Why not a titanium body ?

Zvonimir Tosic wrote:

zakaria wrote:

I mentioned 3 points:

1.The body material" xpro 3 like"

2.the weight"k50 ks1" like

3.the layout."k5 like "

Most of your comments concentrated in the material point .

what about the weight and the layout?

what about k5 like body it is simple ,durable and the grip is very comfortable.

Point 1. The material is addressed above; titanium is inferior overall solution. Magnesium alloys are better.

Point 2. K50 KS1 are simplistic cameras, not sturdy enough, not sealed enough, not freeze proof enough, not weather resistant enough, mechanically outdated to be comparable with K-new in any possible way. K-new has more components inside and all new architecture, all new AF assembly, new mirror box, new pentaprism, new IS assembly, more ports, etc.

Point 3. K5 too is a simplistic camera compared to more advanced K-new, which will have features that surpass K1Mk2, especially in the AF area. Since the emphasis is on shooting through the OVF, camera must have more direct tactile controls to be operated intuitively and without screen access.

Zvonimir's right, especially with regard to "emphasis is on shooting through the OVF, camera must have more direct tactile controls."  A lot of discussion takes place about what Pentax "ought to do," underappreciating that Pentax, in the K-new, has clearly reaffirmed its dedication to the DSLR, ergonomics, operability and durability.  K-new's architecture is indeed all new; no component is off the shelf, especially not the pentaprism, which they have been pulling from bins for years.  As for weight, asking that a compact, robust camera body be lighter by the weight of a packet of chewing gum seems misguided. 
-------------------
"Elegance of operation" -- Pentax
"Heavy for its size" -- DPR