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

**Aristophanes** · 12-21-2011, 12:07 PM

Originally posted by Asahiflex

A MILC camera does not have such a problem because there's only one variable: the distance between the mount and the sensor. So a mirror box MUST be more expensive because there's much more QC involved.

But how much more?

SLR's and DSLR's can be pretty inexpensive and the development of thee devices is a sunk cost over 60 years old.

I doubt as a capital input the cost is large enough to make or break a system more than the risk posed by making your consumer switch to an entirely new lens mount.

Winder · 12-21-2011, 12:27 PM

Originally posted by DaveBlack

My records on my hi-end stero has better sound quality than my CD's on the same hig-end system. An ipod just don't have the sound quality for me. An ipod is convienent and that it about all. Now my HD flatcreen is a different story. It has a lot better quality than my old tube TV plus the new technology makes it more convienent.

So new technology just to be new is not an end in itself. Just replacing a optical viewfinder with an EVF just to decrease the register distance a few millimeters just doesn't do it for me. Yes, an EVF will make the camera alittle less expensive to make, but is about all at this time.

Dave

I am not planning on buying an EVIL anytime soon and I don't think the technology is there yet, but it is close.

AF accuracy is much better with EVIL. There is no FF/BF issues. No need to use micro-AF adjustment.
MF is much easier than it is with APS-C.

According to Sony the EVF is much cheaper than OVF. The mirror/PDAF system/Prism all have to be hand calibrated. It is not just an issue of the cost of materials. The actual time spent to install and calibrate is considerable.

The current generation of EVFs are not better than FF OVFs, but they are just as good as APS-C in my opinion. I am hoping that advancements in the EVF will force Pentax to improve the OVF on the K-bodies.

Anvh · 12-21-2011, 03:16 PM

Originally posted by Winder

AF accuracy is much better with EVIL. There is no FF/BF issues. No need to use micro-AF adjustment.
MF is much easier than it is with APS-C.

You sure?
With Sony evil like the a65 for example you also have front and back focus.

Emacs · 12-21-2011, 03:25 PM

Originally posted by Anvh

You sure?
With Sony evil like the a65 for example you also have front and back focus.

It's not evil, it's SLT and it uses PDAF.

**Digitalis** · 12-21-2011, 03:38 PM

Originally posted by Fogel70

There might be a small market for a camera like this with FF sensor and optimized for manual focus lenses, but it probably end up with a Leica M9 price tag.

It's funny you mention that because the moving sensor AF solution is the only way (as far as I can see) to incorporate AF on a Leica digital RF.

Anvh · 12-21-2011, 03:43 PM

Originally posted by Emacs

It's not evil, it's SLT and it uses PDAF.

the a65 is a mix bagged.
EVIL stands for electronic viewfinder interchangeable lens, precisely what the a65 is, if you use a different term than i'm all for it.
MILC (mirrorless interchangeable-lens camera) for example.

Chex · 12-21-2011, 03:59 PM

SLT is single lens translucent.. as in not mirrorless...and yes it has an EVF, but with it still having a mirror at least an OVF is an option.. So yes I can see it being a bit of a mixed bag between what is perceived as an EVIL camera and an SLR/SLT.

Last edited by Chex; 12-21-2011 at 04:05 PM.

Anvh · 12-21-2011, 04:08 PM

Precisely and nobody says that EVIL camera are mirrorless.

So the a65 is EVIL, SLR, SLT camera, all those terms are correct.

But it isn't a MILC, which is the term that's now often used for camera's like the Pen, Nex, ect.

ps. don't forget that not all mirrorless have an electronic viewfinder some like Leica use an optical one.
It's getting complicated.

**Pål Jensen** · 12-21-2011, 04:13 PM

Originally posted by Winder

According to Sony the EVF is much cheaper than OVF. The mirror/PDAF system/Prism all have to be hand calibrated. It is not just an issue of the cost of materials. The actual time spent to install and calibrate is considerable..

Cannot be true. In the film days a entry level SLR hardly costed more than a similarly specced P&S. The cost cannot be great; particularly on a DSLR where the sensor is what really cost money.

