[GordonZA]

Maybe if the point of an evil version is to drop the ovf and mechanical shutter but not worry about making the body thinner then you keep the correct lens to sensor distance??


---
I am here: http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=-26.038408,28.069099

[pinholecam]

Its already 21Dec, don't see any new camera.
Of is it 19Dec2012?

[Digitalis]

Okay, seeing as EVIL cameras are an entirely new class, is there inherently a reason why typical glass will simply not work? If there is a SLR, a DSLR, and an EVIL camera, all APS-C sized sensors, the a lens should work with all three, theoretically, right?

As long as the original pentax K mount lens is kept at the required 45.46mm away from the sensor then there won't be a problem. The one big problem I can see is the issue of Ricoh/Pentax producing a FF EVIL camera would be with producing an entirely new line of lenses to make use of the shorter back-focus. i'm not suggesting that pentax lens designers are sloppy, I'm just saying they would have to produce a lot of lenses to keep users of the system happy. And then there is of course the issue of auto focus though there is a clever trick that pentax could possibly employ to provide AF even for manual focus lenses, but i'm not saying anything.. I should patent it first. *conspiratorial rubbing of hands *

[Kunzite]

Its already 21Dec, don't see any new camera.
Of is it 19Dec2012?

There wasn't supposed to be any new camera, and Pentax never said they are working on a mirrorless FF/645D. It was just badly/hastly translated Japanese (I won't fault Pete Fang for that, I know it's not easy). See the other thread for the properly translated interview (thanks again, v5planet!)
Pentax will launch a couple of new DSLRs next year.

Digitalis, indeed - let's look at Olympus. They haven't abandoned the 4/3, and (in the same article as the Pentax interview) they said they're working on the E5's successor.
But is the 4/3 alive? More like a zombie to me, not entirely dead but not alive either. No new lenses, and how many years until the next body launch?
Even with generous funding, I'm afraid Pentax won't be able to introduce in full speed a new, high-end MILC system and expand the K-mount at the same time. Fortunately, Pentax K is in a much better position than 4/3 was, back then.

---

Last edited by Kunzite; 12-21-2011 at 02:39 AM.

[bossa]

What a bunch of gadget freaks. They're too willing to replace something that works with something that doesn't, but is "new" and "cool"
Btw, do you shave using a (mirrorless) CCTV system, with a nice 50" OLED screen? The Luddite me is still using a mirror



Bingo.
I don't think they will, either.

Clinton: more like regular tires vs. run-flat tires.

What people here seem to be forgettting is that Pentax is a business and really needs to change-up to something that is NOT on standard offer at Nikon and Canon if they are to prosper. More of the same ain't gonna do it for them at all. And calling me a gadget freak is not an argument to refute any predictions that I may have made. I'm looking forward to "I told you so"

[drougge]

And then there is of course the issue of auto focus though there is a clever trick that pentax could possibly employ to provide AF even for manual focus lenses, but i'm not saying anything.. I should patent it first. *conspiratorial rubbing of hands *

Admittedly I'm always wrong when I think something is too obvious to be patented, but still, I would hope you could only patent some specific way of moving the sensor (or mount, if you prefer). (Also, I don't think they'll do it, because they want to sell AF lenses.)

[Kunzite]

What people here seem to be forgettting is that Pentax is a business and really needs to change-up to something that is NOT on standard offer at Nikon and Canon if they are to prosper. More of the same ain't gonna do it for them at all. And calling me a gadget freak is not an argument to refute any predictions that I may have made. I'm looking forward to "I told you so"

Change up to something that IS on standard offer at Sony and Olympus, and losing their customers on the way? Is that better?

How about calling us "Luddites"? Is that an argument?

[Digitalis]

Admittedly I'm always wrong when I think something is too obvious to be patented, but still, I would hope you could only patent some specific way of moving the sensor (or mount, if you prefer). (Also, I don't think they'll do it, because they want to sell AF lenses.)

you will be astonished at some of the things people have patented, and in my case I was thinking of a method to move the sensor to focus a lens, a method that is compact and precise enough to handle a high resolution sensor. But you do have a point: they do want to sell AF lenses - it is one of the major parts of their business. However if they toss the idea of a EVIL FF and instead they extend the line up of FA limited lenses and produce a camera like a MX,LX or K2 with a FF monochrome sensor - I would totally by two of them. I have worked with the Phase one Achromatic+ on a classic Hasselblad 501CM and the files from it beat the crap out of the P40+ on my H2 which has basically the same sensor, except with a CFA and a built in IR/UV blocking filter.

[bossa]

Change up to something that IS on standard offer at Sony and Olympus, and losing their customers on the way? Is that better?

How about calling us "Luddites"? Is that an argument?

The internet is a humorless place to be sure.

You identified yourself as a Luddite, I was speaking more generally and wasn't meaning any malice.

[Kunzite]

Well, I'm using because I took it as a joke - and I'm responding in the same manner. But you seems to take my reply seriously... and now you're accusing me of being "humorless"

[bossa]

Well, I'm using because I took it as a joke - and I'm responding in the same manner. But you seems to take my reply seriously... and now you're accusing me of being "humorless"

God spare me.

[bossa]

I'm sorry if I took you the wrong way. I was harassed earlier on by a mad person on Facebook which I'm sure has affected my judgement here too..

[Kunzite]

Don't worry, I wasn't offended in any way.

[bossa]

Don't worry, I wasn't offended in any way.

Cheers.

[asw66]

If you're trying to save space, why not make the body exactly the size of the sensor. Just a hockey puck that attaches to the lens. <saracam>Everyone will love that.</saracam>

You jest, but I do wonder if cameras might look something like this in the longer term. Let's assume that electronics will continue to miniaturise, allowing for smaller and smaller bodies -- where is the end point? It seems to me that the ultimate constraints are:

• The sensor should cover most (or even all) of the image circle.
• The body should provide some way of gripping the camera.
• The body should provide controls to operate the camera.
• The body should provide a means of viewing the image from the camera's perspective.

With respect to the second point, I would suggest that the boxy form of camera bodies is not really optimal -- if there were no other design constraints, then the camera body would effectively be a handle. Regarding the third point, I don't think that buttons and dials will ever go away, though touch screen displays will undoubtedly play a role as well. And as for the fourth point, I think that some kind of wearable display is almost certainly coming.

In sum, I think that the ultimate shape of camera bodies will be somewhat closer to a hockey puck than the current boxy designs we're all familiar with. To be more specific, the camera bodies of the future will be ergonomic "handles" with a few buttons/dials and a touch screen, supplemented by active-display glasses.