Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
07-01-2011, 07:20 AM   #91
ogl
Pentaxian
ogl's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Siberia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 7,215
Good-bye virtual second mirrorless camera from Pentax!!!

07-01-2011, 07:45 AM   #92
Veteran Member
uccemebug's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 960
Original Poster
Yup. Though who knows what Ricoh might dream up. They're an innovator, can't question that.
07-01-2011, 08:30 AM   #93
Veteran Member
steve1307's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Sydney
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,129
GX-R Kmount module. easy
07-01-2011, 09:12 AM   #94
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Charlotte, NC
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 886
QuoteOriginally posted by steve1307 Quote
GX-R Kmount module. easy
That was my first thought as well. It only takes one simple module and bam, we'd have a k-mount mirrorless camera. Wonder if they can squeeze an AF motor into a module to drive the Limited glass.

07-01-2011, 11:47 AM   #95
Veteran Member
KungPOW's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,702
I don't see how they could make a GXR K-mount module, with an autofocus motor, and have the resulting camera thinner than either the k-5 or the k-x.

Does a GXR module have the space for the SR mechanism?

My appologies to all those GXR fans out there, but I can't see how a K-mount module + a GXR body would be better then a dedicated APS-C EVIL.

But then I don't see what the point of teh GXR system is.
07-01-2011, 12:17 PM   #96
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Charlotte, NC
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 886
QuoteOriginally posted by KungPOW Quote
I don't see how they could make a GXR K-mount module, with an autofocus motor, and have the resulting camera thinner than either the k-5 or the k-x.
I've always thought a K-Mount mirrorless system was a silly idea to begin with as well, but I see posts by people saying they'd like one all the time. Of course I also think Sony's translucent mirror strategy is a waste of time. As of right now AF speed is the only reason to create such a system, but how much longer will that be the case? The E-P3 already has fast enough AF speed for most things, and it's only a matter of time before someone figures out how to make continues AF speed as fast as the top DSLR's. After that happens then why exactly have a camera with a translucent mirror taking away 1/3 ev?

The beauty of the GXR system is it would just be just another module, so no harm in making one I suppose. That said, I'm a huge advocate of leaving unnecessary things from the film era in the past when setting up a mirrorless system...and the flange distance used on the K-Mount is certainly unnecessary on a mirrrorless camera.
07-01-2011, 01:42 PM   #97
Veteran Member
deejjjaaaa's Avatar

Join Date: May 2007
Location: steel city / rust belt
Posts: 2,046
QuoteOriginally posted by Art Vandelay II Quote
The E-P3 already has fast enough AF speed for most things
so did GH2... when you will see any professional sports photographers w/ CDAF cameras/lenses we can discuss that again...
07-01-2011, 01:47 PM   #98
Veteran Member
deejjjaaaa's Avatar

Join Date: May 2007
Location: steel city / rust belt
Posts: 2,046
QuoteOriginally posted by Art Vandelay II Quote
Gotta start somewhere.
the question is how many green sensels were actually used for IR-assisted focusing speedup...and let us wait for DxOMark tests and see if there was any hit on DR/noise...

07-01-2011, 02:06 PM   #99
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Charlotte, NC
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 886
QuoteOriginally posted by deejjjaaaa Quote
so did GH2... when you will see any professional sports photographers w/ CDAF cameras/lenses we can discuss that again...
The key there is I said the E-P3 has fast enough AF for most things; not all things. Clearly professional sports photography isn't most things. Even my old Pentax K100D focused fast enough for my needs. By most things I mean, family photos, street photography, studio photography, travel photography, landscapes, some action shots (nice mountain bike pic taken with an E-P3 here), and every day snap shots...you know, the stuff most people use cameras for. Clearly the AF is good enough on the E-P3 & GH2 for the vast majority of consumers. Professional sports photographers are what, 1% of the photography market, if that? The gear they use has no bearing on me at all. If they are still using DSLR's in 10 years then fine by me.

QuoteQuote:
the question is how many green sensels were actually used for IR-assisted focusing speedup...and let us wait for DxOMark tests and see if there was any hit on DR/noise...
DxO scores are near worthless to me. Here's how I judge IQ, I look at photos, then decide if it's good enough for me. Pretty cool huh? Give me a real world review and sample images from someone like Robin Wong any day over something like DxO.
07-01-2011, 03:42 PM   #100
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Taylor, Texas
Posts: 1,017
QuoteOriginally posted by Art Vandelay II Quote
The key there is I said the E-P3 has fast enough AF for most things; not all things. Clearly professional sports photography isn't most things. Even my old Pentax K100D focused fast enough for my needs. By most things I mean, family photos, street photography, studio photography, travel photography, landscapes, some action shots (nice mountain bike pic taken with an E-P3 here), and every day snap shots...you know, the stuff most people use cameras for. Clearly the AF is good enough on the E-P3 & GH2 for the vast majority of consumers. Professional sports photographers are what, 1% of the photography market, if that? The gear they use has no bearing on me at all. If they are still using DSLR's in 10 years then fine by me.


