[monochrome]

I have 2 K-01's, use them extensively with MF lenses and a screen Loupe, and actually like them. I also use and like Q/Q7. I don't use Sony at, though I've borrowed an A7r.

A K-01 was actually, virtually, a K-30 minus the mirror. The significant new hardware technology in K-30 and K-01 was the simplified and miniaturized IBIS array, using magnets on 2 sides rather than 4. Software improvement was the improved shutter sequence control (Close, Open-Close, Open) for LiveView.

I did write GOOD MILC from dSLR parts; good includes machine-optimized manufacturing techniques (the FABLED Sony 7-sub-assemblies and 26 screws story) as well as size and weight benefits (I know K-01 is one of the smallest digital cameras Pentax has made, though it doesn't look it).

I'm not convinced Pentax can make competitive CDAF AF and video using existing sourced components. If they obtain new component supplies / designs at least some of their EE catalog becomes obsoleted (adding a cost); and I'm not convinced the LCD signal is easily up featured to a hyper clean EVF either.

Ergo, I believe (as demonstrated by the responses to K-01) it is not possible to makemam'Good' MILC from dSLR parts.

I'm not really sure how you can say that with a straight face. Just look at the K-01. Aside from the cosmetics, it was almost entirely a rehash of tech used in previous cameras. Most of the electronics are off-the-shelf and reused directly form the K-5 and other similar generation models. IBIS is recycled, mount recycled, shutter recycled, etc. Probably the most involved reengineering from a mechanical perspective was the popup flash.

Any FF K-02 would doubtlessly recycle tons of tech from the K-1. I, like the K-01, the exterior were all injection molded polycarb, tooling for that would be relatively trivial and inexpensive. On the electronics side, a new AF module would be preferable but not a dealbreaker. The EVF would add some complexity, but there are plenty of off-the-shelf solutions that could be incorporated relatively easily that could use the same signal path already used by the rear monitor. And with the reuse of existing components, fabbing the new circuit board and modifying existing programming for the camera would also be fairly trivial. If it kept the same flange focal distance as the rest of the K series, then mount geometries and electronics would be identical. Even with a tube solution like I discussed above, the electronics would still remain the same, and a new bayonet would be trivial to design and produce using modern CNC techniques.

Now of course, it would be a different story with lenses produced for a new mount, since those would require a considerable investment in new optical designs. The same could be said if Ricoh wanted to include bells and whistles like 4k video, since it would require both a new sensor and image processor.

However, as a relatively inexpensive boutique counterpart to the K-1 (as the K-01 was to the K-5), a K-02 would not necessarily require a huge capital investment.

[Kunzite]

@ronniemac:
I don't think you can have fast CDAF with the 36MP sensor; so it would have to be the 24MP one (the 42MP one is too expensive). Additional R&D.
Marc Newson's design was heavily criticized; it would be again. I'm surprised to see this being mentioned as a requirement.
Slimmer body and tiltable LCD (while keeping the K-mount)... not quite possible, I'm afraid; at best it could be about the KP's thickness.
Add to that a price people wouldn't be willing to pay (like with K-01).

My point? The end product might be quite different than what you're imagining.

[climit]

Ergo, I believe (as demonstrated by the responses to K-01) it is not possible to makemam'Good' MILC from dSLR parts.

You can, except that apart from the dslr parts you shall need other parts too.

[grahame]

Anyone would like to have a K-Mount FF with EVF?

Yeeessss! I am so tired of AF inconsistency on K1, and I really like how easy and accurate manual focus is on EVF!
I dones't shoot spots or birding, accuracy is more important than speed in most cases.

[ronniemac]

@ Kunzite
CDAF will improve as technology develops, but I can live with what we have at the moment on the K-1. A 24MP sensor would offer some interesting advantages even if at lower MP, but I do like the K-1 sensor pixel count. I expect that Ricoh are working on improving focus speeds so the R & D might already be in place. Slimmer body is possible provided with the removal of the mirror box, the flange distance can be maintained with my suggestion of an on body aperture ring to separate lens from the main part of the body. The objective is to reduce unnecessary bulk but still retain K-mount. Sure, it's not going to be a cheap camera, more like Fuji prices, but remember that most of the technology is already in Pentax bodies, or is likely to be under development; it's just the EVF would need to be imported.

Regarding design, yea, I know that most people prefer conventional design, but for me conventional and contemporary are not mutually exclusive alternatives. The K-01 was awarded the red dot for a reason. If I can quote myself 'Of course, your preferences may differ; these are just my own'. One point I do agree on with you is that the end product will probably not be what I have suggested. Speaking personally; more's the pity, but hey, if a K-02 is released to compliment the K-1, I'm sure I will take to it.

