and enhanced display data, live view operations, silent operations, etc.

I disagree that mirrorless is a regression, but would not say no to a hybrid either. One that truly makes no compromises on the mirrorless portion of the opeteration.

[RobA_Oz]

Keep the K-mount. New mount is highly overrated. Physics prohibit much space saving, esp for FF. Look at Sony cameras, their bodies are compact, but lenses are huge and the whole setup becomes unbalanced much sooner.

The only way I'd be in for a mount change is if they somehow managed to get in on the L-mount alliance....

But I would love a mirror-less option from them

I think most people here would agree with keeping the K-mount, and I do, too. Nonetheless, I’m not as wary of adapters as others (if you look at things broadly, it’s not much different to having an interchangeable lens), but it makes sense to stick with the line of lenses you already have, unless you have money to burn (and Ricoh doesn’t, for its Pentax line, anyway).

On the other hand, who here would object to Ricoh branding its own line of L-mount cameras? Some might say that it would cannibalise part of the Pentax market, and that may be so, but it would extend the range of offerings and possibly bring in more nett revenue to the camera division. It might also detract from the development of Pentax lenses, but the lesson from the K-1 launch is that rebranding another manufacturer’s output can also work for you. A couple of your own primes and a few of someone else’s zooms is probably all that’s necessary, initially. More revenue means more development resources, provided you’re making a profit, of course.

From the looks of things, the forthcoming APS-C Pentax body is partially benefitting from the technology developed for the Ricoh GRIII, so there’s an obvious synergy between the two brands at work, which another line in a larger market segment might develop further. From the consumer’s viewpoint, the Pentax brand stays with what it’s good at, and potentially occupies a major space in the DSLR segment, if MILCs do climb out of their current stasis, while Ricoh takes a spot in the MILC segment. What’s not to like with that scenario?

I do realise there are other, less sunny scenarios, too.

[fs999]

IF Ricoh ever decides to do a mirrorless hopefully it would be less in weight than the current DSLR lineup., I'm playing with the idea of getting a Sony for my manual lenses to be able to use their live view and focus peaking. and it's mostly because of the lighter weight of an A7 II compared to the K-1.

The Sony A7R IV weights 345 grams less than a K-1 II. And if you subtract the converter (+/- 150 gr) you end up with only 200 gr less...

[Leumas]

I think most people here would agree with keeping the K-mount, and I do, too. Nonetheless, I’m not as wary of adapters as others (if you look at things broadly, it’s not much different to having an interchangeable lens), but it makes sense to stick with the line of lenses you already have, unless you have money to burn (and Ricoh doesn’t, for its Pentax line, anyway).

On the other hand, who here would object to Ricoh branding its own line of L-mount cameras? Some might say that it would cannibalise part of the Pentax market, and that may be so, but it would extend the range of offerings and possibly bring in more nett revenue to the camera division. It might also detract from the development of Pentax lenses, but the lesson from the K-1 launch is that rebranding another manufacturer’s output can also work for you. A couple of your own primes and a few of someone else’s zooms is probably all that’s necessary, initially. More revenue means more development resources, provided you’re making a profit, of course.

From the looks of things, the forthcoming APS-C Pentax body is partially benefitting from the technology developed for the Ricoh GRIII, so there’s an obvious synergy between the two brands at work, which another line in a larger market segment might develop further. From the consumer’s viewpoint, the Pentax brand stays with what it’s good at, and potentially occupies a major space in the DSLR segment, if MILCs do climb out of their current stasis, while Ricoh takes a spot in the MILC segment. What’s not to like with that scenario?

I do realise there are other, less sunny scenarios, too.

They would also offer a good K adapter for their L mount cameras. This would be the only way to do it. But I think we're going to see them going the way of hybrids right now. Which I'm all for. Best of both worlds honestly.
Their biggest obstacle is the common misconception that mirror-less is a more compact option... It's not, unless you go 4/3rds which I do have for compactness.

[RobA_Oz]

They would also offer a good K adapter for their L mount cameras. This would be the only way to do it. But I think we're going to see them going the way of hybrids right now. Which I'm all for. Best of both worlds honestly.
Their biggest obstacle is the common misconception that mirror-less is a more compact option... It's not, unless you go 4/3rds which I do have for compactness.

You’d hope that adapter would be an automatic response to the lack of OEM lenses. Getting the electronics to match up seamlessly between (at least) KAF4 and L-mount would be the trickiest part, but nothing that I imagine a competent electronics engineer couldn’t manage.

The hybrid OVF/EVF thing is intriguing, but so far there’s no sign of it emerging out of the patent. Still, Ricoh runs a conservative (in a good way) and tight ship as far as future product is concerned. Probably not as tight as Steve Jobs used to run Apple, but pretty tight.

On the compactness thing, while I agree that MFT is the extreme option for ILC systems (unless Ricoh decides to revive the Q line) the bigger MILC-makers have chosen not to go strongly in the compact lens direction, possibly for the same reason vehicle-makers have also gone large – customer perceptions of what they need (for physical or psychological reasons) have pointed them in that direction. Conversely, I didn’t know how much I’d like the D FA*50/1.4 until I got one, so I’m not immune from the twilight zone between need and want, either. At least I drive a small car (whose performance belies its appearance ).

[TLiivo]

Alright, so I looked a bit deeper into the LX camera itself and found this image in the review section:



Digital LX is looking better and better + the thing weighed 570 g, which is making the sub-800g Pentax Full-frame digital camera quite possible in my mind. It can have a pentaprism, but not necessarily. Custom viewfinders would be great and I mean pretty perfect for video, as well as for general photography. LX also had custom grips, just like the KP has. Which would open up some custom rig options for video as well.

I say keep the dials like they were on the old LX and:

• Add optional locking dials like the Fujifilm cameras have these days.
• Replace the film rewinder with an ISO dial.
• Add some customizable dials, front and back.
• Custom grip options.
• Custom viewfinder options.
• At least some good video options. (separate image profiles, smooth stabilisation, PDAF)

The thing would be pretty desirable already.


If not to say GOLDEN.

[wstruth]

The Sony A7R IV weights 345 grams less than a K-1 II. And if you subtract the converter (+/- 150 gr) you end up with only 200 gr less...

I was actually thinking of an A7 ii which weighs an extra 100 grams less ;-)

[reh321]

Part of the point of this camera is that it would continue to use K-mount lenses - just like the K-1.

You see, for me I would be happy with a new mount or even the F mount if it came with a K mount adapter in the box.

You can't adapt K-mount to F-mount. The F-mount flange focal distance is a bit longer than the K-mount flange distance but it's enough to make it so that you can't adapt K lenses to F-mount. You can adapt F lenses to K-mount but not the reverse.

Yes, but to me that was not the point. What each of us was saying in his own words was that Pentax needs to not leave the K-mount behind, just as Asahi did not leave the M42-mount behind when it switched to the K-mount. Today I do own several Asahi-manufactured adapters and several M42-mount lenses. As long as I can use those lenses - and modern K-mount lenses - in their natural state, I will be satisfied with any system.

[jarlaxle2k5]

Just grab the sony alfa series and print the pentax logo instead 😁

[Rondec]

I was actually thinking of an A7 ii which weighs an extra 100 grams less ;-)

The hard part with regard to weight is that build quality differs greatly between these cameras. The Nikon D750 weighs 750 grams while the A7 II 600 grams. Pentax could make a lighter weight SLR, they just would have to choose to use less metal and the camera would feel flimsier as a result.

The A7 II really doesn't feel very sturdy. But as you say, it is small. I'm not sure what the answer is. As Sony builds cameras with stouter builds, they also get heavier too.