Mr. Kitazawa slated to announce Pentax upcoming bodies in Dec 19'th

johnmflores · 12-17-2011, 03:30 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by Winder

It really wont matter. Lenses for APS-C or FF really can not be made small enough to be pocket-able. The advantage is not to be able to make a FF that is pocket-able, but to make a FF or even a MF that is a little smaller than the K-7/K-5. High quality glass is going to be BIG. Size is only one reason to look into EVIL.

I'm sitting here looking at my old MX sitting on the shelf. It wasn't quite pocketable either, but it was full frame, and much much smaller than modern full-frame dSLRs

Cameras have grown of course because of the need for rear LCDs, AF systems, digital circuitry, and bigger batteries to power it all. I have no expectation that a FF EVIL will be pocketable, but if Pentax can bring FF down to size by getting rid of the mirror, the prism, and the PDAF, they may end up with a hit on their hands. Just imagine, a FF camera in a body the size of a K-x or Panasonic GH2 - how cool would that be?!

jsherman999 · 12-17-2011, 03:38 PM

Originally posted by Clavius

...I just won't wake up out of this nightmare...

I just cancelled my order of 2 DA lenses... Just untill more is known.

Luckily your remaining DA 35ltd macro should work fine on FF, with just a little bit of vigntting

LFLee · 12-17-2011, 03:39 PM

Hm..... 8 pages of replies now, and I haven't seen anyone actually go to translate the article???????

Without having read the article, we can spin quite a lot, right? LOL

mrmentera · 12-17-2011, 03:46 PM

Originally posted by LFLee

Hm..... 8 pages of replies now, and I haven't seen anyone actually go to translate the article???????

Without having read the article, we can spin quite a lot, right? LOL

Mr Jam did it in this forum.

Head of R&D says Pentax is working on mirror-less FF 35mm and 645D?! [Page 2]: Pentax SLR Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review

**jeffshaddix** · 12-17-2011, 03:49 PM

Originally posted by RioRico

Pentax-Ricoh could do the same, sure. Glassless adapters are trivial. Maybe we've already had a hint of the new PFF-EVIL cam's register: 27.8mm.

Why that? Hint: What was the last GXR mountor that Ricoh announced? Think, Leica-M. Did Ricoh release an M-mount device just on a whim? I hereby prophesize that the new RM mount will be an M-mount with AF. The PK adapter would be (45.46-27.8)= 17.66mm= ~0.7in thick. The upcoming EOS, FD, M/MD and Konica adapters will be a little thinner; the AI and R and T adapters will be a little thicker. The LTM-L39 adapter will look just like a wide-flange no-infinity-focus M42-PK adapter.

Another "why that": Because that register easily supports full frames. The shorter registers of NEX (18mm), m4/3 (18mm) and NX (25.5) probably don't. (But I could be wrong there. That happens occasionally.)

I for one hope you're right, an M mount sounds great!

**Fontan** · 12-17-2011, 03:55 PM

Originally posted by jeffshaddix

I for one hope you're right, an M mount sounds great!

I hope so too. I may go with Pentax FF mirrorless instead of upgrading to M9, and being able to use my m mount lenses, including one made by Pentax, is pretty huge.

Oog · 12-17-2011, 04:20 PM

Google translate is (not really) your friend in this case:

(Last 2 paragraphs)

BTW - I'm Ya little If smearing propaganda also this - released December 19, mentioned in this blog the other day, "Digital Camera Magazine" was interviewed on camera manufacturers of eight companies in Tokyo, and Pentax in the interesting story. Interview with Mr. Kitazawa person who is head of camera development. I have a fairly bold statement that Mr. Kitazawa.
It's strange that I hope you Morae read carefully the article, and that you are trying to do the mirror-less camera's full-size size 35mm, what came out to talk and have no idea mirror-less camera 645D. More of me and had only a confused and could not really hear the story may be far cow digs.

Originally from the old Pentax screen format (size) was applied to the type of mount and more. Cautious, as no other camera manufacturers. Until last Sun about 6 × 7 size, size 645, a 35mm full-size, and there was a film camera with interchangeable lenses and a half size APS, but the size of PENTAX Q is digital, APS-C size, lens size 645 cameras have interchangeable. There, or even a 35mm full-size, but with trying to do even that the mirror-less camera with interchangeable lens 645 size, it steadily go, go, for the first time are surprised.
Anyway, apart from HOYA (Really it was good to) as soon as the Ricoh 翼下 entered, but it is not terribly healthy and vigorous and I, Pentax.

RioRico · 12-17-2011, 04:24 PM

Originally posted by jeffshaddix

I for one hope you're right, an M mount sounds great!

