[jon.partsch]

Now, for the implications, it would depend if it is any different with the K-7. Unfortunately, the photo made from the K-7 cut out model lack the sufficient quality to tell. At least I am not able to say if there is the absorber pad or not.

If anybody has a better photo or better eyes ...

heh, yeah, someone tried to take a low DOF portrait of the K-7 cutaway - not very useful. I hope we can come up with something better.

[falconeye]

What is what around the pentaprism in the cutaway photo?
Something in the rear bottom, something in the rear top, something in front, and is there also something on top?

I can think of info row, af-points, light meter, but then what?

That's a good question, actually.

I made a crop with numbered functions.

Can anybody identify them? Is the same as for K-7 though.

I'd say that:
A: 77 zone meter
B: AF point overlay (3 visible LEDs confirm that actually)
C: Info row in viewfinder
D: ?? Color temperature sensor ??

[knoxploration]

The main mirror is semitransparent (Sony's marketing is using the wrong term: translucent means something else) for the AF secondary mirror to see anything. It's not a Sony invention So, the AF get's less light to start with (and additionally uses only a fraction of light in its lght path), adding to my argument that contrast AF will eventually outperform phase AF.

Here is the 100% crop out of the K-5 AF module, for easier reference:

Totally off topic, but no, they're not necessarily using the word translucent incorrectly. It has more than one meaning, and among its meanings is one that's completely correct. Some dictionaries define it as diffusing light, others don't. For example:

Collins English Dictionary - Complete & Unabridged 10th Edition: "allowing light to pass through partially or diffusely; semitransparent"

If you look at the word's derivation, it came from the Latin translūcēre -- "to shine through". I'd imagine they chose to call it that simply because they don't want to use a term anybody else is using. I don't see a trademark for it yet, but I've seen a trademark symbol alongside "Translucent Mirror Technology" in some places, so they may well have applied for a trademark -- something they couldn't do if they didn't coin the term themselves.

That said, no, Sony didn't invent it -- it's been around for decades, and indeed even predates autofocus by more than a decade. First pellicle mirror camera I'm aware of was the Canon Pellix, in 1965.

What Sony did invent is the material they've used to create their pellicle mirror, which is incredibly thin, in an attempt to reduce adverse effects on image quality. (Some defects do show up, but on balance they seem to have done a reasonably good job of it.)

[fzwo]

That's a good question, actually.

I made a crop with numbered functions.

Can anybody identify them? Is the same as for K-7 though.

I'd say that:
A: 77 zone meter
B: AF point overlay (3 visible LEDs confirm that actually)
C: Info row in viewfinder
D: ?? Color temperature sensor ??

I think you got B and C right, but I think D is metering (all DSLRs have something at that spot, and this image from a Canon 7D finder says it's the metering sensor).

I don't know what A is, but curiously, many DSLRs seem to have some kind of PCB up there. Maybe it's nothing. Or it's an ambient light color sensor, peeking out the little hole on top.

[rustynail925]

Falk, do you know at what focal length and aperture changes from 3.5-5.6 of the 18-135 WR?

[falconeye]

It has more than one meaning, and among its meanings is one that's completely correct. Some dictionaries define it as diffusing light, others don't.

offtopic and I am not against Sony marketing using the term.

But the ambiguous meaning in popular language (as you point out correctly) is unambigious in the optical literature: translucent is not transparent. The matte screen is translucent and wouldn't work if transparent or semitransparent. So, the terminology is very clear. And here in a photography forum, we may want to stick to a precise vocabulary, reserving translucent to the matte screen and a semitransparent mirror if marketed by Sony.

But I don't insist on us being precise. I just wanted to give everybody a fair chance though

P.S.
You may actually want to make a distinction beween "shine thru" and "see thru" in popular language too.

[Class A]

I think you didn't understand what edl was trying to say. And I agree, he didn't say what he meant.

I fully agree that your interpretation makes sense but I'm not convinced it captures what edl meant. Only edl knows.

