Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
11-15-2010, 03:26 PM   #91
Moderator
Site Supporter
Blue's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Florida Hill Country
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 17,166
Douglas, why does your graph show the *istD so thick? It should be 60mm for the *istD, 70mm for the K20d and 74mm for the K200d. I have all 3 bodies.

11-16-2010, 08:29 AM   #92
Pentaxian
Fogel70's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,737
QuoteOriginally posted by Blue Quote
Douglas, why does your graph show the *istD so thick? It should be 60mm for the *istD, 70mm for the K20d and 74mm for the K200d. I have all 3 bodies.
What parts are included in these dimensions?
When measuring my K10D and K7 from lens mount to back of LCD they are: K10D = 66mm and K7 = 63mm.

If measuring total thickness of these cameras they are; K10D = 84mm (from prism housing to back of VF eyecup) and K7 = 73mm (from grip to back of VF eyecup).
11-16-2010, 08:44 AM   #93
Moderator
Site Supporter
Blue's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Florida Hill Country
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 17,166
QuoteOriginally posted by Fogel70 Quote
What parts are included in these dimensions?
When measuring my K10D and K7 from lens mount to back of LCD they are: K10D = 66mm and K7 = 63mm.

If measuring total thickness of these cameras they are; K10D = 84mm (from prism housing to back of VF eyecup) and K7 = 73mm (from grip to back of VF eyecup).
Lens mount surface to back. That is what's related to registration distance.
11-16-2010, 08:59 AM   #94
Pentaxian
Fogel70's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,737
Is that including VF eyecup?

Edit:
I just can't find more than 66mm from lens mount to back on my K10D (which should be the same as K20D), but if including grip I get 70mm.
I think that the grip is almost always included on the official specification of dimensions on Pentax DSLR (but never prism-housing).


Last edited by Fogel70; 11-16-2010 at 09:28 AM.
11-17-2010, 08:37 AM   #95
New Member




Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Cambidge
Posts: 4
I very much like the idea of simply removing the mirror setup from the current K-mount and having lenses extend much further back into the body. If they managed to shift a lot of the electronics from behind the sensor to, say, the grip, that could greatly reduce the thickness.

A related idea I had was to have the lens mount extend forward from the body of the camera, with a mechanically-linked zoom or focus ring (probably focus, you'll see why) sitting just behind the mount. This means that a pancake prime need not extend more than a few mm past the front of the lens (because the in-camera focus rind is the only control needed).

Something that manufactures need to realise, though, is that having a thin body is not the be-all and end-all of EVIL. I would much rather have a much more substantial grip extending almost as far forwards as the shortest lenses: the total camera + lens size would be pretty much identical, and equally pocketable, but the ergonomics would be so much better.
11-17-2010, 09:24 AM   #96
Veteran Member




Join Date: Feb 2010
Photos: Albums
Posts: 337
QuoteOriginally posted by openyourap Quote
Google Translated into English
=========================

Thanks for posting this. I knew Pentax was about to release their mirror-less K-mount, but didn't know it would be this soon.

K-5 can wait, maybe forever.
11-24-2010, 05:16 AM - 1 Like   #97
Veteran Member




Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 1,352
QuoteOriginally posted by Fogel70 Quote

Just compare Panasonics new 14/2.5 m43 lens with Pentax 14/2.8 APS-C DSLR lens. The Panasonic lens is 1/8 of the weight and less than 1/4 of the size of Pentax lens. An APS-C EVIL version of the Panasonic might be a little bigger, but it would still be much, much smaller and lighter than a retrofocal APS-C DSLR lens. And as non-retrofocal lenses can use a simpler optical design they will hopefully be cheaper, at least fixed focal lenses.
Except when comparing apples to apples (FF equiv) the Panasonic is a 28mm F5 and the Pentax is a 21mm F4. Little wonder there is a significant size difference.

Luminous Landscape were recently in wonderment over having a 600mm F5.6 in the palm of a hand. Except it was a m4/3 so therefore 300mm F11 equiv. Not so amazing.

