KP-like mirrorless solution?

**acoufap** · 01-20-2018, 04:31 AM

For some circumstances like mountain hiking and street I‘d love to have a very lightweight small APSC setup.

What would you think about a Pentax solution, body KP-like (size similar EOS M5), mirrorless APSC with EVF (although I much more like an OVF), mount KAF3/4, basic short register distance standard zoom ~16-50mm (maybe RE) plus a Pentax standard KAF2/3/4 adapter with builtin motor to support KAF2 to adapt each other pentax K-Lens to start with.

Of course there should be a special offer „body + KAF2/3/4-adapter“ for us pentax users.

I don‘t ask if you think Pentax is able to develop and can afford such. I‘d only like to know if you also would like to see such an offer and what you think about it.

Ps. These thoughts came when I read about the mirrorless Canon EOS M5. Amazon-Ratings are not that bad. What do you think about the Canon solution?

**twilhelm** · 01-20-2018, 06:15 AM

With the size of the KP/KS2 I just don’t think there would be enough of a size/weight difference to justify the camera. I’d be more interested in seeing Pentax further the Q series.
If I want mirrorless, and size reductions, I’d probably go with a micro 4/3 system. But from what I’ve seen, I lose some of the size advantage when I compare the lenses to some of the Limiteds.

**acoufap** · 01-20-2018, 06:29 AM

Originally posted by twilhelm

With the size of the KP/KS2 I just don’t think there would be enough of a size/weight difference to justify the camera. I’d be more interested in seeing Pentax further the Q series.
If I want mirrorless, and size reductions, I’d probably go with a micro 4/3 system. But from what I’ve seen, I lose some of the size advantage when I compare the lenses to some of the Limiteds.

I once looked at the Q-Series - too tiny for me. I also checked a m43 system - Olympus OMD E-M1 Mark II and f/2.8 12-40 and 40-150.

I‘ve read a lot good reviews about this gear. After some research I can say the system costs more than 4000,- € in Germany and isn‘t a lot more lightweight as if i‘d go for a KP plus the lenses (but not that fast) I already have.

On paper 2.8 is faster than what I own. But I think the smaller m43 sensor compared to APSC let it be not that much in thin depth of field. An OVF f2.8 has the additional value of brightness. What it‘s worth for an EVF I don‘t know - maybe less noise, meaning a clearer view?

Buying the KP would be much better value concerning high ISO IMO. So in the end my demands don‘t cry for m43. Last summer I held the KP in hands and I liked it. So why not think about a mirrorless KP a little bit smaller than the original KP itself ...

**twilhelm** · 01-20-2018, 06:41 AM - **1 Like**

The big benefit of a mirror less system is the reduced flange distance to the sensor due to the lack of a mirror. This would require a new lens mount. Which would then require an adapter for the K lenses, thus we would lose the size advantage of it being mirrorless.

I agree with your comments, I like the Olympus m4/3 system, but it’s cost prohibitive. I also like the APSC quality compared to m4/3. I’m not sure how it would sell, but I think a revamp of the K-01 with a new sensor and optional EVF would Check a lot of boxes for people.

**acoufap** · 01-20-2018, 07:02 AM

Originally posted by twilhelm

The big benefit of a mirror less system is the reduced flange distance to the sensor due to the lack of a mirror. This would require a new lens mount. Which would then require an adapter for the K lenses.

This is exactly what I tried to say. For years I once photographed with a Canon EOS100 and only the Canon 28-80 standard zoom. It worked for me. But I have to say it was mostly family photography, so portrait / people.

If you use a Ricoh GR I/II you only have one focal length. So, for basic photographing a standard zoom with short register distance could be sufficient for many people. At least in the beginning. If we want more, we use the KAF2/3/4 adapter to attach all our other K-mount lenses. That makes it more bulky - of course. But it‘s an opportunity to deal with special situations, where we don‘t want to take a K-1, KP oder K-3 with us.

**monochrome** · 01-20-2018, 07:16 AM - **1 Like**

Why not just put an EVF on a KP and call it a day - KP-E? The Limited pancakes are certainly thin enough that the usable package is the same bulk as a current MILC. The 55~300 PLM RE is pretty compact also. They have the PLM tech, the electronic aperture tech, the thin body design and the KP image engine tech. Just source EVF tech and run with it.

