Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
07-20-2010, 10:25 PM   #16
Pentaxian
i83N's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Lithuania
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,144
"EVIL APS_C
Electronic Viewfinder Coverage: 100-140 %"
From PP presentation
What a hell is 140% of coverage??? This is impossible.
I say this is stupid

07-21-2010, 12:02 AM - 1 Like   #17
New Member




Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: London
Posts: 2
QuoteOriginally posted by i83N Quote
"EVIL APS_C
Electronic Viewfinder Coverage: 100-140 %"
From PP presentation
What a hell is 140% of coverage??? This is impossible.
I say this is stupid
No, its just uneconomic in a consumer camera.

It means the Viewfinder shows an overlay frame in the viewfinder which is the actual image taken, the rest is discarded. Its essential on broadcast TV cameras and (Movie) Film bodies, so the cameraman can see what's happening outside the frame and adjust before it happens (e.g. someone walking into shot, stopping a move just before a wall appears on the edge of frame, etc etc)
07-21-2010, 01:32 AM   #18
Site Supporter
shiner's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: N GA USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,326
Auxiliary camera to read aperture rings from M lenses, OCR! EVIL APSc K-x sensor! I'll take one, please.
07-21-2010, 02:38 AM   #19
Forum Member




Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 82
Wow, that's ugly. And stupid. This thing would be needlessly expensive to make for the sake of gimicky features like an F-Stop camera.

I'll agree that viewfinder coverage > 100% is a very nice feature, but all this means in reality is that the camera normally shoots in cropped mode or needs a big, expensice APS-H sized sensor (which nobody makes, except for canon, and they don't sell their sensors).

Ridiculous.

07-21-2010, 02:58 AM   #20
Senior Member




Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Deventer, NL
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 113
For what it's worth, to me it seems this thing isn't really thought through. For example, the whole 'more than 100% viewfinder view' makes no sense for an evil camera, as you use the sensor for previewing, so why not record what you can? It also doesn't make much sense for SLR designs, because you need a bigger mirror than you have a sensor. In photography, I think it only makes sense for rangefinders. Then it seems to be all 'retro', but with all kinds of gimmicky functions.

I sure would like an 'MXD', but it should be that all the way. As little change as possible, except a digital sensor instead of film. Get rid of the jpeg capabilities and LCD, RAW only and I'll view my files at home. Same mirrorbox and viewfinder, of course, so it would be nice to have a sensor as close to full frame as possible. But I think that even then, all electronics wouldn't fit. If you realise how close the film used to be to the back of the body, and how much thicker bodies are now, a lot more than just the LCD would have to go to make it that shallow again.

And then again, the form of the old film SLRs was dictated by the need for a film spool or roll on both sides of the sensor, they weren't designed like that because that's the most practical form to take pictures. So if Pentax were to make a minimalist ultra-small camera, it doesn't have to be in a film SLR shaped body for me. Still, it seems to me these old cameras had a much smaller mirrorbox and viewfinder prism than the FF bodies of today, and this makes me believe there's still a lot to gain there.
07-21-2010, 03:04 AM   #21
Senior Member
jaitas's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Oulu
Posts: 124
Just pointing this out about the 140% viewfinder

Reading the powerpoint you'll find out that this magnification is not made with imagin sensor but extra wide angle 2mpix sensor+lens located on the prism hump. So APS-C sized sensor and mirror will be fine.

So they thought this out, just pointing this out, without taking any sides...

But anyway nice to see people have really gone trough a lot of trouble with this, very nice
07-21-2010, 03:34 AM   #22
Forum Member




Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 82
The view through that funky little external camera would add impossible-to-correct parallax errors (which, granted, at distances > 1 m wouldn't matter that much anymore) which defeat the purpose of through the lens viewfinding.

Also, the low resolution of that camera together with the ultra-ultra wide angle of view (since they want to record the aperture ring on lenses) would mean very, very, very low resolution for anything approaching telephoto: Suppose the camera had a focal length of 24 mm equivalent (we are being way too generous here; there's no way they could view the aperture ring with that focal length on a forward-facing camera):
That would mean a horizontal field of view of about 73° (assuming 3:2 aspect ratio and rounding in their favor). Now, to show what a 85 mm-e lens would see, we'll only need an FOV of about 24°, which is ~1/3, so we crop the image to 1/3 in each dimension. The little sensor had a resolution of 2 MP, which corresponds to 1752*1168. Our crop would have a resolution of only one third in each dimension, that is 548*390 = 0.21 MP!

And that was only for a 55 mm lens on APS-C. (Yes, I've ignored that we want to record 140% instead of 100, so multiply the resolution by a whopping 1.4 if you wish, but keep in mind that we now calculate the needed FOV for an even shorter focal length)

For longer lenses, the problem gets even worse, and for shorter lenses... well, you'll see the top of the lens instead of the bottom half of your pic. Useless and not at all thought through.
07-21-2010, 03:53 AM   #23
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Romania
Posts: 8,435
Interesting ideas, but practicality wasn't even considered

2MP camera (a webcam, by it's size) + OCR just to find out what's the aperture with decades old K lenses? Just to have the aperture value in EXIF? Why on Earth would one add such complexity for an unneeded task? (and unreliable as well, since it won't work in the dark)
Putting the old aperture coupler back, off the sensor (LX-like) metering, or, since it's an EVF, stop-down metering - there are many possible solutions. But the document is about impossible ones, isn't so?

