[RobA_Oz]

The K-1 is the largest K-mount DSLR and it has a FF sensor/prism/shutter - while the SD Quattro is an APS-C camera (though the Quattro H is APS-H). Comparing the two, the Sigma appears unnecessarily large and unwieldy.
Thanks but no, thanks - I'd rather have a camera designed by Pentax.

Good on you, but I'll try one more time: I was talking about the general form, not suggesting Ricoh should licence it. That "large and unwieldy " body has plenty of room for a 35FF sensor, anyway. I've got nine cameras designed by Pentax, so, no disagreement there.

[JPT]

I'm not sure what you mean... Pentax DSLR's tend to be quite compact, even compared to Canon and Nikon equivalents. (Unless you're referring to some new mirrorles equivalents I don't know about yet.)

Both the Canon 7D II and 70D as well as the Nikon D7200 are in about the same range as the K-3 / K-3 II but are all larger, especially when you add the most common upgraded 'normal' FOV zoom or prime lenses.

Front: Compact Camera Meter
Side: Compact Camera Meter
Top, 16-50 f/2.8 or 17-55 f/2.8 lens attached: Compact Camera Meter
Top, 35mm f/1.8 or 35mm f/2.0 lens attached: Compact Camera Meter

If you want to go to consumer level and compare the K-S2 with the Rebel T6i and the D5500/D3300, the K-S2 is still one of the smaller ones, and the smallest when you add the Pentax RE and Nikon AF-P 18-50 retractable kit lenses.

Front: Compact Camera Meter
Top, 18-50 / 18-55 kit lenses attached: Compact Camera Meter

---------- Post added 08-03-16 at 01:10 PM ----------

That said, I think Pentax could use a newer mirrorless camera (K-03?) but the K-mount flange distance limits how small they can make it. I think the best way forward would be to introduce a new mount, but with an available adapter to natively use and control K-mount lenses. (Kmini mount?) They would only have to introduce one or two to new compact lenses right away because we would still have access to the full range in K-mount until they can add more to the lineup.

*(I know the Q has an adapter, but the tiny sensor with 5.5x crop makes it less useful at normal ranges, and it doesn't allow automatic aperture control or autofocusing.)

Sorry. What I wrote was misleading and not really what I wanted to say. I'm thinking more about the low end cameras, and I'm thinking more about weight than size. My perspective is, if you want the lightest possible kit, what are your solutions?

Cheapest class
Nikon 3300 - 430 g
Canon SL1 - 407g
Pentax K-S1 - 558g

Moving one step up
Nikon 5500 - 420g
Canon T5i - 580g
Pentax K-70 - 688g

Lightest lens
Nikon 35mm - 210g
Canon 40mm - 130g
Pentax 40mm - 80g

So my point is that Pentax has a great line up of small lenses, but once you add a body, the Canon and Nikon solutions work out lighter. I don't think that a light travel kit is a niche need. A lot of consumers but with weight in mind. I know that my brother in law went with a Nikon over the K-30 I recommended at the time, and his reason was that the Nikon was lighter. He's a typical young family man, wanting to document his kids and travels.

Pentax is heavier because of the SR and the prism finders they use, and I appreciate that they are are valuable features that often beat the competition. But I think one light weight mirrorless model would be a way of achieving a light K-mount without sacrificing the SR.

Hope I'm making sense now!

[monochrome]

Pentax is heavier because it is also significantly sturdier, weather resistant, at least partially built on a magnesium frame - and thus more likely to last many years in a family versus the bodies you quoted. Sometimes light weight is a false economy.

[Nicolas06]

Pentax is heavier because it is also significantly sturdier, weather resistant, at least partially built on a magnesium frame - and thus more likely to last many years in a family versus the bodies you quoted. Sometimes light weight is a false economy.

I fully agree and the bodies are not bigger, just heavier in practice.

But still at some point a K mount mirrorless would be a nice addition. If it fix the K01 flaws like missing EVF, no PDAF on sensor an design there no reason to think it wouldn't sell well.

[philbaum]

I fully agree and the bodies are not bigger, just heavier in practice.

But still at some point a K mount mirrorless would be a nice addition. If it fix the K01 flaws like missing EVF, no PDAF on sensor an design there no reason to think it wouldn't sell well.

Just about anyone who wants a mirrorless camera has already left Pentax. There's no chance that they will ever make one at this point, except for their Q lineup which is too small for me. As has been pointed out by others, you should buy into a system for the existing equipment they have for sale, not something that is projected, speculated on, or is wished on.

As for the claim that Pentax cameras are more durable than Sony cameras, not convinced that is true. None of my Nex 5n, 6 or A7r2 cameras ever had to be sent back to the vendor for repairs. But my K3 had to be sent back to precision repair to fix the run-on shutter problem. Had my mirrorless FF Sony for 8 months so far and love it.