Anyway, what we are looking at regarding high-ISO performance is read-out noise (and the floor level of dark current noise), right? Dark current noise and shot noise are independent of the ISO setting. In that sense it was good that you had good light available because we don't want to see lowered SNR caused by low light but the contribution of the sensor/camera to the noise.

Below is a cut model.

Wow, that's awesome. Thanks for sharing!

---

Last edited by Class A; 09-22-2010 at 04:53 PM.

[falconeye]

Falk, do you know at what focal length and aperture changes from 3.5-5.6 of the 18-135 WR?

no ten chars

[Freak]

Can anyone find out if the K-5 will support "Pentax Remote Utility" (that the K20) used to.. And if not why not?

[jpzk]

Falk:

I have been following this thread ever since you've started it and you have already answered most of the questions I was asking to "my own self". Thank you for that and congrats of this huge amoung of information you are providing.

Now, this is off topic and I must ask because I just can't believe how much work you are doing here, and a lot of what you write is totally "way too scientific" for my old brains!

Are you:
1. a physicist
2. a journalist
3. a scientific journalist
4. an engineer
5. all of the above

???

Cheers.

JP

Moderator: you may have to dump this post of move it ... I wasn't sure where to post it.

[JohnBee]

My humble attempt with ACR6 and Denoise 5:

K-5, ISO6400, ACR6, TDN5, 1280x848 sample, JPG IQ: 80%


2MB full size image: Download

The only thing I wished for(with regards to this sample), would have been a nominal(ISO200) shot taken along with it. This way, it would have given us a baseline from which to work with. However I am very grateful to have this sample, either way. The file looks good, and I'm hoping there's a little headroom left with respects to getting the most out of the sensor through settings.

And of course, aside from a gazillion questions following this... I guess the next logical question is... any chance we could get some ISO12800 files to run through?

~ the end...

[NaClH2O]

JP, actually Falk is Gandalf reborn, or maybe it was Merlin reborn, I forget which. In any event he is 6. A wizard!

NaCl( and thanks ever so much Falk for all the work you've done for us!)H2O

[knoxploration]

offtopic and I am not against Sony marketing using the term.

But the ambiguous meaning in popular language (as you point out correctly) is unambigious in the optical literature: translucent is not transparent. The matte screen is translucent and wouldn't work if transparent or semitransparent. So, the terminology is very clear. And here in a photography forum, we may want to stick to a precise vocabulary, reserving translucent to the matte screen and a semitransparent mirror if marketed by Sony.

But I don't insist on us being precise. I just wanted to give everybody a fair chance though

Point well made, and well taken. ;-)

P.S.
You may actually want to make a distinction beween "shine thru" and "see thru" in popular language too.

That's just the definition given by several dictionaries in the etymology for "translucent", for the Latin word "translūcēre". I don't speak Latin, and hence couldn't tell you whether "shine thru" is a correct translation, but given that it's in multiple dictionaries, I'd hope so. ;-)

[jpzk]

JP, actually Falk is Gandalf reborn, or maybe it was Merlin reborn, I forget which. In any event he is 6. A wizard!

NaCl( and thanks ever so much Falk for all the work you've done for us!)H2O

This actually might be true!
But my take is that he must be some sort of Gandalf/Merlin hybrid ... aren't we in the days of hybridization?
Or, perhaps, a genetic anomaly rendering his cerebral cortex way bigger than ours?

Edit: Have you ever considered that he also just might be a close peer of JohnB, another such cerebrally gifted fellow?

JP

No pun Falk and JohnB ... just enjoying your knowledge!

[lithos]

It could be a full OLED EVF w/o blowing up the size of the body.

I don't think OLED tech's reached that level (OLED-lit LCDs, however...)

I really, really, REALLY wish Pentax would release some nice design & philosophy-type documents for stuff like this, the ideas, people and engineering behind aspects of camera design. Not very Japanese, though, as I understand it.