[crewl1]

Another we wil never see: K-FF

(Someone had to say it .)

[Na Horuk]

Maybe the naming makes more sense in Japan? I mean, in the language, culture, fads/trends there, etc.
But also Pentax doesn't have to be "consistent" or anything like that with the names. They might as well call their next camera the K-6.5
Sure, it would be easier for us Pentaxians if there was a logical progression and a simple naming scheme, but I doubt that's in the cards. The other brands aren't doing it, either, at least not strictly

[DennisH]

Since the first one was *ist D, I suppose we should be happy we can even pronounce the names.

[ecky]

Whats wrong with Asteriskistdee?

There is some logic

K20D -> K-7 = different body design
K-7 -> K-5 = different sensor
K-5 -> K-3 = different sensor
K-5 -> K-5 II = minor improvements
K-5 -> K-3 = different sensor

So with this logic the next one is K3 II or K-1 unless they redesign the body?

[DennisH]

Is the K-1 the last camera they'll ever make? Pentax is doomed by its own naming system!

[Homo_erectus]

Naw, they'll just flip into positive numbers then. K+1, K+3, etc

[Tanzer]

After which they will have covered *, -, and +. So then "/" would probably come next.

[DennisH]

That's a relief; I thought we had a Y2K thing happening.

Incidentally, Y2K is also a possible name.

[i83N]

K-50>K-70 i thnk

[Asahiflex]

Joking aside: what about KR-XX? As the Ricoh SLR's were called way back then.

[tabl10s]

Let's try find logic in naming
K-7>K-5>K-5ii(s)>K-3>K-?
K-x(10?)>K-30>K-50>K-?

Sony's first upscale CD player was the 'X7 which led to the X77 which gave birth to the '777 then the '779. Nothing after that.

[stevebrot]

Joking aside: what about KR-XX? As the Ricoh SLR's were called way back then.

In which case, the top-tier models would by XR prefixed. The KR models were lower-spec'd.


Steve

(...proud owner of XR-2s and XR7 bodies...)

[Trudger1272]

If they put the year first it looks kind of golden. 14K, 18K, 24K, in fact they should make gold limited editions those years.

Then there is also the EKG,

[Uluru]

Joking aside: what about KR-XX? As the Ricoh SLR's were called way back then.

I hope not
K is for K-mount, R is for Ricoh, I suppose. Being a Ricoh's camera made for the K-mount of that era, it did make sense then.
Today, well ... does anything make sense? I personally like the K-7, K-5, K-3 nomenclature. But it isn't enough to cover all the possible ranges of cameras. Yet it was powerful and simple enough in times when Pentax needed direct and simple recognition in the market. Now we have the K-3, and K-1 left to be used. That is enough for the next 4-5 years for one line of cameras, I suppose. Even then it can be extended with extra letters after the numbers (K-3s, K-1s, or K3-II, K1-II etc.) and be safe for a whole decade.

I suspect (just a gut feeling, nothing more than that) that we could see something that has two letters, like the MX, LX, ME, etc. coming again for other lines (FF, and non-standard DSLR form of cameras for the K-mount).

[JPT]

Granted, there isn't much consistency in Pentax model numbers, but is this really a problem? Are customers tearing their hair out in confusion when looking at the K-mount line up? I mean, there is a cheap one (K-50), an expensive one (K-3) and perhaps the outgoing expensive one at a discount (K-5IIs). You can tell by the price and the spec sheet where they are positioned.

I also think that trying to align everything to a fixed convention, even a naming convention, can lead to designers into rather boring and conventional designs. How much of an open mind do Nikon designers have when they approach a project like the D5300? They know exactly what they are expected to deliver. I think the K-30 is a good example of Pentax producing something better because they were not constrained into making a direct successor to the K-r.

Anyway, I would fear Pentax becoming another company that churns out model after model along the same lines. I like the unpredictable and sometime eccentric nature of Pentax and I think the erratic model numbers are just a reflection of that.