And as I suggested, this is a portal to many other lens systems. LTM-L39; old 4/3 and Pen-F; Canon, Konica, Minolta, Fujica, Exakta, Nikon, all that stuff. Hmm, does this mean my lens accumulation will bloat even more? [/me shudders, looks for space]

frank · 12-17-2011, 04:32 PM

Originally posted by K1D27H

Flange focal distance for K-mount (45.46mm) remains to be a problem with the mirrorless system unless they are going to ditch the K-mount entirely. Something I do hate to see it happens. And personally, I find an adapter for the lenses rather awkward.

Why do they have to ditch the K-Mount? A mirror less in K mount might be possible, and it canbe either FF EVIL or an APSC one... The camera might look odd, but it's the quickest solution for Pentax to release their own EVIL cameras w the existing lens lineup. Same might goes to 654D EVIL...

m8o · 12-17-2011, 04:32 PM

Originally posted by K1D27H

Flange focal distance for K-mount (45.46mm) remains to be a problem with the mirrorless system unless they are going to ditch the K-mount entirely. Something I do hate to see it happens. And personally, I find an adapter for the lenses rather awkward.

If the body is deep like a classic 645 film body shape -- akin to the shape of most video cameras -- with the FF sensor place deep towards the back of the body, could that solve the distance problem?

Raffwal · 12-17-2011, 04:42 PM

Originally posted by m8o

If the body is deep like a classic 645 film body shape -- akin to the shape of most video cameras -- with the FF sensor place deep towards the back of the body, could that solve the distance problem?

I have been posting about this for many many times. If the flange distance is fixed, there's a lot that can be changed still. A digital camera in 2011 does not have to be designed the same way as a 60s camera that uses rolls of film.

Then again, for example the pictures by johnmflores above show us that there's no distance problem really. The flange distance is small enough to make the camera body reasonably small. It's just the question where to put all the other bells and whistles.

stanleyk · 12-17-2011, 04:51 PM

Originally posted by Oog

More of me and had only a confused and could not really hear the story may be far cow digs.

What could be clearer than this...???

m8o · 12-17-2011, 04:51 PM

Originally posted by Asahiflex

I agree completely. Got my A50/1.2 today and it was unusable with the optical finder. In Live View I got a hit rate of 50% (mainly because LV was too slow in use).

This is OT for this thread ... but my K-5 needed a -10 AF Fine Tune adjustment to use my A-50mm/1.4. Still nowhere near as accurate as my K10D w/KatzEye focus screen, not because the K10D is better @ manual focus than the K-5 but because the KatzEye screen enables it.

Art Vandelay II · 12-17-2011, 04:58 PM

Wow, great news. Hope it's true. I've thought from day one the 645D should have been a mirrorless camera. Although I do have to question the usefulness of medium format in the future seeing as how the Nikon D800 is going to be 36mp and offered without an AA filter to make it even sharper. Just how much more resolution do 99.999% of photographers need? Seems like medium format will be a shrinking market; and it wasn't exactly a large market to begin with.

As far as the full frame mirrorless idea; I'm all for it. Make it about the size of the Pentax ME Super and you'd really have something different in the market. A camera half the size of the D700 (or upcoming D800/5D Mk III) with every bit of the image quality. Talk about a landscape photographers wet dream...

stanleyk · 12-17-2011, 05:00 PM

Originally posted by Art Vandelay II

Wow, great news. Hope it's true. I've thought from day one the 645D should have been a mirrorless camera. Although I do have to question the usefulness of medium format in the future seeing the Nikon D800 is going to be 36mp and offered without an AA filter to make it even sharper. Just how much more resolution do 99.999% of photographers need?

As far as the full frame mirrorless idea; I'm all for it. Make it about the size of the Pentax ME Super and you'd really have something different in the market. A camera half the size of the D700 (or upcoming D800/5D Mk III) with every bit of the image quality. Talk about a landscape photographers wet dream...

Bingo. If they made the lenses that would get me back to Pentax. I love the D700 but I don't want to use it much because it's so big.