**acoufap** · 01-20-2018, 07:31 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by monochrome

Why not just put an EVF on a KP and call it a day - KP-E? The Limited pancakes are certainly thin enough that the usable package is the same bulk as a current MILC. The 55~300 PLM RE is pretty compact also. They have the PLM tech, the electronic aperture tech, the thin body design and the KP image engine tech. Just source EVF tech and run with it.

My point was to get a bit smaller and lightweight than the KP - maybe similar the dimensions of a Canon M5. Only for that I‘d offer up an OVF. That was my starting point.

**monochrome** · 01-20-2018, 07:47 AM

Originally posted by acoufap

My point was to get a bit smaller and lightweight than the KP - maybe similar the dimensions of a Canon M5. Only for that I‘d offer up an OVF. That was my starting point.

I guess my point is we already have an M5 and Sony and Fuji and apparently Nikon.

What’s the MILC with Pentax DNA? I think you start with IBIS, WR, KP durability + IQ, updated PLM KAF4 DA Limiteds (the selling point) and compare the mass and volume of the camera system with the lenses mounted. And we wouldn’t have to wait for a full complement of primes either.

**acoufap** · 01-20-2018, 08:29 AM

Originally posted by monochrome

I guess my point is we already have an M5 and Sony and Fuji and apparently Nikon.

What’s the MILC with Pentax DNA? ...

Hm, DNA? - What you enumerate are important attributes of Pentax products. I love these too but I don‘t see why this should avoid to add other good attributes.

When the K-1 was introduced in a munich photo shop in April 2016 I said to the Ricoh representative that before I‘d go for a FF camera from another brand I‘d continue using my K-5.

He seemed a bit surprised and just looked at me. Then he made a special offer and I bought the K-1. Digital FF wasn‘t Pentax DNA either - but we got it. Great, isn‘t it!

**luftfluss** · 01-20-2018, 08:54 AM

Originally posted by monochrome

What’s the MILC with Pentax DNA? I think you start with IBIS, WR, KP durability + IQ, updated PLM KAF4 DA Limiteds (the selling point) and compare the mass and volume of the camera system with the lenses mounted. And we wouldn’t have to wait for a full complement of primes either.

My question is, can "Pentax DNA" be effectively communicated to neophyte shooters who do not have a pre-existing idea of it?

And here's a bonus question: Fuji's modern reputation as a maker of "photographers' cameras" is partially built on their lovely film simulations. Do you think Pentax would benefit if they did something similar with Kodak films?

**monochrome** · 01-20-2018, 11:52 AM - **2 Likes**

Originally posted by acoufap

Hm, DNA? - What you enumerate are important attributes of Pentax products. I love these too but I don‘t see why this should avoid to add other good attributes.

When the K-1 was introduced in a munich photo shop in April 2016 I said to the Ricoh representative that before I‘d go for a FF camera from another brand I‘d continue using my K-5.

He seemed a bit surprised and just looked at me. Then he made a special offer and I bought the K-1. Digital FF wasn‘t Pentax DNA either - but we got it. Great, isn‘t it!

DNA = the Brand attributes of Pentax cameras that carry over across APSC, FF and 645. DNA has nothing to do with sensor format or for that matter VF format. Unless Pentax can Design a different mirrorless camera there’s no reason to do one at all.

**monochrome** · 01-20-2018, 11:58 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by luftfluss

My question is, can "Pentax DNA" be effectively communicated to neophyte shooters who do not have a pre-existing idea of it?

And here's a bonus question: Fuji's modern reputation as a maker of "photographers' cameras" is partially built on their lovely film simulations. Do you think Pentax would benefit if they did something similar with Kodak films?

It goes without saying that Pentax will also have to promote the reasons to consider a Pentax mirrorless vs. the entrenched brand(s). If Pentax can license the Kodak name (which is easy) and design Kodak film emulations (Kodachrome Lives - in a Pentax), and market that with the legacy film optics design history (turn the FA Limited ‘film era lenses’ detriment into a positive attribute, along with backward compatibility to the film era) they should be able to sell that all day long.

But they’d have to spend money. And we both know they won’t do that.

