[mee]

A negative negative is a positive. Those models could become the K+1, K+2, etc. and we have an easy to follow system.

I think we have the same 15 or so conversations in a cycle.. because I've made both of those same comment/jokes (K minus 1, K plus 1) before on here.

[slip]

If it weren't for the unpronounceable "*ist", it's the scheme that would make the most people happy, since each class had a name (D/DS/DL), with sequential numbers within the class (DS/DS2). If we jump ahead to cover the past models, it would give us: (have fun guessing how I counted off the models within each class)

*ist D10 - next APS-C flagship
*ist DS10 - next APS-C midrange
*ist DL9 - next entry/budget/"lightweight"
*ist DF2 - next fullframe
*ist DM2 - next mirrorless K-mount

I'd suggest replacing *ist with K-, but has it been long enough to not worry about confusion between the K10D and K-D10? We still have threads confusing the KX and K-x! (But not so much the KM and K-m, for some reason.)

I could be wrong but to me I think it is named ist because you can use it in words.
cool*ist
nice*ist
fun*ist
well you get the point

randy

[THoog]

I could be wrong but to me I think it is named ist because you can use it in words.
cool*ist
nice*ist
fun*ist
well you get the point

randy

IIRC, the marketing materials for the *ist film SLR quoted things like "artist", "impressionist", etc. If Pentax hadn't listened to that marketing person, and the *ist had been called the MZ-70/ZX-70, and the "MZ-D" name had been reused from the 2000 prototype, we might have worked our way up to the MZ-D9 by now.

[slip]

IIRC, the marketing materials for the *ist film SLR quoted things like "artist", "impressionist", etc. If Pentax hadn't listened to that marketing person, and the *ist had been called the MZ-70/ZX-70, and the "MZ-D" name had been reused from the 2000 prototype, we might have worked our way up to the MZ-D9 by now.

Interesting, thanks!

Randy

[lotech]

Or simply name it "K", but this will mark the end of the line !

[bertwert]

Why not name it after instruments while we're at it.
When we see the K-bagpipe we know it's a camera that will stand out

[GlennG]

I think the cameras should be identified by year, make, and model - like cars. Even if the model specs did not update for several years, you would at least have the data for any model year, and you would know how old that individual unit was and roughly what to expect from it. Most people know what to expect from a 1993 Ford Bronco, for example, and it is not what one would expect to get from a 2016 Lexus LS. How many people can identify the differences between a Pentax K-5 and a Canon 5D Mark IV? When were they made, and what features do they have? I bet not a lot of people can tell you.