[monochrome]

Just about anyone who wants a mirrorless camera has already left Pentax. There's no chance that they will ever make one at this point, except for their Q lineup which is too small for me. As has been pointed out by others, you should buy into a system for the existing equipment they have for sale, not something that is projected, speculated on, or is wished on.

As for the claim that Pentax cameras are more durable than Sony cameras, not convinced that is true. None of my Nex 5n, 6 or A7r2 cameras ever had to be sent back to the vendor for repairs. But my K3 had to be sent back to precision repair to fix the run-on shutter problem. Had my mirrorless FF Sony for 8 months so far and love it.

Avoid centering when 'publishing' opinion.

[monochrome]

Just about anyone who wants a mirrorless camera has already left Pentax. There's no chance that they will ever make one at this point, except for their Q lineup which is too small for me. As has been pointed out by others, you should buy into a system for the existing equipment they have for sale, not something that is projected, speculated on, or is wished on.

As for the claim that Pentax cameras are more durable than Sony cameras, not convinced that is true. None of my Nex 5n, 6 or A7r2 cameras ever had to be sent back to the vendor for repairs. But my K3 had to be sent back to precision repair to fix the run-on shutter problem. Had my mirrorless FF Sony for 8 months so far and love it.

Take care to avoid centering when 'publishing' opinion.

I have never had a single issue or failure of any kind with any Pentax camera over 40 years - but I would not claim they are superior in QC to other brands based solely on my personal experience.

[JPT]

Pentax is heavier because it is also significantly sturdier, weather resistant, at least partially built on a magnesium frame - and thus more likely to last many years in a family versus the bodies you quoted. Sometimes light weight is a false economy.

I would say that the Pentax cameras feel better made, but I haven't personally owned enough cameras to say which are more durable. However, that isn't my point. I'm not suggesting degrading the build quality to make a lighter camera; I'm suggesting removing the parts that are not necessary in a mirrorless cameras to make it lighter. It should in theory be more durable anyway, because there are less moving parts to go wrong.

One of the things that made me open to trying the K-01 in the fist place was that my K20D camera had it's mirror jolted out of alignment by a half metre drop from a chair seat onto a wooden floor. Pentax quoted me 40,000 yen ($400ish) for a repair, so I didn't bother. But it just goes to show that the most modest of family accidents can destroy a camera, no matter how well it seems to be constructed.

One thing about QC, though - most of the high profile quality issues in the past few years have been with DSLRs. It makes me think that they are just more problematic to assemble. In fact, when you look at all the stuff inside, it's a miracle that you can buy a camera like the K-3 for just $700.

[monochrome]

I would say that the Pentax cameras feel better made, but I haven't personally owned enough cameras to say which are more durable. However, that isn't my point. I'm not suggesting degrading the build quality to make a lighter camera; I'm suggesting removing the parts that are not necessary in a mirrorless cameras to make it lighter. It should in theory be more durable anyway, because there are less moving parts to go wrong.

One of the things that made me open to trying the K-01 in the fist place was that my K20D camera had it's mirror jolted out of alignment by a half metre drop from a chair seat onto a wooden floor. Pentax quoted me 40,000 yen ($400ish) for a repair, so I didn't bother. But it just goes to show that the most modest of family accidents can destroy a camera, no matter how well it seems to be constructed.

One thing about QC, though - most of the high profile quality issues in the past few years have been with DSLRs. It makes me think that they are just more problematic to assemble. In fact, when you look at all the stuff inside, it's a miracle that you can buy a camera like the K-3 for just $700.

The K-30 was the K-01 with the mirror assembly and prism / viewfinder added. K-01 was the test bed for the new tech in K-30 - not really intended as an ongoing product. They planned to produce 125,000 units, produced them and moved on. The bargain sales at the end we're just the moving on steps.

Otherwise the internals, frame and assembly were quite similar - even the same battery. You can get a pretty close idea of potential Pentax mirrorless weight savings by comparing the two.

[D1N0]

even the same battery

The K-01 had the K-7 K-5 etc Battery D-Li90 the K-30 Had the D-Li109. Actually the sensor and Pentaprism and focussing screen are all the same as the top model since the k-30.

[EArenz]

The K-30 was the K-01 with the mirror assembly and prism / viewfinder added. K-01 was the test bed for the new tech in K-30 - not really intended as an ongoing product. They planned to produce 125,000 units, produced them and moved on. The bargain sales at the end we're just the moving on steps.

Otherwise the internals, frame and assembly were quite similar - even the same battery. You can get a pretty close idea of potential Pentax mirrorless weight savings by comparing the two.

Don't know about the rest of this hypothesis, but my K-01 has uses a DL-I90 Battery, same as the K-3, K-5, K-5 II, K-5 IIs, K-7. The K-30, K-50, K-70 and K-500 use the smaller DL-I109 Battery.

[philbaum]

I would say that the Pentax cameras feel better made, but I haven't personally owned enough cameras to say which are more durable. However, that isn't my point. I'm not suggesting degrading the build quality to make a lighter camera; I'm suggesting removing the parts that are not necessary in a mirrorless cameras to make it lighter. It should in theory be more durable anyway, because there are less moving parts to go wrong.

