[Rondec]

I think chances are really good that Pentax is working on a K-1 III that will include many of the features from the K-3 III. I think it highly likely that they will include some sort of flippy screen with that camera, but still have it be a touch screen. There was enough negativity around the lack of flippy screen with the K-3 III that I think they'll figure out how to do it with the next full frame camera.

Of course, it will have a little faster frame rate, 4K video -- these are mostly a matter of choosing the right sensor and most new-ish sensors can do those features. I wouldn't be surprised if they do USB charging as well. Remember, you can still swap batteries out and charge them outside of the camera, it just means that if you are travelling, you can just plug your camera in at night and top your batteries off. I do agree with mtkeller that this camera will be expensive, although I would have guessed 2500-ish.

I am really unclear as to the medium format line and I think Ricoh is as well. Fuji has been eating their lunch there and I think Pentax has to figure out how to match their cameras and if there is enough money in it to continue developing new cameras and lenses for that market. There are certainly a couple of directions they could go, but even a 4000 or 5000 dollar medium format camera plus lenses is a much harder sell in today's market when you can get full frame cameras for just over 1000 dollars.

---------- Post added 07-23-21 at 05:51 AM ----------

Still missing the point... how body size is connected to eye relief?

Doesn't eye relief have to do with the distance the viewfinder eye piece projects out from the back of the camera? So if you have a flippy screen that projects out farther from the back of the camera there is less separation between it and the eyepiece.

[mtkeller]

Doesn't eye relief have to do with the distance the viewfinder eye piece projects out from the back of the camera? So if you have a flippy screen that projects out farther from the back of the camera there is less separation between it and the eyepiece.

Yes, and I don’t understand why people here have been having so much trouble understanding that. The additional eye relief provided by the thinner screen is really helpful, and given that this camera is designed to maximize the OVF shooting experience, every little bit helps.

[normhead]

Yes, and I don’t understand why people here have been having so much trouble understanding that. The additional eye relief provided by the thinner screen is really helpful, and given that this camera is designed to maximize the OVF shooting experience, every little bit helps.

naw, the distance between the eyepiece and the screen can be maintained with a thicker back screen. Just design the eyepiece to be a little further away and add 1/8" to the eyepiece housing assembly. That's not a factor at all.

[mtkeller]

naw, the distance between the eyepiece and the screen can be maintained with a thicker back screen. Just design the eyepiece to be a little further away and add 1/8" to the eyepiece housing assembly. That's not a factor at all.

Nope. The size of the eyepiece is dictated by how far away from the OVF your eye is supposed to be when viewing. If you artificially push the eye back, then the viewfinder doesn’t fill your field of vision. Wakashiro-san has explained this Product Stories of New APS-C"K-3 Mark III" Vol.3?Wakashiro? | PENTAX official If you feel like you know more about designing cameras than him, then perhaps you should apply for a job with Ricoh Imaging.

[Serkevan]

Doesn't eye relief have to do with the distance the viewfinder eye piece projects out from the back of the camera? So if you have a flippy screen that projects out farther from the back of the camera there is less separation between it and the eyepiece.

No. Eye relief is the distance the eye is away from the glass of the finder.
The back of the camera has nothing to do with it. I can anyway press my eye to the OVF on the K-1 just fine... provided I'm not using my glasses. And if I'm using my glasses I cannot press my eye to the OVF close enough regardless of camera depth or how much the OVF protrudes, I have to squish.

In any case, I use the O-ME53 magnifier which provides FAR more "eye relief" (~1 cm) than the lack of a flippy. I still smush my nose and cheek against the back of the camera, so not having the flippy doesn't provide any advantage whatsoever.

------

As per the camera predictions:
-> 45MP or 61MP sensor
-> 7 fps or so, somewhat decent buffer (about 25 raw?)
-> 4K video with no bells or whistles
-> Improved SR with better Astrotracer
-> 0.8x OVF
-> Similar body to K-1 but with the top plate taking after the K-3iii
-> 101 AF point system from K-3iii, joystick for selection

[DonV]

"If you feel like you know more about designing cameras than him, then perhaps you should apply for a job with Ricoh Imaging."

Wow, no need to get "snarky".

My KP and K1ii, work quite well with their flexible screens, so does my son's 645Z- clearly demonstrating that the K3iii could have been designed to have such a screen.
The K3iii could have had a moveable screen; however, it would have needed a slightly different body design and/or viewfinder optics;
Pentax working to a set of target parameters for K3iii body size likely lead to a feature compromise and thus the fixed screen. JMHO.

[reh321]

I'm sure if a new K-1 version were to be released, it would incorporate some new features along the lines you mentioned, but not all those are necessarily desirable.

For example, I would rather charge my batteries separate from the camera to allow shooting while batteries charge. And, it is much quicker to pop a battery out and a new one in than a need to plug in the camera and wait for it to charge. It adds bulk and complexity to a camera to incorporate an internal charge system.

You can always use an old charger to charge batteries - you don't have to use the camera.
The main progress I see in the new camera are the focusing and 4K; I'm sure they will show up in a K-1 before many here are quite ready to pay for it.

[Kevin B123]

OK, I will play.
45MP BSI sensor, no larger or the files will take ages to edit and fill my hard drive too quickly
0.92 - 0.95x OVF please. This alone will forgive any 'defects' that people perceive.
KP type flip up screen would be acceptable.
K3iii a/f and joystick type stuff.

Selfish personal choices:
No in camera charging stuff. I want to carry a camera not redundant charging circuitry.
GPS is a nice to have but not a big deal if missing because of the HUGE OVF.