Laurentiu Cristofor · 12-21-2011, 04:16 PM

Originally posted by Chex

SLT is single lens translucent.. as in not mirrorless...and yes it has an EVF, but with it still having a mirror at least an OVF is an option..

No, it's not. If you'd have an OVF, then it would be called an SLR. The translucent mirror doesn't move, and since it already lets most of the light go to the sensor, what do you expect an OVF to show?

Emacs · 12-21-2011, 04:18 PM

Originally posted by Pål Jensen

Cannot be true. In the film days a entry level SLR hardly costed more than a similarly specced P&S. The cost cannot be great; particularly on a DSLR where the sensor is what really cost money.

It is.
Do you realize how many adjustments should be done for DSLR to work properly? It's fully handmade work, need a lot of time to complete.

Anvh · 12-21-2011, 04:55 PM

Originally posted by Laurentiu Cristofor

No, it's not. If you'd have an OVF, then it would be called an SLR. The translucent mirror doesn't move, and since it already lets most of the light go to the sensor, what do you expect an OVF to show?

For your information, the mirror in SLR with AF also lets light through for the AF sensor.
Behind the main mirror there is a second mirror, the main mirror reflects the light up to the viewfinder and the second reflects the light down to the AF sensor.

selar · 12-21-2011, 05:05 PM

I dont think its going to be particularly advantageous for Pentax to come out with a "Me too!" FF Pro dSLR body this late in the game. There's also the question how many of these would sell given that Pentax caters mostly to amateurs and a few enthusiasts.

For a FF Pentax to sell enough numbers it needs to be priced around the same as K5, so anything that keeps the cost down should be considered. If I got a FF, I'd use it mostly for lansdcapes, the absence of a mirror box and PDAF wouldn't bother me at all. CDAF is slow, but with landscapes AF speed doesn't really matter.

selar · 12-21-2011, 05:12 PM

Originally posted by Pål Jensen

In the film days a entry level SLR hardly costed more than a similarly specced P&S.

In the film days, especially with the entry level dSLRs, most prints were postcard size and a few 8x10s. The magnification was not enough for FF/BF to show. Nowadays, nearly everyone blows up digital images to 100% and peep at every pixel. So in film days, entry level dSLRs were built with looser tolerances than todays dSLRs.

**Clinton** · 12-21-2011, 05:43 PM

Originally posted by selar

I dont think its going to be particularly advantageous for Pentax to come out with a "Me too!" FF Pro dSLR body this late in the game. There's also the question how many of these would sell given that Pentax caters mostly to amateurs and a few enthusiasts.

For a FF Pentax to sell enough numbers it needs to be priced around the same as K5, so anything that keeps the cost down should be considered. If I got a FF, I'd use it mostly for lansdcapes, the absence of a mirror box and PDAF wouldn't bother me at all. CDAF is slow, but with landscapes AF speed doesn't really matter.

Respectfully, I disagree. It's not only advantageous, it's downright necessary. We are already loosing resolution at F13 on our K-5s, and the next gen will drop that to F8.

I also disagree on the price. I think $3000 is a fine pricemark for the full frame camera, while keeping the less expensive option at APS-C.

I also think FF gives an advantage to telephoto, as we can always crop to APS-C size, if needed otherwise we shoot at a wider angle of view with more resolution.

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

12-21-2011, 12:07 PM	#346
Aristophanes Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Rankin Inlet, Nunavut Photos: Albums Posts: 3,948	Originally posted by Asahiflex A MILC camera does not have such a problem because there's only one variable: the distance between the mount and the sensor. So a mirror box MUST be more expensive because there's much more QC involved. But how much more? SLR's and DSLR's can be pretty inexpensive and the development of thee devices is a sunk cost over 60 years old. I doubt as a capital input the cost is large enough to make or break a system more than the risk posed by making your consumer switch to an entirely new lens mount.

