Template talk:Pentax digital interchangeable lens cameras

Prosumer vs. Consumer

I have removed these labels per WP:V. They are uncited and apparently not labels Pentax published. http://www.pentaximaging.com/products/cameras/digital/digital_slr/ Nothing is mentioned there or related pages I could find that indicate either type of label. Cburnett (talk) 00:03, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I haven't got the time at the moment. Just about every Pentax press release announcing the camera declares who the target market is, so if any other editor has the time they can add these references using the <ref>link here</ref>. If no one else gets around to it, I'll go ahead and do it myself in a few hours. Tejastheory (talk) 01:04, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

K-m/K2000D

This was recently announced at Photokina [1]. It's basically a smaller, lighter K200D (although it goes to ISO 3200, not 1600, hmmm). It still has the stabilization, but no sealing and no top LCD.

How the heck should this thing fit into the template? My proposal would be to change the K100D, K200D, etc. line to be called "Enthusiast", and put this in the "entry-level" category with the K110D. I know that's hopelessly imprecise but it seems like the easiest most intuitive solution. Any suggestions? :-P ǝɹʎℲxoɯ (contrib) 14:16, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

*istDS entry level while K100D enthusiast?

Is this because the DL hadn't appeared at this point on the timeline? So the DS had to be pentax's entry-level model at the time? The K100D sits, featurewise, somewhere between the DS and DL just with added shake reduction, i think it's fair to label any camera which uses a pentamirror as entrylevel, the 110D maybe needs its own super-entrylevel section. It's also worth comparing features between the *istD and DS, maybe the latter needs to be repositioned as enthusiast. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.24.241.9 (talk) 15:32, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Removal of MZ-D and 645D prototypes

I agree that the MZ-D and 645D prototypes shouldn't have been listed as they were previously, since these never went into production or on sale. However, they were also significant in the development of Pentax's camera lineup and should probably be acknowledged somehow in a timeline like that.

Can anyone think of a way to incorporate prototypes into a timeline like this? It would probably be helpful for the Canon/Nikon/K-M/Sony templates as well, since those also omit early prototype and hybrid DSLR models which were significant in the development of modern DSLRs. Moxfyre (ǝɹʎℲxoɯ | contrib) 21:27, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

How's this?

--Richmeister_talk 05:13, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Richmeister, I like it. Moxfyre (ǝɹʎℲxoɯ | contrib) 05:18, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

645D now in mass production

As the medium-format digital 645D finaly went into production, it would make sense to update the template. What about:

07:13, 2 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.92.188.166 (talk)

Video

How about viewing the video capability, similar to Nikon, Canon tables? --79.198.31.54 (talk) 08:57, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Done. --Richmeister_talk 10:26, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Great! --79.198.31.54 (talk) 20:47, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

How is video supposed to be differentiated in this timeline? I don't see it marked in any distinctive way the current version. —Moxfyre (ǝɹʎℲxoɯ | contrib) 16:42, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Cameras with HD video are underlined. --Racklever (talk) 10:05, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Table corrected

As of April 2011 camera shops here in the UK have the K-r, K-x, K5 and K7 for sale. See [2] Racklever (talk) 06:52, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

"Ultrasonic vibration dust removal"

The template currently distinguishes Ultrasonic vibration dust removal as a distinct feature of the K-7, K-5, and K-5 II. But don't all the Pentax DSLRs with in-body stabilization have ultrasonic dust removal? Or is this truly a new feature? (I only

K-S1/K-S2

With the K-S1 basically being a K-500 replacement from a line-up point of view and a weather sealed K-50 replacement on the way (Body presented at CES, pictures with a "K-S2" label on it leaked today): Wouldn't it make sense to move the K-S1 down to the "entry level" section to make room for the K-S2 in the green Mid-level section? --El Grafo (talk) 09:49, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Q10 discontinued

The Q10 was discontinued somewhere during 2014. Difficult to say when exactly, but it's gone from the the Ricoh websites. --El Grafo (talk) 11:13, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Now end set to second quarter of 2014. If you've got better sources, please don't hesitate to correct that. --El Grafo (talk) 16:34, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Using archive.org I found out that the Q10 was moved to the "Discontinued" section of the Japanese Ricoh Website somewhere between October 2014 and March 2015. → will add another quarter to it's lifetime. --El Grafo (talk) 12:28, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

The Q7 has been discontinued as well. It is now in the "Discontinued Model" section of [3], in the "Digital SLR Cameras" subsection (sic!). Not sure when exactly that was done, so I'll guesstimate … --El Grafo (talk) 12:08, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

According to archive.org, the Q7 was moved to the "Discontinued" section somewhere between July and September 2015. → Guesstimate seems to be about right. --El Grafo (talk) 12:28, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

K-3 II not discontinued

See http://www.ricoh-imaging.co.uk/en/digital-slr.html and http://us.ricoh-imaging.com/products/k-series/

--Racklever (talk) 11:01, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

@Racklever: sorry, didn't see this section before: You are right, the K-3 II is of course not discontinued. But I think the original K-3 is → see my comments below. Cheers, --El Grafo (talk) 09:04, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

K-3 discontinuation

@Racklever: concerning your revert: At least Ricoh's US website is known for being outdated. The general consensus on websites like Pentaxforums.com seems to be "don't trust any ricoh website but the japanese one", as the local websites are run by the local subsidiaries, which may not be up to date (There's been quite some beefing around on the perceived incompetence of the US section in particular, as far as I remember). I think it's safe to say that the original K-3 is out of production by now, almost 1 year after introduction of the K-3II. You can still buy it new as long as old stock is available. It may take years, though, until the last one sitting on a shelf in a shop somewhere has been sold, so the question is: at what point do we consider a model to be discontinued? Cheers, --El Grafo (talk) 12:31, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Should we mark "pixel-shift resolution"?

Using the shake reduction mechanism for "pixel shift resolution" looks like it might become one of the defining features of Pentax DSLRs. With the recent announcement of the K-70 there are now 3 bodies that have it (the other ones being K-3II and K-1). Should we mark this in the template? If so, I'd propose to switch the signatures for HD-video and shake reduction and use a second type of underline for SR with pixel shift. Something like this (borrowed from {{Nikon DSLR cameras}}):

• HD video capable
• In-body stabilization
• In-body stabilization with Pixel-Shift resolution

Any thoughts on that? --El Grafo (talk) 09:28, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree it should be marked, but maybe it should be marked in another way. For instance with a footnote mark. That way we increase the number of possible markings. I also would like to mark KAF4 compatibility. That is currently (as of aug 13. 2016) K-70, K-1, K-3II, K-S2 and K-S2, but possibly more with future firmware updates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.202.59.117 (talk) 08:41, 13 August 2016 (UTC)