[SelrahCharleS]

OK, I will play.
45MP BSI sensor, no larger or the files will take ages to edit and fill my hard drive too quickly
0.92 - 0.95x OVF please. This alone will forgive any 'defects' that people perceive.
KP type flip up screen would be acceptable.
K3iii a/f and joystick type stuff.

Selfish personal choices:
No in camera charging stuff. I want to carry a camera not redundant charging circuitry.
GPS is a nice to have but not a big deal if missing because of the HUGE OVF.

With a .95x viewfinder I might be willing to forgive a few other feature omissions

[mtkeller]

No. Eye relief is the distance the eye is away from the glass of the finder.
The back of the camera has nothing to do with it. I can anyway press my eye to the OVF on the K-1 just fine... provided I'm not using my glasses. And if I'm using my glasses I cannot press my eye to the OVF close enough regardless of camera depth or how much the OVF protrudes, I have to squish.

The back of the camera has a ton to do with how much room your nose has to get up to the viewfinder. If you haven't actually used a K-3 iii, then it's not really possible for you to appreciate how this design decision has played out in a positive way.

My KP and K1ii, work quite well with their flexible screens, so does my son's 645Z- clearly demonstrating that the K3iii could have been designed to have such a screen.
The K3iii could have had a moveable screen; however, it would have needed a slightly different body design and/or viewfinder optics;
Pentax working to a set of target parameters for K3iii body size likely lead to a feature compromise and thus the fixed screen. JMHO.

No one is arguing that it was impossible for the K-3 iii to have a flippy screen. The argument is that the increased size of the OVF for an APS-C camera changes the game here and that what was used in other bodies with different viewfinders cannot be translated. For most of us who have actually owned the K-3 iii, we have found that these additional mm are a huge benefit to the user experience.

---------- Post added 07-23-21 at 10:49 ----------

OK, I will play.
45MP BSI sensor, no larger or the files will take ages to edit and fill my hard drive too quickly
0.92 - 0.95x OVF please. This alone will forgive any 'defects' that people perceive.
KP type flip up screen would be acceptable.
K3iii a/f and joystick type stuff.

Selfish personal choices:
No in camera charging stuff. I want to carry a camera not redundant charging circuitry.
GPS is a nice to have but not a big deal if missing because of the HUGE OVF.

I really don't think that the in-body charging feature is adding any meaningful "redundant charging circuitry". It will be interesting to see what they do with GPS in the K-1 iii. We know they're preparing an O-GPS2, and so omitting GPS from the K-1 iii might help them sell the new GPS module. However, the target audience for the K-1 iii will be different to that of the K-3 iii, so they may feel like having on-board GPS is important. A bigger viewfinder (and potentially more fragile pentaprism) seems to create a challenge here, as the solid magnesium alloy top on the K-3 iii seems to have been an impediment to getting GPS inside. Perhaps with a bigger FF body, they will be able to get some sky-facing space between the metal and the top plastic over on the grip side.

[Kevin B123]

(and potentially more fragile pentaprism)

Glass material is strong even when you tinker at the margins with compositions. I see no reason for it to be any more fragile than current pentaprisms, they are solid lumps of glass after all.

Youtu.be

Youtu.be

Please don't try this at home with your camera

[normhead]

Nope. The size of the eyepiece is dictated by how far away from the OVF your eye is supposed to be when viewing. If you artificially push the eye back, then the viewfinder doesn’t fill your field of vision. Wakashiro-san has explained this Product Stories of New APS-C"K-3 Mark III" Vol.3?Wakashiro? | PENTAX official If you feel like you know more about designing cameras than him, then perhaps you should apply for a job with Ricoh Imaging.

Wakashiro explained that they had a design spec to keep the camera a certain size. It was arbitrary. Not necessary. His excuse was an attempted justification of no tilting back screen. But no problem, I can always just buy a d500. Nikon didn't feel required to meet Pentax's arbitrary spec.

Reading comprehension is a gift.

The notion that Pentax couldn't have made the camera 1/8 to 3/16ths thicker and added a tilting back screen is preposterous. The only thing that would have changed is adherence to predetermined design specs, that didn't include a tilting back screen.

The further away eyepiece would have needed a slightly narrower field of view. Thas it, that's all, done.

The only thing going on here is Penax determined through their marketing and sales department that the cost of adding the tilting back screen would cost them more sales than it would gain them. That I can respect. That they lack the technical expertise to do so if it fit their marketing strategy is just demeaning the abilities of Pentax engineers.

[biz-engineer]

Is Pentax thinking about a new k1?

That's a good question. One has to have the superhuman ability to read minds to know if someone at Ricoh is thinking about a new K1. Not only the faculty or reading people's minds is necessary, but to add to the difficulty, Tokyo is far away from most of us, and I guess Ricoh thinking (inside brains) is done in Japanese! making the matter of decoding magnetic waves even more difficult. Please if anyone PF member found himself/herself to have super powers that can read distant minds in Japanese, please raise you hand.

[acoufap]

You can always use an old charger to charge batteries - you don't have to use the camera.
The main progress I see in the new camera are the focusing and 4K; I'm sure they will show up in a K-1 before many here are quite ready to pay for it.

+ USB-C simply is great because you can attach strong powerbanks directly to the camera if doing long timelapses or filming.

[mtkeller]

Glass material is strong even when you tinker at the margins with compositions. I see no reason for it to be any more fragile than current pentaprisms, they are solid lumps of glass after all.

Again, Pentax has explained that they had lots of issues with the new pentaprism. So many that they actually had to start an R&D fabrication line for them in Japan during development rather than having the test prisms fabricated wherever the main production plant is (I want to say Vietnam…would make sense if they do all the glass stuff there and then ship to the Philippines to assemble the cameras). It's a different type of glass to what is used in existing pentaprisms because they wanted to both increase magnification and increase brightness.