Why not a titanium body ?

what I want from Pentax:

a strong yet light "titanium" body like Fujifilm X Pro 3 or an aluminum body like K01 to keep the weight much lighter than stainless steel.

The design:

is by sliding all the upper buttons and keeping a small screen at the top right. Why not go back to a design close to the K5 instead of crowding buttons .

Weight:

close to the weight of K50 or KS1.

I hope to see a  body  matching with the limited lenses. Let's keep K1 line for the Star lenses and the APS-C for the ltds lense .

It would probably be too expensive to make. Titanium ain't cheap.

zakaria wrote:

I hope to see a body matching with the limited lenses. Let's keep K1 line for the Star lenses and the APS-C for the ltds lense .

Why confine the *s to FF? I'm really looking forward to the upcoming DA * 16-50mm.

Or the limiteds to FF? Pentax itself is marketing the k-new as "compact and study," and always called the KP the perfect match for the Limiteds.

bob5050

zakaria wrote:

what I want from Pentax:

a strong yet light "titanium" body like Fujifilm X Pro 3 or an aluminum body like K01 to keep the weight much lighter than stainless steel.

The design:

is by sliding all the upper buttons and keeping a small screen at the top right. Why not go back to a design close to the K5 instead of crowding buttons .

Weight:

close to the weight of K50 or KS1.

I hope to see a body matching with the limited lenses. Let's keep K1 line for the Star lenses and the APS-C for the ltds lense .

I'm rather surprised myself when I googled "Magnesium vs Titanium". Magnesium is what most higher end cameras like K1 and K3 use.

https://cdiichinadirect.wordpress.com/2012/04/04/magnesium-is-called-the-metal-of-the-future-for-a-reason-lillian-wong/

Quote: "Magnesium is 33% lighter than aluminum, 60% lighter than titanium, and 75% lighter than steel. Yet for many applications it’s stronger per unit volume than all three of those structural metals."

What advantage is there over a magnesium alloy body? Ah yes bragging rights and enhanced snobbery.

It's not a pure titanium body anyhow that you refer to, it is a titanium alloy where they add a small percentage of titanium to the alloy instead of magnesium.

If you knew about titanium engineering you would know a pure titanium body would be ludicrously expensive as it is very difficult to manufacture.

Such engineering applications usually include a very high melting point beyond aluminium, magnesium and others. Clearly a consumer camera does not need this.

Carbon composites were developed for the likes of fighter planes, one of the reasons was because titanium was too expensive.

I'm happy with polycarbonate myself... Light, strong and shock resistant. Carbon composites are more brittle therefore less suitable than poly composites.

Joseph Tainter wrote:

I'd prefer depleted uranium.

Only for sabot rounds ... <g>

Actually, I went to the barber's yesterday and she asked me if I preferred a scissor or electric cut. My answer: I have a thing against telling professionals what tools to use. I'm just interested in the result.

Same applies here.

bob5050

The Squirrel Mafia wrote:

It would probably be too expensive to make. Titanium ain't cheap.

3-6 USD for 1 kg. aluminium is 1.7 USD for 1 kg.

Joseph Tainter wrote:

I'd prefer depleted uranium.

Joe

Very heavy element and the radioactivity introduces noise to the sensor...

😁

ogl wrote:

The Squirrel Mafia wrote:

It would probably be too expensive to make. Titanium ain't cheap.

3-6 USD for 1 kg. aluminium is 1.7 USD for 1 kg.

The workable manufacturing costs of Ti is exponentially more than Al.

The raw material cost is insignificant in comparison.

Might be cheaper to cast unobtainium with encrusted diamonds with a kryptonite atmosphere!

None of you guys engineers? Used to be a few Boeing engineers on this forum maybe well past pension age 😁

Joseph Tainter wrote:

I'd prefer depleted uranium.

Joe

Another industry first for Pentax.......an eye-catching yellow body. Upgrade model with a hint of magical glow.

......................Larry

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.

zakaria wrote:

Most of your comments concentrated in the material point .

what about the weight and the layout?

You're being unrelistic.

Weight: Comparisons from cameradecision

• K-S1: 558g. 121 x 93 x 70 mm
• K-70:  688g. 126 x 93 x 74 mm
• KP: 703g. 132 x 101 x 76 mm
• K-5: 740g. 131 x 97 x 73 mm
• K-3: 800g. 131 x 100 x 77 mm

Point: The K-S1, like the K-70, is not a premium camera, it's lighter built than even the KP, which was specifically designed to be light and compact. Weight of the K-S1 simply isn't going to happen in a flagship built to a higher standard of durability.

I don't think the K-S1 will be repeated. We might see an update to the K-70 (K-90?) that could be closer to the 700g mark. But the k-new won't.

Layout: The K-new includes a focus joystick and a new top dial--otherwise the layout looks very close to the K-3/K-5 line.  Obviously, adding additional controls is going to squeeze existing ones a bit. But I don't see the new layout as all that different or hard to get used to.

bob5050

bob5050 wrote:

zakaria wrote:

Most of your comments concentrated in the material point .

what about the weight and the layout?

You're being unrelistic.

Weight: Comparisons from cameradecision

• K-S1: 558g. 121 x 93 x 70 mm
• K-70: 688g. 126 x 93 x 74 mm
• KP: 703g. 132 x 101 x 76 mm
• K-5: 740g. 131 x 97 x 73 mm
• K-3: 800g. 131 x 100 x 77 mm

Point: The K-S1, like the K-70, is not a premium camera, it's lighter built than even the KP, which was specifically designed to be light and compact. Weight of the K-S1 simply isn't going to happen in a flagship built to a higher standard of durability.

You're always going on about this but you don't have any premium lenses.

I grace my K-70 with * and Limited lenses and spend money where it counts.

My K-70 with these lenses makes a better imaging machine that your equipment.

I don't think the K-S1 will be repeated. We might see an update to the K-70 (K-90?) that could be closer to the 700g mark. But the k-new won't.

Layout: The K-new includes a focus joystick and a new top dial--otherwise the layout looks very close to the K-3/K-5 line. Obviously, adding additional controls is going to squeeze existing ones a bit. But I don't see the new layout as all that different or hard to get used to.

bob5050

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

Oiche wrote:

You're always going on about this but you don't have any premium lenses.

I don't currently own any * or Limiteds, no. How that affects durability escapes me.

My K-70 with these lenses makes a better imaging machine than your equipment.

No doubt. I don't believe I've ever dissed the K-70's IQ. It's much newer than my K-3 and incorporates later technology. Again, however, that's unrelated to durability.

I expect that the k-new will cost somewhere between 1,600-2,000 USD. Knocking a camera off a table that costs that much is a different proposition than dropping a $500 camera. So higher end cameras get sturdier construction. That, in itself, adds weight but does not necessarily impact IQ. Two different issues.

bob5050