Na Horuk · 01-20-2018, 03:58 PM

K-S1 is super compact. A bit older than the KP, but not outdated tech yet.
I don't think a mirrorless Kmount is coming anytime soon, since K-01 was hit with so much resistance (although, I love it and still use mine)

**monochrome** · 01-20-2018, 05:07 PM

Originally posted by Na Horuk

K-S1 is super compact. A bit older than the KP, but not outdated tech yet.
I don't think a mirrorless Kmount is coming anytime soon, since K-01 was hit with so much resistance (although, I love it and still use mine)

K-01 is a decent camera but they made every discretionary decision precisely incorrectly. The camera couldn’t overcome the sum of their errors.

A K-mount MILC optimized to APSc prime pancake lenses, designed to look like a camera with even a passable EVF would sell quite well, I believe, if they market the comparable combined mass and volume of a camera and lens together versus competition comparable lens FL.

**twilhelm** · 01-20-2018, 07:13 PM

Originally posted by monochrome

K-01 is a decent camera but they made every discretionary decision precisely incorrectly. The camera couldn’t overcome the sum of their errors.

A K-mount MILC optimized to APSc prime pancake lenses, designed to look like a camera with even a passable EVF would sell quite well, I believe, if they market the comparable combined mass and volume of a camera and lens together versus competition comparable lens FL.

Take the Q, enlarge it to APSC and K mount and give it an optional EVF for the hot shoe. That would look good enough I’d buy one. (And I really dislike EVFs)

Or, offer an optical viewfinder with bright lines for the 15/21/40/70 Limiteds. That could be a nice street camera.

01-20-2018, 04:31 AM	#1
acoufap Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: Munich, Germany Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 4,187	KP-like mirrorless solution? For some circumstances like mountain hiking and street I‘d love to have a very lightweight small APSC setup. What would you think about a Pentax solution, body KP-like (size similar EOS M5), mirrorless APSC with EVF (although I much more like an OVF), mount KAF3/4, basic short register distance standard zoom ~16-50mm (maybe RE) plus a Pentax standard KAF2/3/4 adapter with builtin motor to support KAF2 to adapt each other pentax K-Lens to start with. Of course there should be a special offer „body + KAF2/3/4-adapter“ for us pentax users. I don‘t ask if you think Pentax is able to develop and can afford such. I‘d only like to know if you also would like to see such an offer and what you think about it. Ps. These thoughts came when I read about the mirrorless Canon EOS M5. Amazon-Ratings are not that bad. What do you think about the Canon solution?

01-20-2018, 06:29 AM	#3
acoufap Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: Munich, Germany Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 4,187 Original Poster	Originally posted by twilhelm With the size of the KP/KS2 I just don’t think there would be enough of a size/weight difference to justify the camera. I’d be more interested in seeing Pentax further the Q series. If I want mirrorless, and size reductions, I’d probably go with a micro 4/3 system. But from what I’ve seen, I lose some of the size advantage when I compare the lenses to some of the Limiteds. I once looked at the Q-Series - too tiny for me. I also checked a m43 system - Olympus OMD E-M1 Mark II and f/2.8 12-40 and 40-150. I‘ve read a lot good reviews about this gear. After some research I can say the system costs more than 4000,- € in Germany and isn‘t a lot more lightweight as if i‘d go for a KP plus the lenses (but not that fast) I already have. On paper 2.8 is faster than what I own. But I think the smaller m43 sensor compared to APSC let it be not that much in thin depth of field. An OVF f2.8 has the additional value of brightness. What it‘s worth for an EVF I don‘t know - maybe less noise, meaning a clearer view? Buying the KP would be much better value concerning high ISO IMO. So in the end my demands don‘t cry for m43. Last summer I held the KP in hands and I liked it. So why not think about a mirrorless KP a little bit smaller than the original KP itself ... Last edited by acoufap; 01-20-2018 at 06:48 AM.

01-20-2018, 11:58 AM - 1 Like	#12
monochrome Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Working From Home Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 26,276	Originally posted by luftfluss My question is, can "Pentax DNA" be effectively communicated to neophyte shooters who do not have a pre-existing idea of it? And here's a bonus question: Fuji's modern reputation as a maker of "photographers' cameras" is partially built on their lovely film simulations. Do you think Pentax would benefit if they did something similar with Kodak films? It goes without saying that Pentax will also have to promote the reasons to consider a Pentax mirrorless vs. the entrenched brand(s). If Pentax can license the Kodak name (which is easy) and design Kodak film emulations (Kodachrome Lives - in a Pentax), and market that with the legacy film optics design history (turn the FA Limited ‘film era lenses’ detriment into a positive attribute, along with backward compatibility to the film era) they should be able to sell that all day long. But they’d have to spend money. And we both know they won’t do that. Last edited by monochrome; 01-20-2018 at 04:58 PM.

