[AggieDad]

Perhaps the next in line will be the K-nil. Then they could continue counting down with the K-(-1), K-(-2), etc.

Or they could use powers or roots with current model numbers (e.g. The K-√3 or the K-√1). Of course, with this system the K-1 would forever be the K-1.

They could also use binary numbers. Although I suspect they could get a bit unwieldy to put on the camera. Can you imagine a K-1010 instead of a K-10 or a K-100100 instead of a K-36?

So many possibilities...

[Kunzite]

Counting down from K-0 you get K-4294967295

[DeadJohn]

...they could continue counting down with the K-(-1), K-(-2)...

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

[leekil]

They may have to change the naming scheme soon, as they did several times in the past with the film camera lines.

[Kunzite]

"These users Like Kunzite's post: leekil"
Software engineer spotted... I'd say

[Paul the Sunman]

They may have to change the naming scheme soon, as they did several times in the past with the film camera lines.

Back to *ist D? There's plenty of digital space available there.

[aleonx3]

At least with both Nikon & Canon there was say D3 D4 D5 ( even with marks 1 mark 2 etc) and say the camera below was say D 500 D 300 logical?
With that logic at least you can tell the more 0 the less functions.

It is just a matter of personal opinion. How is it being logical when you can choose a D7100 or D5300 (same number of 0s and lower number would imply more functions)?

[THoog]

Back to *ist D? There's plenty of digital space available there.

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.)

[ehrwien]

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

Can't deny the logic in this thought!

[DeadJohn]

Oooh, I have a [bad] idea. Pentax can come out with a new line of cameras named after musicians. The:

K-T-TUNSTALL
K-T-PERRY
K-D-LANG
K-8-BUSH
K-C (and the optional Sunshine Band accessory)
K-Crimson (only available as a red body)

[gaweidert]

To tweak the serenity of the posters on a certain thread that will not die, perhaps the new FF will be labelled the KRx !!!!

Where x = any number Ricoh wants to call it.

[Kerrowdown]

Does any 1 find how Pentax names there DSLR weird

Coming from me, a man who names his lenses... the Pentax approach is quite tame I thought.

[DeadJohn]

Does any 1 find how Pentax names there DSLR werid

I find this thread title weird

[interested_observer]

I too find the Pentax naming system - a tad random - somewhat similar to a drunk staggering from light pole to light pole.

• The ist series - had somewhat of a system to it - well kind of...
• The K100D/200D/K10D/K20D - had a semblance of a reasonable order to it. Just when you though you knew where they were going with it...
• Suddenly - the K5/K5 and Km/Kr/Kx along with the K-01 - well ok, didn't understand where they might be heading. Whiplash!
• Then back to the K30/K50/K70 and K500 - I'm a bit more confused
• Bang - out of no where comes the K-s1 and K-s2 appears from out of the fog - Excedrin headache # 12
• Out of the western sky, the K-1 parachutes in. OK, where do we go from here - either to 0 or to 2 or 3? How about an alphabetic character?
• Then there is the 645D followed by the 645Z - so next up is {A, B, C, ...., Z - {D, X} } or not?
• Along with the Q - which I will not even try to fathom.

Step up to the Crap table and take a roll - Baby needs a new pair of shoes!

System - there is no system. It's just a semi-random grab bag of hodgepodge. Increasing number series - decreasing number series, interspersed with somewhat random alphabetic sequences.

Next up will be the K-&%$#* or the K-

Pentax just being Pentax again...

[robert52]

Yes its almost like the have a bag of names numbers etc & draw 1 for the new model.
Yes I know there are other names for Canon / Nikon for North America market. I was told that that due to there high supply & to stop say grey imports into other countries like Oz when you had say a Canon EOS 500 I think was the Canon Rebel in film days etc

I too find the Pentax naming system - a tad random - somewhat similar to a drunk staggering from light pole to light pole.

• The ist series - had somewhat of a system to it - well kind of...
• The K100D/200D/K10D/K20D - had a semblance of a reasonable order to it. Just when you though you knew where they were going with it...
• Suddenly - the K5/K5 and Km/Kr/Kx along with the K-01 - well ok, didn't understand where they might be heading. Whiplash!
• Then back to the K30/K50/K70 and K500 - I'm a bit more confused
• Bang - out of no where comes the K-s1 and K-s2 appears from out of the fog - Excedrin headache # 12
• Out of the western sky, the K-1 parachutes in. OK, where do we go from here - either to 0 or to 2 or 3? How about an alphabetic character?
• Then there is the 645D followed by the 645Z - so next up is {A, B, C, ...., Z - {D, X} } or not?
• Along with the Q - which I will not even try to fathom.

Step up to the Crap table and take a roll - Baby needs a new pair of shoes!

System - there is no system. It's just a semi-random grab bag of hodgepodge. Increasing number series - decreasing number series, interspersed with somewhat random alphabetic sequences.

Next up will be the K-&%$#* or the K-

Pentax just being Pentax again...