I'm all for smaller kit, but we need to keep the real-world criteria in perspective.
11-24-2010, 05:36 AM - 1 Like   #98
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Southern Indiana
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 14,963
QuoteOriginally posted by Unsinkable II Quote
Except when comparing apples to apples (FF equiv) the Panasonic is a 28mm F5 and the Pentax is a 21mm F4. Little wonder there is a significant size difference.

Luminous Landscape were recently in wonderment over having a 600mm F5.6 in the palm of a hand. Except it was a m4/3 so therefore 300mm F11 equiv. Not so amazing.

I'm all for smaller kit, but we need to keep the real-world criteria in perspective.
Absolutely. The only way to get smaller lenses on smaller formats is to essentially slow the lenses down. Once you see Olympus 14-35 f2 zoom and realize that for all its size and expense, it is just a 28-70 f4 equivalent the air seems to go out of the balloon.

To me, APS-C is a good compromise, but I can certainly understand how someone would want/need full frame.

11-24-2010, 05:54 AM   #99
Pentaxian
Fogel70's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,737
QuoteOriginally posted by Unsinkable II Quote
Except when comparing apples to apples (FF equiv) the Panasonic is a 28mm F5 and the Pentax is a 21mm F4. Little wonder there is a significant size difference.

Luminous Landscape were recently in wonderment over having a 600mm F5.6 in the palm of a hand. Except it was a m4/3 so therefore 300mm F11 equiv. Not so amazing.

I'm all for smaller kit, but we need to keep the real-world criteria in perspective.
That's why I said that a 14/2.5 lens for APS-C would be bigger, but still much smaller than Pentax 14mm retrofocus lens. If Pentax was to make a mirrorless camera with APS-C sensor a 14/2.8mm lens would be much closer in size to Panasonic 14/2.5 than Pentax DA14/2.8.

Larger sensors has a clear advantage when it comes to wide angle lenses with retrofocus design as the larger sensor do not need lens with as extreme retrofocus design for the same FOV. But with non-retrofocus design the size penalty is much smaller.

A retrofocus 21/4 lens for FF would be smaller that Pentax DA 14/2.8, but I doubt that a retrofocus 28/5 FF lens be any smaller than Panasonic 14/2.5.

Last edited by Fogel70; 11-24-2010 at 06:07 AM.
11-24-2010, 06:39 AM   #100
Veteran Member
eurostar's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Albareto, Italy
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 813
QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
Absolutely. The only way to get smaller lenses on smaller formats is to essentially slow the lenses down. Once you see Olympus 14-35 f2 zoom and realize that for all its.
That's maybe true from a depth of field point of view, but for exposure the aperture is still the same.
11-24-2010, 07:35 PM   #101
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Southern Indiana
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 14,963
QuoteOriginally posted by eurostar Quote
That's maybe true from a depth of field point of view, but for exposure the aperture is still the same.
Yes and no. When you take into account the full frame advantage with regard to iso (one stop for APS-C, two stops for four thirds), your noise and dyanmic range will be equivalent to shooting with the adjusted lens on full frame.
11-25-2010, 03:09 AM   #102
Pentaxian
thibs's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Belgium
Photos: Albums
Posts: 5,161
QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
Yes and no. When you take into account the full frame advantage with regard to iso (one stop for APS-C, two stops for four thirds), your noise and dyanmic range will be equivalent to shooting with the adjusted lens on full frame.
The problem is that this is changing each time with new sensors. You're of course right but it moves fast.
Right now, the 'e.g.) 5D2 is better (sensor speaking) than K5/D7000 but the difference it a lot less than 3 months ago (vs D90/K7 etc.).
The whole thing will change again when new FF will be out, then the difference will be big again and so on...

Right now I don't see that many incentives to go FF, taking into account associated costs. But that changes fast, really fast.

Inherently, there's no question that bigger sensor = better. But how will the market move? Dunno. If markets goes further to FF sensors, I expect investments and R&D will bring faster new FF sensors. If market moves to APS-C, APS-C sensors will get faster new techs.