[Kunzite]

Significantly improving CDAF over the K-1 might require a new sensor. You can live with the K-1, but a MILC with K-1's CDAF performance will be heavily criticized.

The mirror box can't be removed; well, it won't be a mirror box but an empty box. Just like on the K-01. Even if it's made into a tube - where do you put the AF and aperture motors? - the thickness would be the same.

Underestimating the development can only lead to disappointment. I'm afraid a camera which would reuse most of the technology from existing Pentax cameras is not what you're asking for.

[biz-engineer]

most obviously a reduction from the massive weight of the K-1

How much proportion of weight is the viewfinder relative to the metal frame of the camera body and glass of the lens mounted on the camera?
Pentaprism can be replaced by Pentamirror, if weight is the problem.

[surfar]

the Q and Q10. They have exactly the same form factor,

You better have a closer look @ your Q and Q10.....its the Q7 and Q10 that are exactly the same.

[gylfimag]

A fullframe K-02 should be a very interesting proposition for Pentax. They could reuse much of the physical design of the K-01 and the electronics of the K-1. This would provide Pentax with a significantly less expensive FF model that would cater to a different market than the K-1 and thus not cannibalize the sales of the more expensive one. It would of course not be to everybody's liking - the physical design of the K-01 never was - but that should be fine for a low volume manufacturer. As a long-time K-01 user the only feature I would add is an optional EVF that could be attached to the hot-shoe.
It would expand the market for fullframe Pentax lenses. That is something that Pentax needs so if they don't make a K-02 they should at least make a less expensive FF DSLR to complement the K-1. It could have the same sensor in a simpler and less expensive body. That is pretty much standard practice for Pentax in the APS-C world, selling a rugged, well specified top-of-the line model and at the same time one or two lighter and less rugged bodies missing a few bells and whistles but with the same sensor and essentially offering the same image quality.

[wed7]

I think many would appreciate digital FF MILC from Pentax by making it lighter and a digital alternative for the beastly K-1 (pro). Something like a MILC FF KP ~ designed for the enthusiast and a perfect pair with the FA princesses in this digital era.

Forget the AF speed, it will always be slow vs the competition (lol), we just need it to be more accurate.

[reh321]

A fullframe K-02 should be a very interesting proposition for Pentax. They could reuse much of the physical design of the K-01 and the electronics of the K-1. This would provide Pentax with a significantly less expensive FF model that would cater to a different market than the K-1 and thus not cannibalize the sales of the more expensive one. It would of course not be to everybody's liking - the physical design of the K-01 never was - but that should be fine for a low volume manufacturer. As a long-time K-01 user the only feature I would add is an optional EVF that could be attached to the hot-shoe.
It would expand the market for fullframe Pentax lenses. That is something that Pentax needs so if they don't make a K-02 they should at least make a less expensive FF DSLR to complement the K-1. It could have the same sensor in a simpler and less expensive body. That is pretty much standard practice for Pentax in the APS-C world, selling a rugged, well specified top-of-the line model and at the same time one or two lighter and less rugged bodies missing a few bells and whistles but with the same sensor and essentially offering the same image quality.

I keep hearing "less expensive FF". An MILC variant of a DSLR almost always costs more these days, so I'm guessing that a FF K-02 would cost more than the K-1.

[Jeff Lopez]

Guys, please make your minds already! You got the K1!
just kidding, but I dont think a FF K-01 is possible, if you consider to whom it will sell. I love that German Soho look on the K01, only thing it really needs is a optional viewfinder..Overall its a great camera spec wise..The K01 was clearly meant to be marketed to young, hipster like photogs who appreciated a nice picture (think European graduate students).
If you want a cheaper FF than a K1, how about sticking that sensor in a K70? instant sub $1000..

[reh321]

Huh? The only maker that really has a MILC equivalent to their flagship DSLR is Sony. The A99ii costs $3.2k. The equivalent A7Rii comes in at $2.5k-$2.9k. And that's with a very comparable feature set, weather sealing, alloy body, etc.

Most of us here are talking about a theoretical stripped down version, analogous to the K-01 as compared to the K-5.

I never said anything about "flagship". Companies like Canon make APS-C in both DSLR and MILC. The K-01 should be compared to the K-30, not to the K-5. You could make a "stripped down" FF camera in either DSLR or MILC, but that doesn't mean many people would buy it.

People here are much better at complaining than at buying.