[plooksta]

You should never go full retro right? Wrong.

Fuji have launched a range of cameras with shutter dials, aperture rings, iso dials, EC dials, and folks just dig them. I don't know anyone that doesn't. For me at least, they look awesome, they feel natural and you always know what your camera is thinking - so photography is easier. Not quite so with the all electronic, two stepped interface we are used to. By two stepped I mean, you are a control step further back from the raw control that real retro cameras give you.
I mean look at the X100 series, look at the XT-1, the X-pro 1 etc. They're so damn right. And that's why people are buying them in droves. Ok, the Nikon Df, was off mark, silly mistake - due to trying to integrate too much automation within retro styling. Hence, too many design conflicts.

So, with the KP, which seems to have a lot of folks scratching heads saying, where does it sit? Is it a K-3 ii replacement? No, it can't be, etc. I think it would have made a lot of sense if Pentax had made this FULL RETRO, with some real top level controls (by top level I mean direct, one level of input) a la Fujifilm and then we would have had a winner.
As it is, it seems to exist in parallel, the frankenstein offspring of a K-70 and a K-3ii with K-1 styling cues. Duh-what? Why? If you are going to launch a new product it has to be something new for people to want it. At least, new enough. And here, well, maybe a better IBIS is nice, and maybe nice to have wifi, but this doesn't seem to be nearly new enough to sway me away from the already excellent K-3 ii or K-70 which kind of do the same thing, almost exactly. If these were cars, this would be like a choice between heated seats and electric windows. Not a choice between the automatic and the manual - when the manual is what we were really after!!

Doh, Pentax, you could have done it so well. Gotta go full retro.

---

Last edited by plooksta; 01-27-2017 at 04:27 PM.

[caliscouser]

Each manufacturer has to carve out their own niche in a shrinking market whilst simultaneously not alienating its installed user base (a conservative one in the case of Pentax) and attract both new users and crossover users from other systems.
Looks and design are ultimately subjective.
Manufacturers have a very fine line to walk and have to make careful trade-offs and compromises to please the most possible people.

Anyway I would argue that the K-7/K-5/K-3 line has far more retro design cues than any of its Nikon or Canon counterparts. Are they like Fuji's, no? But how big is the market for full retro cameras? and is it a bit of a temporary fad?

[Gyroscope]

I think it finds a balance between traditional looks and the Pentax UI. I don't want to have two pentax cameras that work in different ways. I also appreciate the styling cues of the K1 carrying across and I think we can get a good idea where the K3 succesor is going.

One of the huge positives about the Pentax ecosystem is that if (or when) I buy the K3 successor I will have a medium format, full frame and APS-C camera that all have similar and familiar user interfaces and operations that all share batteries and flashes. A full retro camera would end up being a niche camera. Pentax is already niche why would they make an even more niche camera?

[jpzk]

You should never go full retro right? Wrong.

Fuji have launched a range of cameras with shutter dials, aperture rings, iso dials, EC dials, and folks just dig them. I don't know anyone that doesn't. For me at least, they look awesome, they feel natural and you always know what your camera is thinking - so photography is easier. Not quite so with the all electronic, two stepped interface we are used to. By two stepped I mean, you are a control step further back from the raw control that real retro cameras give you.
I mean look at the X100 series, look at the XT-1, the X-pro 1 etc. They're so damn right. And that's why people are buying them in droves. Ok, the Nikon Df, was off mark, silly mistake - due to trying to integrate too much automation within retro styling. Hence, too many design conflicts.

So, with the KP, which seems to have a lot of folks scratching heads saying, where does it sit? Is it a K-3 ii replacement? No, it can't be, etc. I think it would have made a lot of sense if Pentax had made this FULL RETRO, with some real top level controls (by top level I mean direct, one level of input) a la Fujifilm and then we would have had a winner.
As it is, it seems to exist in parallel, the frankenstein offspring of a K-70 and a K-3ii with K-1 styling cues. Duh-what? Why? If you are going to launch a new product it has to be something new for people to want it. At least, new enough. And here, well, maybe a better IBIS is nice, and maybe nice to have wifi, but this doesn't seem to be nearly new enough to sway me away from the already excellent K-3 ii or K-70 which kind of do the same thing, almost exactly. If these were cars, this would be like a choice between heated seats and electric windows. Not a choice between the automatic and the manual - when the manual is what we were really after!!

Doh, Pentax, you could have done it so well. Gotta go full retro.

Good luck with ever having a "Full Retro" Pentax camera "à la Fuji" !
I am in total agreement with what someone said earlier : "One of the huge positives about the Pentax ecosystem is that if (or when) I buy the K3 successor I will have a medium format, full frame and APS-C camera that all have similar and familiar user interfaces and operations that all share batteries and flashes. A full retro camera would end up being a niche camera. Pentax is already niche why would they make an even more niche camera?"
by gyroscope.