Is the same 2MP camera used as the source for the EVF's image? Why? We'll have the same calibration issues rangefinders had to solve (by complex, well-calibrated mechanical components - which wouldn't work at all with SLR lenses), that is if we won't rely only on cropping (which would be way more extensive to get anything usable with longer lenses). I see fzwo has added few other good points on this subject, I won't repeat them here.
The quality would be webcam-like. Framing will become an aproximation, but hey, we'll have "140%". Whatever.

Return to the old-style cable releases? Why? (yeah, that's the reason shutter releases were shaped like that)

Last but not least, I'm sure I'd hate the ergonomics. Or, the lack of.

Sorry, but that's crazy. Not that I don't like crazy dreams
Hoya, however, can't afford to be crazy; they first and foremost need to survive. E.g. making products they can sell, and make a profit.

07-21-2010, 05:29 AM   #24
Pentaxian
Mike.P®'s Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: South Coast .. UK
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,734
It has one feature I want to see on the next high end Pentax.

A metal hotshoe not painted black .. I hated that on the K10D/K20D and now the K-7, it scratches much too easily and makes the camera look tatty.
07-21-2010, 05:57 AM   #25
Site Supporter
Sailor's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Coastal Texas
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 18,248
While I'm pretty sure this new "design" isn't intended to be taken seriously, it brought a smile to my face. I got an MX new in '78 (still have it), and - with the possible exception of my LX's - it's the most elegant camera I've ever owned. I'd welcome a DSLR as svelt as an MX, but I think that's unlikely. But, Hey Pentax - how about a small, classy rangefinder designed to couple with my DA Limiteds?

Jer
07-21-2010, 07:33 AM   #26
Veteran Member
WMBP's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Dallas, Texas
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,496
Don't know if it's feasible technically but I love the look. I might even stop carrying my Panasonic LX3 around with me everywhere.

Will
07-21-2010, 07:35 AM   #27
Site Supporter
Aristophanes's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Dartmouth, Nova Scotia
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,790
QuoteOriginally posted by WMBP Quote
Don't know if it's feasible technically but I love the look. I might even stop carrying my Panasonic LX3 around with me everywhere.
Or just get this:

Panasonic officially announces DMC-LX5 premium compact: Digital Photography Review
07-21-2010, 07:38 AM   #28
Veteran Member
WMBP's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Dallas, Texas
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,496
QuoteOriginally posted by Aristophanes Quote
'
I'm aware of the forthcoming release of the LX5. So far it doesn't look like I'll bother to upgrade. I think they went and ruined the camera by extending the zoom from 60mm to 90mm (effective). Personally I'd like the LX3 even better if they had just put a 24mm prime on it and left it at that. :-)

Will
07-21-2010, 08:20 AM   #29
Senior Member




Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Deventer, NL
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 113
QuoteOriginally posted by WMBP Quote
'
I think they went and ruined the camera by extending the zoom from 60mm to 90mm (effective).
I know it's a little off-topic, but what's wrong with extending the zoom range? as I understood it, it's still f/2.8 @ '60mm', so what's not to like? Do you think something else got degraded in the IQ department?
07-21-2010, 08:25 AM   #30
Veteran Member
WMBP's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Dallas, Texas
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,496
QuoteOriginally posted by urje Quote
I know it's a little off-topic, but what's wrong with extending the zoom range? as I understood it, it's still f/2.8 @ '60mm', so what's not to like? Do you think something else got degraded in the IQ department?
I don't know if it affected the image quality or not. I was half joking—but only half. On my Pentax system, I shoot almost exclusively with prime lenses. I LIKE dealing with a limited range of focal lengths. One of the things I liked about the LX3 was that limited zoom (24-60 effective). At 24-90 (=18-60 in Pentax DSLR terms), well, it's like too much sugar on the strawberries.

When I said I'd have liked the LX3 even better if they'd given it a 24mm prime, I was NOT joking, not even half way. I hardly ever use it at anything other than 24.

I am aware that mine is a minority opinion. If the majority starts agreeing with me, I may have to reconsider my views.

Will
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!
pentax, pentax news, pentax rumors
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
News Upcoming Events: World Pentax Day and Pentax SyncSnap! Adam Site Suggestions and Help 73 11-01-2009 11:46 PM
What are the upcoming Pentax lenses? Adam Pentax Lens Articles 32 10-23-2008 09:29 PM
Retail Prices of Upcoming Pentax Lenses Tbear Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 12 01-24-2008 01:46 PM
Upcoming lenses per Pentax CS scottax1 Pentax News and Rumors 12 08-29-2007 05:21 PM
Discussion on upcoming and future Pentax DA (not *) zooms Richard Day Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 8 08-06-2007 01:31 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:40 PM. | See also: NikonForums.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