Some mirrorless options for Pentax

Started Aug 25, 2018 | Discussions thread
Barry Pearson
OP Barry Pearson Veteran Member • Posts: 8,723
Re: Some mirrorless options for Pentax

flektogon wrote:

Barry Pearson wrote:

flektogon wrote:

I don't think that it would be wise for Pentax to come with a new mount. If an average Pentax user like myself (who likes the Pentax brand, but is not crazy in love with Pentax) wants to switch to a MILC, well, there are dozens of options already available from Sony, Fuji, Olympus, Panasonic, Canon and now even from Nikon. But Pentax in my opinion could improve their DSLR cameras to be smaller (if not lighter as well), closer to how the MILC look like.

This illustrates part of the problem. There is a lot of stuff related to mirrors and focusing screens and displays in the viewfinder:

Especially the FF DSLR cameras should be smaller. Here I do not understand why for example the K-1 has to be such a monster. Why such a FF DSLR can't be like the K-3 for example?

The size of the focusing screen for the K-1-series is FF. That of the K-3-series (etc) is APS-C. That presumably influences the pentaprism, and that in turn pushes the other components outward.

This also influences the size of the mirror, which has to be larger to cover the FF focusing screen. Presumably that also has an influence on the total size.

The K-3 "chamber" should be already large enough to accommodate the FF-sized sensor and mirror (if not, here Pentax should concentrate their effort), so I really I do not see any reason why the Pentax FF DSLR cameras can't be smaller. They don't need to have articulated LCD panels, I wouldn't mind if they didn't have any back LCD at all, as I do not use the LV mode. I think this is the way most suitable for Pentax.

Lots of people do use the LCD. I suspect an SLR without one wouldn't be taken seriously by most people.

I now wouldn't buy an SLR without an articulated LCD. And I particularly like the 4-legged LCD of the K-1-series. I use it a lot.

I'm not saying the K-1-series couldn't be made smaller. But is appears inevitable that it will be larger than an equivalent APS-C camera, and all the extra stuff we expect in the digital era will make FF cameras larger than the old 35mm cameras.

Remove the mirror and focusing screen and pentaprism, and avoid having those extra adjacent components for the information in the display, and things can be smaller and lighter.

Pentax can make really small APS-C cameras, like the K-S1. What I meant is that Pentax now should come with a FF equivalent of the K-S1.

For reasons I've identified above, it would necessarily be significantly larger than a K-S1. (How successful was the K-S1? It was below my radar).

But I don't know what the minimum size would be. I know you are not the only person who would like a smaller FF camera!

One SD card? Smaller battery? Fewer dedicated dials and screens? Given that it would still be expensive because it was an FF camera, would it sell without such features? I suspect FF cameras raise expectations, and those imply imply size and weight.

 Barry Pearson's gear list:Barry Pearson's gear list
Ricoh WG-6 Panasonic LX100 Ricoh GR III Pentax K-7 Pentax K-3 II +27 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow