Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
10-11-2012, 03:21 AM   #16
Forum Member




Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Northern Germany
Posts: 72
Original Poster
This was a real surprise

This kind of tone is exactly why I stopped contributing at DPR a few years ago and registered here. In the beginning, things were nice here, whereas the Pentax forum at DPR was a total mess with constant infighting among older members and a bunch of new people behaving on a level of jerkishness close to this particular thread.

But what I've experienced here in this thread is just totally rude and uncalled for, much like what was going on at DPR back then. I posted a similar thread on DPR with the same ideas as this thread. In stark contrast to the response here, my ideas have been taken seriously at DPR and a really cool and much more interesting discussion has involved with many insightful comments.

Is this place full of people like this, or is this an anomaly?

Matt

10-11-2012, 03:55 AM   #17
Senior Member
paulusje's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 135
Interesting idea Matt!
Maybe you could keep the OVF by having the mirror up normally and have it close down only when taking a shot. The ovf will then be where the LCD is normally. You could have a new place for the LCD, above the sensor on top of the housing for istance.
Not necessarily smaller but it allows for different body-shapes.
10-11-2012, 04:28 AM   #18
Pentaxian
JinDesu's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: New York City
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 5,626
QuoteOriginally posted by paulusje Quote
Interesting idea Matt!
Maybe you could keep the OVF by having the mirror up normally and have it close down only when taking a shot. The ovf will then be where the LCD is normally. You could have a new place for the LCD, above the sensor on top of the housing for istance.
Not necessarily smaller but it allows for different body-shapes.
However, you still affect the image quality with the mirror.

Would be an interesting body shape though - sorta similar to how the K-01 with a loupe, but not as large. I don't see it as an improvement in ergonomics though.
10-11-2012, 05:35 AM   #19
Veteran Member
ironlionzion's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 409
QuoteOriginally posted by KL Matt Quote
This was a real surprise This kind of tone is exactly why I stopped contributing at DPR a few years ago and registered here. In the beginning, things were nice here, whereas the Pentax forum at DPR was a total mess with constant infighting among older members and a bunch of new people behaving on a level of jerkishness close to this particular thread. But what I've experienced here in this thread is just totally rude and uncalled for, much like what was going on at DPR back then. I posted a similar thread on DPR with the same ideas as this thread. In stark contrast to the response here, my ideas have been taken seriously at DPR and a really cool and much more interesting discussion has involved with many insightful comments. Is this place full of people like this, or is this an anomaly? Matt
I can't believe my two comments set you off like that. My first comment poked a little fun but was in good nature, hence the " " My second comment was a sincere response to why I don't think a simple idea like that would work. Then you raged that I gave no "technical" evidence (which was never asked for). I expressed my opinion about the idea honestly, although perhaps a bit too openly, and got this from you:
QuoteOriginally posted by KL Matt Quote
So you've got nothing, you just felt like criticizing? Gee, thanks for your contribution to the thread.
. You criticize me for being rude, yet it seems like you're the one who is coming off as rude.

10-12-2012, 02:12 AM   #20
Senior Member
paulusje's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 135
QuoteOriginally posted by JinDesu Quote
However, you still affect the image quality with the mirror.
True, I wonder how bad it would be.

QuoteOriginally posted by JinDesu Quote
Would be an interesting body shape though - sorta similar to how the K-01 with a loupe, but not as large. I don't see it as an improvement in ergonomics though.
I think it could be an improvement. I'd be interested in having both an EWLF (electronic waist level viewfinder) and an OVF (optical eye-level viewfinder) in one body. I bet it would be great for street shots and for low to the ground macro shots.
10-12-2012, 07:51 AM   #21
Pentaxian
Fogel70's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,748
QuoteOriginally posted by KL Matt Quote
Hi,

Why don't pentax put the sensor up where the prism is on a dslr and fix the mirror at 45 degrees in place?

You could take up to 20 mm of thickness off the body with just this one move.

Matt
I doubt you can save as much as 20mm doing this, maybe not even 10mm. If keeping SR the body might end up being 10-20mm deeper than K01.
10-17-2012, 03:38 AM   #22
Forum Member
ChrisJowett's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 79
I agree that anything between the back of the lens and the sensor will degrade quality.
In any event I really don't see the point of a thin body when a large APSC sensor still requires large lenses.
That's a NEX, which I considered buying before getting the K-01, but dismissed as even the smallest NEX lens results in a camera little smaller in practical terms than a K-01.
Micro 4/3, Nikon 1 etc by comparison can achieve a significantly smaller camera because the lenses are so much smaller, if that's what you want. The Q is the extreme and, for me, goes a tad too far.
What I'd like to see as a solution to the compact/k-mount dilemma is eschewing the standard camera shape for a scaled-down 645D shape. Accept the back-focus, reduce the width and embrace a big-ass grip as part of the whole body design. When there's no LHS to cling to, you quickly get used to cradling the lens & body from beneath.
12-13-2012, 07:24 AM   #23
Pentaxian
Sagitta's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Maine
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,939
With mirrorless technology, honestly I'm surprised nobody's explored a telescopic design.

