[Aristophanes]

No SR would slim down the body site a bit IMO bit do we want this?
Also the sensor needs to cool down.

Ask Fuji.

[juu]

I'd be mighty surprised if Pentax (or Canikon) pull of an adapter that is capable of fast AF speeds with their existing lenses, especially screw-mount ones. If they could, they would have issued their mirrorless cameras already, but now they're stuck.

[DaveBlack]

I'd be mighty surprised if Pentax (or Canikon) pull of an adapter that is capable of fast AF speeds with their existing lenses, especially screw-mount ones. If they could, they would have issued their mirrorless cameras already, but now they're stuck.

The adaptor for the milc to AF with old lenses doesn't have to AF those old lenses fast. The speed of the CDAF with the K-5 is fast enough. Now if you want to AF faster you will have to buy the new lenses made specifically for the milc. Pentax does want to sell new lenses.

Dave

[Supernaut]

Courtesy of FalkLumo:



If you look at all of the space that the OVF, PDAF, and mirrorbox take up, it's no wonder that mirrorless cameras can be made so much smaller.

Exactly.

Also, the NEX-C3 is 33mm deep while the MX is 49mm. Add screen, SR mechanism to that 49mm.

[eddie1960]

I just find it hard to believe that Pentax is not going to release an APS-C mirrorless.

I am hoping to see Samsung put their 36x36mm MF sensor in a NX10 styled body.

I thought the general idea was an apsc milc and the 1/2.33 milc

the small one in place of point shoot market upgrade, the apsc for people like us on the forum who demand something better

[juu]

The speed of the CDAF with the K-5 is fast enough.

I agree that "fast enough" is fast enough. By the way - just like "good enough IQ" is good enough. But that's a different topic which we've discussed to death before.

I'm not sure how fast is CDAF on K-5; I've used it on D90 and it felt slow. Works fast on my GF1 though (but lenses are optimized for it).

I've also read that the NEXes take literally seconds to focus Alpha lenses, and that isn't fast enough.

Will Pentax be able to do much better? We'll see. I personally doubt it, but they could prove me wrong.

[thibs]

Ask Fuji.

And don't get your point.
Could you say more? Thanks.

[Aristophanes]

And don't get your point.
Could you say more? Thanks.

The Fujifilm FinePix X100 has no shake or vibration control.

It's still not a small camera. Larger than I thought. The jury is out as to what the optimum size is for an ILC.

[thibs]

The Fujifilm FinePix X100 has no shake or vibration control.

It's still not a small camera. Larger than I thought. The jury is out as to what the optimum size is for an ILC.

Oh, I got it.
Yes agree with you even though I don't think this was really the point of this camera.
Seems the Pana GF3 will be quite small if the picture I saw are real.

I suspect smaller is not that hard to do but in the most important dimension: thickness. I now NEX are very thin, but NEX are completely ridiculous (this is subjective) and hard to grip (objective at least for my hands).

NEX are nice for compact with lenses (from a usage PoV, not talking sensor capabilities here) or pancakes. Otherwise, useless. Way too small for me.

[Biro]

The jury is out as to what the optimum size is for an ILC.

This is absolutely true. Apparently the answer depends on who you ask. But I can see mirrorless shaking down to at least two rough sizes: Ultra small for the fashion-minded, social-networking, happy-snappers. And a larger size with more external, manual controls for enthusiasts and professionals. But even that second category can vary depending on who is doing the talking.

[Aristophanes]

This is absolutely true. Apparently the answer depends on who you ask. But I can see mirrorless shaking down to at least two rough sizes: Ultra small for the fashion-minded, social-networking, happy-snappers. And a larger size with more external, manual controls for enthusiasts and professionals. But even that second category can vary depending on who is doing the talking.

And I question the first category because at that point you're competing with the LX/S95 crowd.

The whole point of an ILC is gain the different FL and f/stop perspectives from multiple lenses. You're bulking up the pockets no matter what you do. Changing lenses with a MILC brings up the serious issue of sensor exposure as well. How do you WR that?

The Fuji X100 enters the Leica space of a fixed lens, I-want-to-be-Cartier-Bresson market space, but at that price point it's a limited option. Ironically, it proves a point that the creme de la creme of mirrorless (AF, sorry Leica) is *not* an ILC. That's a fractured market. (And I am a Fuji guy as well with an F30 and F40fd).

In the early 1980's 135 SLR's actually struggled at the high-end against another type of camera, and no, it was not a resurgence of the rangefinder (although that was always an ebb and flow 10% of the market). Nor was it instant cams like Polaroid.

No, it was MF. Pentax, Bronica, Mamiya, Hasselblad, and others all bit into MF big time and huge swathes of studio shooters, wedding people, landscape geeks, and so on jumped on the bandwagon taking top-end product away from Canon and Nikon (nor Olympus) who did not enter that market.