01-20-2018, 05:07 PM	#14
monochrome Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Working From Home Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 26,276	Originally posted by Na Horuk K-S1 is super compact. A bit older than the KP, but not outdated tech yet. I don't think a mirrorless Kmount is coming anytime soon, since K-01 was hit with so much resistance (although, I love it and still use mine) K-01 is a decent camera but they made every discretionary decision precisely incorrectly. The camera couldn’t overcome the sum of their errors. A K-mount MILC optimized to APSc prime pancake lenses, designed to look like a camera with even a passable EVF would sell quite well, I believe, if they market the comparable combined mass and volume of a camera and lens together versus competition comparable lens FL. Last edited by monochrome; 01-20-2018 at 05:12 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
KP vs K-70 - to KP or not to KP, that is the question	OldChE	Pentax DSLR Discussion	28	11-02-2019 05:29 AM
comprar una KP o pasarme al formato compreto (Buy a KP or switch to the full format)?	mariovidal	Pentax KP	5	06-29-2018 05:45 AM
Why Pentax KP? Para que la Pentax KP?	ZeaFoto	Pentax KP	16	06-14-2018 08:53 AM
Mirrorless sales collapsing worse than -30% in Japan the homecountry of mirrorless	beholder3	Photographic Industry and Professionals	21	04-05-2017 04:58 AM
Q Macro solution to work like 90mm on DSLR	Altglas	Pentax Q	6	01-14-2015 09:22 AM

01-20-2018, 06:15 AM	#2
twilhelm Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Florida Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,369	With the size of the KP/KS2 I just don’t think there would be enough of a size/weight difference to justify the camera. I’d be more interested in seeing Pentax further the Q series. If I want mirrorless, and size reductions, I’d probably go with a micro 4/3 system. But from what I’ve seen, I lose some of the size advantage when I compare the lenses to some of the Limiteds.

01-20-2018, 06:41 AM - 1 Like	#4
twilhelm Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Florida Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,369	The big benefit of a mirror less system is the reduced flange distance to the sensor due to the lack of a mirror. This would require a new lens mount. Which would then require an adapter for the K lenses, thus we would lose the size advantage of it being mirrorless. I agree with your comments, I like the Olympus m4/3 system, but it’s cost prohibitive. I also like the APSC quality compared to m4/3. I’m not sure how it would sell, but I think a revamp of the K-01 with a new sensor and optional EVF would Check a lot of boxes for people.

01-20-2018, 07:02 AM	#5
acoufap Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: Munich, Germany Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 4,187 Original Poster	Originally posted by twilhelm The big benefit of a mirror less system is the reduced flange distance to the sensor due to the lack of a mirror. This would require a new lens mount. Which would then require an adapter for the K lenses. This is exactly what I tried to say. For years I once photographed with a Canon EOS100 and only the Canon 28-80 standard zoom. It worked for me. But I have to say it was mostly family photography, so portrait / people. If you use a Ricoh GR I/II you only have one focal length. So, for basic photographing a standard zoom with short register distance could be sufficient for many people. At least in the beginning. If we want more, we use the KAF2/3/4 adapter to attach all our other K-mount lenses. That makes it more bulky - of course. But it‘s an opportunity to deal with special situations, where we don‘t want to take a K-1, KP oder K-3 with us.

01-20-2018, 07:16 AM - 1 Like	#6
monochrome Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Working From Home Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 26,276	Why not just put an EVF on a KP and call it a day - KP-E? The Limited pancakes are certainly thin enough that the usable package is the same bulk as a current MILC. The 55~300 PLM RE is pretty compact also. They have the PLM tech, the electronic aperture tech, the thin body design and the KP image engine tech. Just source EVF tech and run with it.