[awscreo]

To me Pentax has the right mixture of retro and modern. Any product design is a personal choice, vote with your wallet.

[Not a Number]

The Pentax Q-S1 wasn't retro enough for you?

[clackers]

Full retro seemed such a great idea to the Nikon Df's designers! Wonder whether they still work for the company?

[Not a Number]

Where's the film advance lever?

[Tony Belding]

The KP's styling is an apology for the K-S1. It's as far the opposite direction as you can go, even though they are both products of similar category: compact mid-range DSLRs.

Pentax have never done a retro camera. They don't know how. I don't think they can. They sort of tried with the MX-1, but it didn't really look much like any vintage camera and certainly didn't operate anything like one. They sort of seemed to try with the Q-S1, but the result was just a Q7 that took a few hard whacks from the ugly stick. The K-1 and KP both seem to have a few "design language" hints of past film cameras, but the outcome seems more homely than nostalgic, and again the control schemes are just wacky.

It's quite a contrast against Fujifilm, who do retro like they really mean it.

[awscreo]

The KP's styling is an apology for the K-S1. It's as far the opposite direction as you can go, even though they are both products of similar category: compact mid-range DSLRs.

Pentax have never done a retro camera. They don't know how. I don't think they can. They sort of tried with the MX-1, but it didn't really look much like any vintage camera and certainly didn't operate anything like one. They sort of seemed to try with the Q-S1, but the result was just a Q7 that took a few hard whacks from the ugly stick. The K-1 and KP both seem to have a few "design language" hints of past film cameras, but the outcome seems more homely than nostalgic, and again the control schemes are just wacky.

It's quite a contrast against Fujifilm, who do retro like they really mean it.

What's so wacky about K-1 control scheme?

[Not a Number]

Are you wanting a K-1 in a MX body?

Ain't gonna happen. You'd need a smaller battery, get rid of the space wasting SR mechanism, GPS, larger mirror and near 100% viewfinder (smaller pentaprism), no onboard flash, get rid of motor drive/continuous mode (smaller motor and mirror mechanism) and so for.

Maybe you'd end up with the intro FF camera that some people are screaming for but I doubt even they would buy it.

[Adam]

I think the retro ship has sailed. Classic looks are nice, but not at the expense of functionality or handling (which is usually where the compromise lies).

That said, a full-blown manual FF DSLR like the K1000 would be very very interesting, but maybe it's not feasible from a business standpoint.

[Not a Number]

That said, a full-blown manual FF DSLR like the K1000 would be very very interesting, but maybe it's not feasible from a business standpoint.

Maybe Ricoh could license the K-mount to a Chinese company like Seagull. They could add back the aperture linkage which would cause a lot of people to do backflips.

[Tony Belding]

What's so wacky about K-1 control scheme?

The "smart dial". Dial with cryptic markings that controls what the other, unmarked, dial does?

I thought my K-S2 was bad enough with its AUTO / SCN / A-HDR / U1 / U2 / B / M / TAv / Av / Tv / Sv / P dial. Then Pentax hit us wit the K-1 and its smart dial. Then we got the KP that has multiple dials with cryptical markings, including a dial that controls another dial. This looks to me like a descent into madness.

Again, contrast with Fujifilm. . . Numbered ISO dial, numbered shutter speed dial, aperture ring on the lens. Anybody who's been exposed to photographic principles can pick it up and understand it.

[awscreo]

The "smart dial". Dial with cryptic markings that controls what the other, unmarked, dial does?

I thought my K-S2 was bad enough with its AUTO / SCN / A-HDR / U1 / U2 / B / M / TAv / Av / Tv / Sv / P dial. Then Pentax hit us wit the K-1 and its smart dial. Then we got the KP that has multiple dials with cryptical markings, including a dial that controls another dial. This looks to me like a descent into madness.

Again, contrast with Fujifilm. . . Numbered ISO dial, numbered shutter speed dial, aperture ring on the lens. Anybody who's been exposed to photographic principles can pick it up and understand it.

Erm, I quite like the smart dial. I use it to reach functions otherwise only available via menus (like wifi or bracketing) . Saves time. Or not, if you want a manual dial for each function, maybe we will see a camera with 38 marked dials for each function of the camera, who knows. You see numbers for shutter/aperture/iso etc in the ovf, live view screen, and the lcd screen up top. Unless you shoot without looking at the camera at all you simply cannot avoid it, although if you're not looking at the camera, how would you see the marked vintage dials? Anyway, it's a matter of preference and I guess personal experience.