12-17-2011, 04:58 PM	#119
Art Vandelay II Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Charlotte, NC Photos: Gallery Posts: 886	Wow, great news. Hope it's true. I've thought from day one the 645D should have been a mirrorless camera. Although I do have to question the usefulness of medium format in the future seeing as how the Nikon D800 is going to be 36mp and offered without an AA filter to make it even sharper. Just how much more resolution do 99.999% of photographers need? Seems like medium format will be a shrinking market; and it wasn't exactly a large market to begin with. As far as the full frame mirrorless idea; I'm all for it. Make it about the size of the Pentax ME Super and you'd really have something different in the market. A camera half the size of the D700 (or upcoming D800/5D Mk III) with every bit of the image quality. Talk about a landscape photographers wet dream... Last edited by Art Vandelay II; 12-17-2011 at 05:04 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Do you think Pentax will announce their EVIL APS-C size sensor camera soon?	wll	Photographic Technique	20	01-06-2011 06:14 AM
Are we, like post office workers, slated to be replaced by machines?	jaieger	Photographic Technique	6	07-28-2010 11:10 PM
Pentax should announce their intentions regarding the 18-250mm	Unsinkable II	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	20	07-08-2010 06:47 AM
Picture of the week #93: Dec. 13-Dec 27	reeftool	Weekly Photo Challenges	42	12-27-2009 01:51 AM
Picture of the Week 92 : 6 Dec - 20 Dec 2009	stevebrot	Weekly Photo Challenges	47	12-19-2009 08:24 PM

12-17-2011, 03:30 PM - 1 Like	#106
johnmflores Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Somerville, NJ Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 5,361	Originally posted by Winder It really wont matter. Lenses for APS-C or FF really can not be made small enough to be pocket-able. The advantage is not to be able to make a FF that is pocket-able, but to make a FF or even a MF that is a little smaller than the K-7/K-5. High quality glass is going to be BIG. Size is only one reason to look into EVIL. I'm sitting here looking at my old MX sitting on the shelf. It wasn't quite pocketable either, but it was full frame, and much much smaller than modern full-frame dSLRs Cameras have grown of course because of the need for rear LCDs, AF systems, digital circuitry, and bigger batteries to power it all. I have no expectation that a FF EVIL will be pocketable, but if Pentax can bring FF down to size by getting rid of the mirror, the prism, and the PDAF, they may end up with a hit on their hands. Just imagine, a FF camera in a body the size of a K-x or Panasonic GH2 - how cool would that be?!

12-17-2011, 03:38 PM	#107
jsherman999 Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Photos: Gallery Posts: 8,237	Originally posted by Clavius ...I just won't wake up out of this nightmare... I just cancelled my order of 2 DA lenses... Just untill more is known. Luckily your remaining DA 35ltd macro should work fine on FF, with just a little bit of vigntting

12-17-2011, 03:39 PM	#108
LFLee Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: Southern California Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,292	Hm..... 8 pages of replies now, and I haven't seen anyone actually go to translate the article??????? Without having read the article, we can spin quite a lot, right? LOL

12-17-2011, 03:46 PM	#109
mrmentera Forum Member Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Falun Posts: 90	Originally posted by LFLee Hm..... 8 pages of replies now, and I haven't seen anyone actually go to translate the article??????? Without having read the article, we can spin quite a lot, right? LOL Mr Jam did it in this forum. Head of R&D says Pentax is working on mirror-less FF 35mm and 645D?! [Page 2]: Pentax SLR Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review

12-17-2011, 03:49 PM	#110
jeffshaddix Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Colorado Posts: 1,473	Originally posted by RioRico Pentax-Ricoh could do the same, sure. Glassless adapters are trivial. Maybe we've already had a hint of the new PFF-EVIL cam's register: 27.8mm. Why that? Hint: What was the last GXR mountor that Ricoh announced? Think, Leica-M. Did Ricoh release an M-mount device just on a whim? I hereby prophesize that the new RM mount will be an M-mount with AF. The PK adapter would be (45.46-27.8)= 17.66mm= ~0.7in thick. The upcoming EOS, FD, M/MD and Konica adapters will be a little thinner; the AI and R and T adapters will be a little thicker. The LTM-L39 adapter will look just like a wide-flange no-infinity-focus M42-PK adapter. Another "why that": Because that register easily supports full frames. The shorter registers of NEX (18mm), m4/3 (18mm) and NX (25.5) probably don't. (But I could be wrong there. That happens occasionally.) I for one hope you're right, an M mount sounds great!

12-17-2011, 03:55 PM	#111
Fontan Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: 5th floor Posts: 1,610	Originally posted by jeffshaddix I for one hope you're right, an M mount sounds great! I hope so too. I may go with Pentax FF mirrorless instead of upgrading to M9, and being able to use my m mount lenses, including one made by Pentax, is pretty huge.