DxO scores are near worthless to me. Here's how I judge IQ, I look at photos, then decide if it's good enough for me. Pretty cool huh? Give me a real world review and sample images from someone like Robin Wong any day over something like DxO.
Couldn't have said it better myself Art. Whenever I see someone start babbling about DXO I stop reading. I guess if you are interested in that sort of thing great. However, I would guess for the vast majority of camera users it's pointless. Count me in the it's pointless category.

BTW- That EP3 looks fantastic. I have a G3 on the way but I may be sending it back to Adorama. I really prefer the Olympus bodies.

As for the Ricoh/Pentax merger, I was almost going to get a GXR but went with a Fuji X100 instead. I've used a GXR and it's a great camera system. I was just really smitten with the X100. I haven't been disappointed yet but I still want that GXR.
07-01-2011, 06:04 PM   #101
Veteran Member
uccemebug's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 960
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by KungPOW Quote
I don't see how they could make a GXR K-mount module, with an autofocus motor, and have the resulting camera thinner than either the k-5 or the k-x.

Does a GXR module have the space for the SR mechanism?
Good points. I wonder if an introductory module without either could be a possibility. Something not unlike their M module.
07-02-2011, 05:30 AM   #102
Veteran Member
steve1307's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Sydney
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,129
QuoteOriginally posted by KungPOW Quote
I don't see how they could make a GXR K-mount module, with an autofocus motor, and have the resulting camera thinner than either the k-5 or the k-x.

Does a GXR module have the space for the SR mechanism?

My appologies to all those GXR fans out there, but I can't see how a K-mount module + a GXR body would be better then a dedicated APS-C EVIL.

But then I don't see what the point of teh GXR system is.
It's probably do-able at least in MF as but it wouldnt be any thinner because the K-mount register dist is 45.46mm.
The M-mount is more suitable with 27.8mm register dist and all manual focus lenses anyway.


It wouldn't necessarily be better than a dedicated APS-C EVIL but maybe eaiser/cheaper to develop to just use K-mount

In any case An APS-C with Kmount lenses wouldnt be much thinner in the body than a DSLR just because of the registration distance.

Pentax Q - 9.2mm
Sony NEX - 18mm
M 4/3 - 20mm
Leica M - 27.8mm
Pentax K - 45.46mm

The GXR system is an interesting concept.
At PMA Sydney there were several other interesting modules a module with a Boroscope, a mini projector?, a storage module for tranferring from the memory card.
07-02-2011, 07:35 AM   #103
Veteran Member
KjetilH's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Oslo
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 309
I could actually see myself having a GXR with a K module as well as a small-sensor compact/superzoom or a small APS-C prime module. Would cover most of my needs, size wouldn't be an issue for the K-module.
07-02-2011, 03:56 PM   #104
Veteran Member
froeschle's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Germany
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 552
QuoteQuote:
Good-bye virtual second mirrorless camera from Pentax!!!
E.g. NC-1 = Q does not necessarily mean that a second mirrorless camera is (was) not planned. There are some (at least for for me) reliable sources, which claim that prior to the Hova-Ricoh-Pentax deal, a second mirrorless was planned to be released at the end of this year. Please note that I neither like this idea or know whether it now will be realized. A FF-GXR would be much more interesting to me.
07-03-2011, 03:23 AM - 1 Like   #105
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 341
QuoteOriginally posted by steve1307 Quote
In any case An APS-C with Kmount lenses wouldnt be much thinner in the body than a DSLR just because of the registration distance.

Pentax Q - 9.2mm
Sony NEX - 18mm
M 4/3 - 20mm
Leica M - 27.8mm
Pentax K - 45.46mm
I'm starting to wonder if that registration distance is such a big deal after all. I mean, it certainly is a big deal if the camera body is shaped like a box, but it's not obvious to me that MILC camera bodies have the same design constraints as SLRs. Perhaps a MILC body could be designed that is relatively deep, but nonetheless much smaller than current SLRs.

I'd encourage designers to start with the proverbial blank sheet of paper and a list of the minimum set of requirements that a MILC body must satisfy. The body would have to accommodate the lens and provide an EVF and the usual controls. Why should this combination of functions take the form of a box? A camera body that wraps around the lens would be more compact, and may well be ergonomically superior as well.
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!
aps-c, body, fixed-lens, mirrorless, pentax, pentax news, pentax rumors
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The forthcoming Pentax Mirrorless Camera falconeye Pentax News and Rumors 553 11-11-2011 02:55 PM
Pentax Q mirrorless, I might get my wife one... JohnBee Pentax Compact Cameras 22 09-23-2011 07:05 AM
Pentax on mirrorless: 'we never rule anything out' Art Vandelay II Pentax News and Rumors 21 01-11-2011 05:29 PM
Question about Pentax Mirrorless Winder Photographic Technique 5 11-19-2010 03:32 PM
New Pentax: K-5, K-r and Mirrorless models coming JohnBee Pentax News and Rumors 32 08-08-2010 01:57 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:24 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.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