Mmm this is all so difficult to predict.
11-25-2010, 05:04 AM   #103
Junior Member
Parliament's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Vienna/Austria
Posts: 27
QuoteOriginally posted by Fogel70 Quote
A retrofocus 21/4 lens for FF would be smaller that Pentax DA 14/2.8, but I doubt that a retrofocus 28/5 FF lens be any smaller than Panasonic 14/2.5.
i've looked at existing pentax lenses, and indeed wide-angle FF lenses with the same FOV are much smaller than their APS-C-equivalent due to the unchanged register distance, even the FA 20/2.8 is quite a bit smaller:

_____________diameter x length weigth
DA 14/2.8 APS-C 83.5mm x 69mm 420g
M 20/4 FF ______63mm x 30mm 150g

FA 20/2.8 FF ____70mm x 43.5mm 255g

dimensions taken from www.bdimitrov.de/ultra-wide since there's no information about the barrel diameter on the pentaxforum sites.
11-25-2010, 07:57 AM   #104
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Southern Indiana
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 14,963
QuoteOriginally posted by thibs Quote
The problem is that this is changing each time with new sensors. You're of course right but it moves fast.
Right now, the 'e.g.) 5D2 is better (sensor speaking) than K5/D7000 but the difference it a lot less than 3 months ago (vs D90/K7 etc.).
The whole thing will change again when new FF will be out, then the difference will be big again and so on...

Right now I don't see that many incentives to go FF, taking into account associated costs. But that changes fast, really fast.

Inherently, there's no question that bigger sensor = better. But how will the market move? Dunno. If markets goes further to FF sensors, I expect investments and R&D will bring faster new FF sensors. If market moves to APS-C, APS-C sensors will get faster new techs.

Mmm this is all so difficult to predict.
A lot comes down to two questions: (1) what do Canon and Nikon really want to push? If they really want people to move into full frame, they can make certain that it happens, either by including features not found in lower end cameras or by dropping the price on full frame. (2) Have we reached close to maximum performance from APS-C? I have no idea on the second point, but it does seem like we are reaching the point of diminishing returns.

Let me be clear. APS-C is more than adequate for me and I am satisfied with it, but folks like Falconeye really believe that in the long term full frame is the best and cheapest option for high quality. I guess we'll all find out eventually, won't we?
11-25-2010, 09:41 AM   #105
Veteran Member




Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Netherlands
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 908
QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
A lot comes down to two questions: (1) what do Canon and Nikon really want to push? If they really want people to move into full frame, they can make certain that it happens, either by including features not found in lower end cameras or by dropping the price on full frame.
Only trick would be lowering the FF price. Feature in FF cameras will eventually drip down to APS-C
QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
(2) Have we reached close to maximum performance from APS-C? I have no idea on the second point, but it does seem like we are reaching the point of diminishing returns.

Let me be clear. APS-C is more than adequate for me and I am satisfied with it, but folks like Falconeye really believe that in the long term full frame is the best and cheapest option for high quality. I guess we'll all find out eventually, won't we?
At this point we are way above what many people considered possible on APS-C, I see no reason why APS-C cannot develop further, maybe with a cmpletely different sensor type but who knows... That said, FF will leap ahead as well, has to leap ahead actually to keep an advantage... However for whom??? People have been happy with FF IQ in the past, would they NEED a FF leap??? Most likely not. But OTOH, photographers are human ( what a surprise ) so while they strictly speaking could be happy with what they have now and in most cases would be more than satisfied with going back to APS-C, they stuill want....

Bigger and better!!!
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!
camera, pentax, pentax news, pentax rumors, spring
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The next upcoming Pentax Adam Pentax News and Rumors 47 08-02-2010 06:39 PM
Pentax EVIL... Unsinkable II Pentax DSLR Discussion 24 03-16-2010 09:03 PM
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
Upcoming lenses per Pentax CS scottax1 Pentax News and Rumors 12 08-29-2007 05:21 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:55 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