[dnas]

There is also the location/size of the AF sensor. It is below the mirror box, and takes up around 10mm of vertical space, which was not required on MF film SLRs.
In that sense, AF has taken up this additional space in both AF SLR and AF DSLR cameras.

I don't get your point here. My MZ-3 af film body dimensions are 135 x 90 x 61.5 and the *ist film camera was 122 x 84 x 63.5. Besides, the K-7 and *ist are AF dSLR. Besides, the image sensor will be behind the AF sensor.

I was talking about VERTICAL distance. The photos (above) showing the Samsung and the Pentax ME super should be be taken in context. If the ME super body had an AF sensor (for example), the top of the pentaprism would be 10mm higher, and it would not be quite as small as it looks in that photo.

[Fogel70]

It will be possible, register distance means nothing. Only important thing is how close can go rear element of the lens to focal plane. Without mirror it can go as close as with other mirrorless cameras (be them EVIL or film rangefinders).

I don't think the K-mount is big enough for lenses protruding very far into the camera. Otherwise Pentax need to use a custom made sensor with offset microlenses just like Leica. But a sensor like this would cost much more than a standard sensor.

With a new mount and shorter register distance the mount can be made big enough to solve this problem. I really don't understand why it is so important that the EVIL camera must have a K-mount when a new mount with a K-mount adapter will give the same functionality, and the new mount will be better optimized for future contrast detection lenses and make the whole system smaller.

---snip---
And maybe....maybe...they can drop the AF motor on the EVIL body and go with SDM lenses only.... But they should release something like full updated DA Limited II SDM line of lenses at the same time.
---snip---

With SDM motor these lenses will no longer be "Limited" as they will grow i size and can not be made with the same design. They would be closer to DA* series.
If these lenses should be optimized for contrast detection AF I'm not sure they will work on DSLR, so Pentax might need to have two series of the "same" lens, one for DSLR and one for EVIL.

[BRunner]

I don't think the K-mount is big enough for lenses protruding very far into the camera. Otherwise Pentax need to use a custom made sensor with offset microlenses just like Leica. But a sensor like this would cost much more than a standard sensor.

And what is the difference between shorter register mount distance and protruding lenses in terms of optical design ? In the end the distance between rear lens element and focal plane (sensor) will be the same!

With a new mount and shorter register distance the mount can be made big enough to solve this problem. I really don't understand why it is so important that the EVIL camera must have a K-mount when a new mount with a K-mount adapter will give the same functionality, and the new mount will be better optimized for future contrast detection lenses and make the whole system smaller.

I won't repeat my and other posters arguments, please read the posts above.

With SDM motor these lenses will no longer be "Limited" as they will grow i size and can not be made with the same design. They would be closer to DA* series.
If these lenses should be optimized for contrast detection AF I'm not sure they will work on DSLR, so Pentax might need to have two series of the "same" lens, one for DSLR and one for EVIL.

Why? Look at the size of Samsung 2/30 pancake for NX....

[Blue]

I was talking about VERTICAL distance. The photos (above) showing the Samsung and the Pentax ME super should be be taken in context. If the ME super body had an AF sensor (for example), the top of the pentaprism would be 10mm higher, and it would not be quite as small as it looks in that photo.

Well, the discussion was about "thin" cameras to that point because of registration distance debate.

---

Last edited by Blue; 08-05-2010 at 09:28 PM.

[Blue]

Here is another possibility. Pentax could go with a Leica M39 mount like Voightlander used on the Bessa L rangefinder in 1999. Pentax made a version of the FA 43mm ltd in that mount called the L 43mm Special. It was a mf lens, but it had the Leica m39 registration distance of 28.8mm. They could do that with the FA 31 and FA 77 or even the DA ltds given it is likely to have an APS-c sensor. Then again maybe Pentax will stuff a full frame sensor in the thing and pacify all the FF and EVIL guys in one package!

[thibs]

And what is the difference between shorter register mount distance and protruding lenses in terms of optical design ? In the end the distance between rear lens element and focal plane (sensor) will be the same!

No, not the same, protruding is used for WA, not for other designs.
Those lenses would be incompatible if all other 'K' mount cameras so there's no point in this anyway.

[fearview]

the long terms will be . APS-C for mirrorless , FF for DSLR .. :ugh:

[Fogel70]

And what is the difference between shorter register mount distance and protruding lenses in terms of optical design ? In the end the distance between rear lens element and focal plane (sensor) will be the same!

A lens protruding into the camera will limit the size of the lens elements. If the rear element can't be made big enough so that the light hit the sensor in a straight angle it will lead to vignetting as not all light will hit the bottom of the pixel. If using a new mount with shorter register distance the mount itself can be optimized in size and lens elements can be made bigger.

Why? Look at the size of Samsung 2/30 pancake for NX....

It is a lens designed for a shorter register distance that can be made smaller and faster than lenses for longer register distance. Pentax pancakes probably do not grow in size so much if Pentax use a new type of motor (ring motor), but if using the present SDM motor the lenses will grow more in size. A 100% electronic mount like Samsung NX will be better for small size lenses as it require less moving mechanical parts in the lens, which takes up space.