12-17-2011, 04:20 PM	#112
Oog Forum Member Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 85	Google translate is (not really) your friend in this case: (Last 2 paragraphs) BTW - I'm Ya little If smearing propaganda also this - released December 19, mentioned in this blog the other day, "Digital Camera Magazine" was interviewed on camera manufacturers of eight companies in Tokyo, and Pentax in the interesting story. Interview with Mr. Kitazawa person who is head of camera development. I have a fairly bold statement that Mr. Kitazawa. It's strange that I hope you Morae read carefully the article, and that you are trying to do the mirror-less camera's full-size size 35mm, what came out to talk and have no idea mirror-less camera 645D. More of me and had only a confused and could not really hear the story may be far cow digs. Originally from the old Pentax screen format (size) was applied to the type of mount and more. Cautious, as no other camera manufacturers. Until last Sun about 6 × 7 size, size 645, a 35mm full-size, and there was a film camera with interchangeable lenses and a half size APS, but the size of PENTAX Q is digital, APS-C size, lens size 645 cameras have interchangeable. There, or even a 35mm full-size, but with trying to do even that the mirror-less camera with interchangeable lens 645 size, it steadily go, go, for the first time are surprised. Anyway, apart from HOYA (Really it was good to) as soon as the Ricoh 翼下 entered, but it is not terribly healthy and vigorous and I, Pentax.

12-17-2011, 04:24 PM	#113
RioRico Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Limbo, California Posts: 11,263	Originally posted by jeffshaddix I for one hope you're right, an M mount sounds great! And as I suggested, this is a portal to many other lens systems. LTM-L39; old 4/3 and Pen-F; Canon, Konica, Minolta, Fujica, Exakta, Nikon, all that stuff. Hmm, does this mean my lens accumulation will bloat even more? [/me shudders, looks for space]

12-17-2011, 04:32 PM	#114
frank Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Singapore Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,202	Originally posted by K1D27H Flange focal distance for K-mount (45.46mm) remains to be a problem with the mirrorless system unless they are going to ditch the K-mount entirely. Something I do hate to see it happens. And personally, I find an adapter for the lenses rather awkward. Why do they have to ditch the K-Mount? A mirror less in K mount might be possible, and it canbe either FF EVIL or an APSC one... The camera might look odd, but it's the quickest solution for Pentax to release their own EVIL cameras w the existing lens lineup. Same might goes to 654D EVIL...

12-17-2011, 04:32 PM	#115
m8o Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: 40°-55'-44" N / 73°-24'-07" W [on LI] Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,092	Originally posted by K1D27H Flange focal distance for K-mount (45.46mm) remains to be a problem with the mirrorless system unless they are going to ditch the K-mount entirely. Something I do hate to see it happens. And personally, I find an adapter for the lenses rather awkward. If the body is deep like a classic 645 film body shape -- akin to the shape of most video cameras -- with the FF sensor place deep towards the back of the body, could that solve the distance problem?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

12-17-2011, 04:42 PM	#116
Raffwal Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: The North Posts: 879	Originally posted by m8o If the body is deep like a classic 645 film body shape -- akin to the shape of most video cameras -- with the FF sensor place deep towards the back of the body, could that solve the distance problem? I have been posting about this for many many times. If the flange distance is fixed, there's a lot that can be changed still. A digital camera in 2011 does not have to be designed the same way as a 60s camera that uses rolls of film. Then again, for example the pictures by johnmflores above show us that there's no distance problem really. The flange distance is small enough to make the camera body reasonably small. It's just the question where to put all the other bells and whistles.

12-17-2011, 04:51 PM	#117
stanleyk Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Taylor, Texas Posts: 1,018	Originally posted by Oog More of me and had only a confused and could not really hear the story may be far cow digs. What could be clearer than this...???

12-17-2011, 04:51 PM	#118
m8o Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: 40°-55'-44" N / 73°-24'-07" W [on LI] Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,092	Originally posted by Asahiflex I agree completely. Got my A50/1.2 today and it was unusable with the optical finder. In Live View I got a hit rate of 50% (mainly because LV was too slow in use). This is OT for this thread ... but my K-5 needed a -10 AF Fine Tune adjustment to use my A-50mm/1.4. Still nowhere near as accurate as my K10D w/KatzEye focus screen, not because the K10D is better @ manual focus than the K-5 but because the KatzEye screen enables it.

12-17-2011, 05:00 PM	#120
stanleyk Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Taylor, Texas Posts: 1,018	Originally posted by Art Vandelay II Wow, great news. Hope it's true. I've thought from day one the 645D should have been a mirrorless camera. Although I do have to question the usefulness of medium format in the future seeing the Nikon D800 is going to be 36mp and offered without an AA filter to make it even sharper. Just how much more resolution do 99.999% of photographers need? As far as the full frame mirrorless idea; I'm all for it. Make it about the size of the Pentax ME Super and you'd really have something different in the market. A camera half the size of the D700 (or upcoming D800/5D Mk III) with every bit of the image quality. Talk about a landscape photographers wet dream... Bingo. If they made the lenses that would get me back to Pentax. I love the D700 but I don't want to use it much because it's so big.