....

One thing about QC, though - most of the high profile quality issues in the past few years have been with DSLRs. It makes me think that they are just more problematic to assemble. In fact, when you look at all the stuff inside, it's a miracle that you can buy a camera like the K-3 for just $700.

I usually use a shoulder strap with my Pentax or my Sony. One day, i released my k5 at my side hanging from a key ring connector to my camera and it fell to a wood floor, hitting on the edge of the DA50-135 lens hood. No damage to camera or lens - just the hood. Amazing, and it was a big shock to me :-( Somehow, the larger D-ring had worked its way off the smaller key ring connection. I do wish my Sony had the weather protection of the Pentax designs, the Sonys just don't have any seals that anyone can find, so must resort to these plastic sleeves if it rains. Alas, there are no perfect camera systems, just a series of compromises.

It is an interesting experience to move to a second system and find out how another mfr does it. Some things are better, some are worse.

[monochrome]

The K-01 had the K-7 K-5 etc Battery D-Li90 the K-30 Had the D-Li109. Actually the sensor and Pentaprism and focussing screen are all the same as the top model since the k-30.

I knew I should have checked before I posted that - but it just strengthens my point given K-30 had a smaller battery* (I think).

The argument the a Pentax MILC will offer weight saving as a major feature will require that Pentax depart from its major brand identity markers; very little of their current engineering can carry over.


* I like that my K-01 batteries are still useful in my K-1

[TheOneAndOnlyJH]

Sorry. What I wrote was misleading and not really what I wanted to say. I'm thinking more about the low end cameras, and I'm thinking more about weight than size. My perspective is, if you want the lightest possible kit, what are your solutions?

Cheapest class
Nikon 3300 - 430 g — 640g with lens
Canon SL1 - 407g — 537 with lens
Pentax K-S1 - 558g — 638 with lens

Moving one step up
Nikon 5500 - 420g — 630g with lens
Canon T5i - 580g — 710 with lens
Pentax K-70 - 688g — 768 with lens

Lightest lens
Nikon 35mm - 210g (130g more than DA 40)
Canon 40mm - 130g (50g more than DA 40)
Pentax 40mm - 80g

So my point is that Pentax has a great line up of small lenses, but once you add a body, the Canon and Nikon solutions work out lighter. I don't think that a light travel kit is a niche need. A lot of consumers but with weight in mind. I know that my brother in law went with a Nikon over the K-30 I recommended at the time, and his reason was that the Nikon was lighter. He's a typical young family man, wanting to document his kids and travels.

Pentax is heavier because of the SR and the prism finders they use, and I appreciate that they are are valuable features that often beat the competition. But I think one light weight mirrorless model would be a way of achieving a light K-mount without sacrificing the SR.

Hope I'm making sense now!

That makes sense. Weight is one place where Pentax 'loses' slightly, though I would argue that the features and solid build more than make up for the few extra grams. (My opinion of course. If you're scaling Mt. Everest you might think differently!)

Keep in mind this is only for one lens on the body. If you carry a kit with multiple lenses at once it could go the other way. Pentax Limited or DA lenses can be much lighter than the Canon / Nikon alternatives, so the extra weight of the body could be more than offset by the lighter lenses, not to mention smaller overall size.

In all honesty though, if you truly want the lightest kit possible then mirrorless wins over entry level DSLR's. In that case, Sony, Fuji, or Olympus/Panasonic µ4/3 are probably the best options right now. I still hope Pentax makes a K-01 successor, but you won't get ultra compact with the standard K-mount due to registration distance. (Unless it's a new mount that can accept K lenses with an adapter.)

---------- Post added 08-04-16 at 04:39 PM ----------

I also think it was smart of Pentax to use the D-Li90 in the K-01 rather than the D-Li109 or a different smaller battery. Sure, it might be slightly larger and weight a tiny bit more, but the extra battery life is important for an MILC where the screen will be on most of the time. DSLR's use very little juice when you compose through the viewfinder, but if you use LiveView for any long period of time you'll realize how much quicker it runs through your batteries when the LCD and SR are active most of the time.

[Nicolas06]

In all honesty though, if you truly want the lightest kit possible then mirrorless wins over entry level DSLR's. In that case, Sony, Fuji, or Olympus/Panasonic µ4/3 are probably the best options right now. I still hope Pentax makes a K-01 successor, but you won't get ultra compact with the standard K-mount due to registration distance. (Unless it's a new mount that can accept K lenses with an adapter.)

Only if you have the matching lenses that are small and light at different common focal length. This is the case of m4/3 if you choose wisely. This isn't really applicable to Sony or Fuji. Anything arround 60mm or more is huge or low quality/small apperture.

Pentax at least as small lenses from 15mm to 77 and honestly the 100 macro is still very small counting the actual focal length.