[dnas]

Well, the discussion was about "thin" cameras to that point because of registration distance debate.

YOU were quoting size in 3 dimensions(e.g. 135 x 90 x 61.5 and the *ist film camera was 122 x 84 x 63.5, etc), not just ONE (registration distance), so the height is obviously relevant to the discussion as well.

[Caat]

If Pentax could produce a digital body the size of the MX or ME Super then I suspect they could compete with the micro-mounts. Whether they have to remove the mirror box to do this is by the by. But shrinking down the required electronics would be the big problem.

I think the most important point that was made in this thread is that no one really seems to be asking why people would a) want an EVIL camera that is as small as a point and shoot and b) how many people would actually choose an EVIL over an APS-C or 4/3 equipped fixed lens compact?

I would argue that there are currently three main groups of people buying EVILs:

a) The enthusiast who wants the best possible quality and lens flexibility (i.e. interchangeable lenses) in a small, portable, package. Principally current DSLR owners.

b) People who want a camera with the best possible image quality but they want it pocketable. Interchangeable lenses is an extra capability they don't really need.

c) Gadget buyers who want an all singing all dancing camera but aren't photography enthusiasts per se

I think what we are seeing is the market reaching a fragmentation point. Just as FF sensors are squeezing high-end APS-C, APS-C/4,3s is squeezing super-zooms and high end compacts.

The problem is that the users of super-zooms and high end compacts don't necessarily want an interchangeable lens camera. They want a high quality camera but they have been marketed into believing this means a) changeable lenses and b) larger sensors. Only the latter is actually true (caveats exist of course).

I think we could see the EVIL market itself being attacked by fixed lens large sensor compacts.

The market is very much in flux at the moment and I guess in some ways this is why Olympus and Panasonic did well to get in early because whilst the EVIL market is growing rapidly it could easily fragment.

[bymy141]

The problem is that the users of super-zooms and high end compacts don't necessarily want an interchangeable lens camera. They want a high quality camera but they have been marketed into believing this means a) changeable lenses and b) larger sensors. Only the latter is actually true (caveats exist of course).

I think we could see the EVIL market itself being attacked by fixed lens large sensor compacts.

I do not completely agree with you.

For myself, I'm in your category A.
This means I'm looking for the best Image Quality I can afford, plus the best portability.
Image Quality is not only a function of the camera, though important the lens is the most important thing here, secondly the sensor.
Therefore I need a camera with a large sensor + primes.
Hence the need for replaceable lenses... EVIL is not a marketing hype.

It is *only* if there was a ultra zoom compact, with glass that could match my high end lenses and a sensitive APS-C or better sensor, I'd buy it.

- Bert

[openyourap]

a) The enthusiast who wants the best possible quality and lens flexibility in a small, portable, package. Principally current DSLR owners.

b) People who want a camera with the best possible image quality but they want it pocketable

c) Gadget buyers who want an all singing all dancing camera but aren't photography enthusiasts per se

A and B appear to be much the same group, as I read your post. I would make the distinction as:

a) DSLR down-sizers, who want to retain the same flexibility and control.

b) P&S up-scalers, who want better image quality quality and greater artistic control.

If Pentax makes a killer product, you'll also see category D: Brand-switchers from m4/3

[Caat]

I do not completely agree with you.

For myself, I'm in your category A.
This means I'm looking for the best Image Quality I can afford, plus the best portability.
Image Quality is not only a function of the camera, though important the lens is the most important thing here, secondly the sensor.
Therefore I need a camera with a large sensor + primes.
Hence the need for replaceable lenses... EVIL is not a marketing hype.

It is *only* if there was a ultra zoom compact, with glass that could match my high end lenses and a sensitive APS-C or better sensor, I'd buy it.

- Bert

Sorry I wasn't totally clear. By lens flexibility I really meant that the camera can take interchangeable lenses.

I never said that EVIL is marketing hype however the current EVIL market is still in flux and may yet fragment.

Essentially take an Panasonic LX3 or LX4 redesign it with an APS-C or 4/3s sensor and I think you'd nab a lot of people who are currently buying EVILs. This is in no way to say that the EVIL market is somehow an illusion. I still think it will continue to grow rapidly.

[Caat]

A and B appear to be much the same group, as I read your post. I would make the distinction as:

a) DSLR down-sizers, who want to retain the same flexibility and control.

b) P&S up-scalers, who want better image quality quality and greater artistic control.

If Pentax makes a killer product, you'll also see category D: Brand-switchers from m4/3

Yeah, by lens flexibility I meant interchangeable lenses. I'll edit my post to be clearer.

[NewRsoul]

I don't really get all this MIL/EVIL camera hype, the only reason I can see Size, as in if you really want or need a small camera. Price wise they're mostly more expensive than an equivalent DSLR, so how much smaller than a (Class Leading) K-X do you need, and are you willing to pay £100 more for the privilege? I'm not.

SRS
K-x with Lens £400
G2 with Lens £529

Peter