Serious loupe peepers went to big cameras, not small ones, for the better shot. Size and need are relative, not absolute, and highly individualistic. When the OM series came out and pushed the size envelope with SLR's the market went to meet it, but only about 12%. Larger cams still sold very well as my Minolta's attest.

Me? I like a DSLR vertical grip balanced against a decent zoom. I see no other way to be ergonomically successful with a zoom lens which is why I dislike the NEX or PEN approaches. Where does one hold those things. In your teeth?

[stanleyk]

And I question the first category because at that point you're competing with the LX/S95 crowd.

The whole point of an ILC is gain the different FL and f/stop perspectives from multiple lenses. You're bulking up the pockets no matter what you do. Changing lenses with a MILC brings up the serious issue of sensor exposure as well. How do you WR that?

The Fuji X100 enters the Leica space of a fixed lens, I-want-to-be-Cartier-Bresson market space, but at that price point it's a limited option. Ironically, it proves a point that the creme de la creme of mirrorless (AF, sorry Leica) is *not* an ILC. That's a fractured market. (And I am a Fuji guy as well with an F30 and F40fd).

In the early 1980's 135 SLR's actually struggled at the high-end against another type of camera, and no, it was not a resurgence of the rangefinder (although that was always an ebb and flow 10% of the market). Nor was it instant cams like Polaroid.

No, it was MF. Pentax, Bronica, Mamiya, Hasselblad, and others all bit into MF big time and huge swathes of studio shooters, wedding people, landscape geeks, and so on jumped on the bandwagon taking top-end product away from Canon and Nikon (nor Olympus) who did not enter that market.

Serious loupe peepers went to big cameras, not small ones, for the better shot. Size and need are relative, not absolute, and highly individualistic. When the OM series came out and pushed the size envelope with SLR's the market went to meet it, but only about 12%. Larger cams still sold very well as my Minolta's attest.

Me? I like a DSLR vertical grip balanced against a decent zoom. I see no other way to be ergonomically successful with a zoom lens which is why I dislike the NEX or PEN approaches. Where does one hold those things. In your teeth?

You're about right. I fit the X100 market exactly. I have multiple fixed lenses and only 4 zooms. Two of which I have used a handful of times, the Tamron 17-50 and the Pentax 50-135. I do have two Sigmas, 10-20 and 8-16 which I have used more frequently. I am perfectly happy with a just 35mm lens which is why the X100 is now my favorite camera. On the Olympus I only use the Panasonic 20mm and the 14mm. Lately I just use the X100. If I want to really get geared up, I usually take those two cameras + a DP2 and it all fits in small Domke bag and weighs less than hauling out the K5 + 31, 43, 77 combo. That's the market for these types of cameras. How big it is I have no idea. To be honest the prints out of all three at 12 x 16 are just about the same. In fact I might make a good argument that the Fuji is almost as good as the K5 and in some cases better depending on which lens is mounted on the K5.

I really don't see how Pentax missed this market. It's really going to be hard to compete with Olympus and Panasonic now. Not that they can't do it, but they really need to come up with something special.

[falconeye]

Courtesy of FalkLumo:
...
If you look at all of the space that the OVF, PDAF, and mirrorbox take up, it's no wonder that mirrorless cameras can be made so much smaller.

Thanks, I wanted to refer to the cut image myself. There isn't a good way to make a dSLR smaller than say a K-5 or K-x. The K-5 could be made a bit thinner by removing the SR and a bit less tall by removing the phase AF. But not much. A full frame dSLR actually would have to be about half a cm taller.

The idea to maintain the mount but remove the OVF, by making the mirror permanent, isn't bad. I'd call that concept eSLR (electronic SLR, as it still has the R). Actually, it could then be best to turn the mirror 90 degrees to have the sensor near where the right hand grip should go and keep the SLR small (not as tall).

However, like SLT, an eSLR doesn't eventually make sense. By going electronic, you win the option of a short registration distance with (cf. Leica M) the option of some wonderful glass unfeasible for SLR. Not using this option is stupid. So, the entire discussion about how small a K mount eSLR could become is fruitless.

[thibs]

Falk, what do you think about a hybrid SLR (yes still an SLR) based on EosRT but with an hybrid VF, and so CD-af, PD-af to chose from.
Of course this has nothing to do with mirrorless.

[falconeye]

Falk, what do you think about a hybrid SLR (yes still an SLR) based on EosRT but with an hybrid VF, and so CD-af, PD-af to chose from.
Of course this has nothing to do with mirrorless.

This thread is spinning too fast.
Read https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/1531454-post688.html for the response

So, I like the idea but I wouldn't make the semitransparent mirror permanent. Sometimes, you still want no compromise regarding light and resolution.

Moreover, I wouldn't refer to EOS RT for the idea. It is too obvious when combined with a digital sensor. The main point would be an as powerful as possible combination of both worlds, optical and electronical, for both viewfinder image and AF. The EOS RT combines nothing, just removes a need for the mirror to swing.