Basically a round tube with an LCD on the side that you use like... well... a telescope.

Shutter release and all the buttons on the sides, and you simply hold it up to your eye like a pirate and snap your shots that way.

(I'm only half jesting here - the whole reason cameras are square is to accommodate film, and film isn't a factor in a digital camera.)

EDIT: Basically kind of the ergonomics of a handicam, only its a still camera.

12-13-2012, 11:47 AM   #24
Pentaxian
Na Horuk's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Slovenia, probably
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 10,864
QuoteOriginally posted by Sagitta Quote
hold it up to your eye like a pirate
I like this idea, I'd buy it
12-13-2012, 05:36 PM   #25
Loyal Site Supporter
THoog's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: North Carolina
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,486
Isn't that the Lytro, more or less?
12-14-2012, 03:27 PM   #26
Administrator
Site Webmaster
Adam's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Arizona
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 43,139
QuoteOriginally posted by KL Matt Quote
Hi,

Why don't pentax put the sensor up where the prism is on a dslr and fix the mirror at 45 degrees in place?

You could take up to 20 mm of thickness off the body with just this one move.

Matt
Look at the Sony NEXes- if they had a mirror, they would be much bigger.

Pentax already has the smallest mirrorless camera (the Q), and they tested the waters with a more compact mirrorless-only (K-01) lens at CP+ last year, but it didn't seem to generate any interest.

Adam
PentaxForums.com Webmaster (Site Usage Guide | Site Help | My Photography)



PentaxForums.com's high server and development costs are user-supported. You can help cover those costs by donating. Or, buy your photo gear from our affiliates, Adorama, B&H Photo, or Topaz Labs, and get FREE Marketplace access - click here to see how! Trusted Pentax retailers:

12-14-2012, 03:38 PM   #27
Veteran Member
ihasa's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: West Midlands
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,054
To be fair, the lens was barely any smaller than existing DA ltds. Which have the added flexibility of being used on dslrs...
12-14-2012, 03:54 PM   #28
Pentaxian
RobA_Oz's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Tasmania, Australia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 4,333
QuoteOriginally posted by JinDesu Quote
However, you still affect the image quality with the mirror.

Would be an interesting body shape though - sorta similar to how the K-01 with a loupe, but not as large. I don't see it as an improvement in ergonomics though.
That rather depends on the mirror, doesn't it? Most optical telescopes of any size (including catadioptric photographic lenses) use front-surfaced mirrors that don't degrade image quality, and optical flats are a damn sight easier to manufacture than paraboloidal or even spherical mirrors. It's something else to keep clean, of course.

The ergonomics would be interesting, and something of a challenge, but probably more of a challenge would be making it acceptable visually, I reckon.
12-14-2012, 04:05 PM   #29
Pentaxian
RobA_Oz's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Tasmania, Australia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 4,333
QuoteOriginally posted by ChrisJowett Quote
What I'd like to see as a solution to the compact/k-mount dilemma is eschewing the standard camera shape for a scaled-down 645D shape. Accept the back-focus, reduce the width and embrace a big-ass grip as part of the whole body design. When there's no LHS to cling to, you quickly get used to cradling the lens & body from beneath.
That's pretty much the approach Rollei took with their 35mm film camera, the 2/3000 series. I've thought for some time that this unconventional approach would be a good basis for a Pentax digital 35mm format system camera.
12-14-2012, 10:50 PM   #30
Veteran Member
VisualDarkness's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Uppsala, Sweden
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 4,441
This design could be really interesting for an inverted kind och SLT, but I bet Sony got it patented. An almost fully reflecting semi-translucent mirror, the image sensor up top and the EVF sensor where you traditionally put the image sensor. I guess this would eliminate some of the problems associated with short flange focal distance and lens design while keeping the old mount. Though I doubt that the camera would become that much smaller, especially with SR, as the camera still needs to be very deep to fit the whole sensor mechanics.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
body, digital camera, mirrorless
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Ultra Optics/Ultra Power - A Precision Company - Sakar International jtkratzer Pentax Camera and Field Accessories 11 07-05-2012 10:18 AM
645D - SD card recipe ? VoltMan Pentax Medium Format 5 01-17-2011 03:50 PM
Give Me A Recipe to Follow charlestm Photographic Technique 7 05-07-2009 08:22 PM
Recipe bdery Post Your Photos! 6 11-13-2008 07:08 PM
For Sale - Sold: FS: Hoya #019493 67mm Ultra Thin CPL Ed in GA Sold Items 4 04-06-2008 04:57 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:46 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top