01-20-2018, 07:31 AM - 1 Like	#7
acoufap Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: Munich, Germany Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 4,187 Original Poster	Originally posted by monochrome Why not just put an EVF on a KP and call it a day - KP-E? The Limited pancakes are certainly thin enough that the usable package is the same bulk as a current MILC. The 55~300 PLM RE is pretty compact also. They have the PLM tech, the electronic aperture tech, the thin body design and the KP image engine tech. Just source EVF tech and run with it. My point was to get a bit smaller and lightweight than the KP - maybe similar the dimensions of a Canon M5. Only for that I‘d offer up an OVF. That was my starting point.

01-20-2018, 07:47 AM	#8
monochrome Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Working From Home Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 26,276	Originally posted by acoufap My point was to get a bit smaller and lightweight than the KP - maybe similar the dimensions of a Canon M5. Only for that I‘d offer up an OVF. That was my starting point. I guess my point is we already have an M5 and Sony and Fuji and apparently Nikon. What’s the MILC with Pentax DNA? I think you start with IBIS, WR, KP durability + IQ, updated PLM KAF4 DA Limiteds (the selling point) and compare the mass and volume of the camera system with the lenses mounted. And we wouldn’t have to wait for a full complement of primes either.

01-20-2018, 08:29 AM	#9
acoufap Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: Munich, Germany Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 4,187 Original Poster	Originally posted by monochrome I guess my point is we already have an M5 and Sony and Fuji and apparently Nikon. What’s the MILC with Pentax DNA? ... Hm, DNA? - What you enumerate are important attributes of Pentax products. I love these too but I don‘t see why this should avoid to add other good attributes. When the K-1 was introduced in a munich photo shop in April 2016 I said to the Ricoh representative that before I‘d go for a FF camera from another brand I‘d continue using my K-5. He seemed a bit surprised and just looked at me. Then he made a special offer and I bought the K-1. Digital FF wasn‘t Pentax DNA either - but we got it. Great, isn‘t it!

01-20-2018, 08:54 AM	#10
luftfluss Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: NJ Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 11,618	Originally posted by monochrome What’s the MILC with Pentax DNA? I think you start with IBIS, WR, KP durability + IQ, updated PLM KAF4 DA Limiteds (the selling point) and compare the mass and volume of the camera system with the lenses mounted. And we wouldn’t have to wait for a full complement of primes either. My question is, can "Pentax DNA" be effectively communicated to neophyte shooters who do not have a pre-existing idea of it? And here's a bonus question: Fuji's modern reputation as a maker of "photographers' cameras" is partially built on their lovely film simulations. Do you think Pentax would benefit if they did something similar with Kodak films?

01-20-2018, 11:52 AM - 2 Likes	#11
monochrome Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Working From Home Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 26,276	Originally posted by acoufap Hm, DNA? - What you enumerate are important attributes of Pentax products. I love these too but I don‘t see why this should avoid to add other good attributes. When the K-1 was introduced in a munich photo shop in April 2016 I said to the Ricoh representative that before I‘d go for a FF camera from another brand I‘d continue using my K-5. He seemed a bit surprised and just looked at me. Then he made a special offer and I bought the K-1. Digital FF wasn‘t Pentax DNA either - but we got it. Great, isn‘t it! DNA = the Brand attributes of Pentax cameras that carry over across APSC, FF and 645. DNA has nothing to do with sensor format or for that matter VF format. Unless Pentax can Design a different mirrorless camera there’s no reason to do one at all.

01-20-2018, 03:58 PM	#13
Na Horuk Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2012 Location: Slovenia, probably Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 11,186	K-S1 is super compact. A bit older than the KP, but not outdated tech yet. I don't think a mirrorless Kmount is coming anytime soon, since K-01 was hit with so much resistance (although, I love it and still use mine)

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

01-20-2018, 07:13 PM	#15
twilhelm Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Florida Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,369	Originally posted by monochrome K-01 is a decent camera but they made every discretionary decision precisely incorrectly. The camera couldn’t overcome the sum of their errors. A K-mount MILC optimized to APSc prime pancake lenses, designed to look like a camera with even a passable EVF would sell quite well, I believe, if they market the comparable combined mass and volume of a camera and lens together versus competition comparable lens FL. Take the Q, enlarge it to APSC and K mount and give it an optional EVF for the hot shoe. That would look good enough I’d buy one. (And I really dislike EVFs) Or, offer an optical viewfinder with bright lines for the 15/21/40/70 Limiteds. That could be a nice street camera.