12-21-2011, 12:27 PM	#347
Winder Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: Tennessee Posts: 6,617	Originally posted by DaveBlack My records on my hi-end stero has better sound quality than my CD's on the same hig-end system. An ipod just don't have the sound quality for me. An ipod is convienent and that it about all. Now my HD flatcreen is a different story. It has a lot better quality than my old tube TV plus the new technology makes it more convienent. So new technology just to be new is not an end in itself. Just replacing a optical viewfinder with an EVF just to decrease the register distance a few millimeters just doesn't do it for me. Yes, an EVF will make the camera alittle less expensive to make, but is about all at this time. Dave I am not planning on buying an EVIL anytime soon and I don't think the technology is there yet, but it is close. AF accuracy is much better with EVIL. There is no FF/BF issues. No need to use micro-AF adjustment. MF is much easier than it is with APS-C. According to Sony the EVF is much cheaper than OVF. The mirror/PDAF system/Prism all have to be hand calibrated. It is not just an issue of the cost of materials. The actual time spent to install and calibrate is considerable. The current generation of EVFs are not better than FF OVFs, but they are just as good as APS-C in my opinion. I am hoping that advancements in the EVF will force Pentax to improve the OVF on the K-bodies.

12-21-2011, 03:16 PM	#348
Anvh Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 4,616	Originally posted by Winder AF accuracy is much better with EVIL. There is no FF/BF issues. No need to use micro-AF adjustment. MF is much easier than it is with APS-C. You sure? With Sony evil like the a65 for example you also have front and back focus.

12-21-2011, 03:25 PM	#349
Emacs Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: Moscow Posts: 1,223	Originally posted by Anvh You sure? With Sony evil like the a65 for example you also have front and back focus. It's not evil, it's SLT and it uses PDAF.

12-21-2011, 03:38 PM	#350
Digitalis Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Melbourne, Victoria Photos: Gallery Posts: 11,694	Originally posted by Fogel70 There might be a small market for a camera like this with FF sensor and optimized for manual focus lenses, but it probably end up with a Leica M9 price tag. It's funny you mention that because the moving sensor AF solution is the only way (as far as I can see) to incorporate AF on a Leica digital RF.

12-21-2011, 03:43 PM	#351
Anvh Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 4,616	Originally posted by Emacs It's not evil, it's SLT and it uses PDAF. the a65 is a mix bagged. EVIL stands for electronic viewfinder interchangeable lens, precisely what the a65 is, if you use a different term than i'm all for it. MILC (mirrorless interchangeable-lens camera) for example.

12-21-2011, 03:59 PM	#352
Chex Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2011 Location: The 'Stoke, British Columbia Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,678	SLT is single lens translucent.. as in not mirrorless...and yes it has an EVF, but with it still having a mirror at least an OVF is an option.. So yes I can see it being a bit of a mixed bag between what is perceived as an EVIL camera and an SLR/SLT. Last edited by Chex; 12-21-2011 at 04:05 PM.

12-21-2011, 04:08 PM	#353
Anvh Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 4,616	Precisely and nobody says that EVIL camera are mirrorless. So the a65 is EVIL, SLR, SLT camera, all those terms are correct. But it isn't a MILC, which is the term that's now often used for camera's like the Pen, Nex, ect. ps. don't forget that not all mirrorless have an electronic viewfinder some like Leica use an optical one. It's getting complicated.

12-21-2011, 04:13 PM	#354
Pål Jensen Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Norway Photos: Albums Posts: 4,371	Originally posted by Winder According to Sony the EVF is much cheaper than OVF. The mirror/PDAF system/Prism all have to be hand calibrated. It is not just an issue of the cost of materials. The actual time spent to install and calibrate is considerable.. Cannot be true. In the film days a entry level SLR hardly costed more than a similarly specced P&S. The cost cannot be great; particularly on a DSLR where the sensor is what really cost money.

12-21-2011, 04:16 PM	#355
Laurentiu Cristofor Banned Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: WA Photos: Albums Posts: 3,055	Originally posted by Chex SLT is single lens translucent.. as in not mirrorless...and yes it has an EVF, but with it still having a mirror at least an OVF is an option.. No, it's not. If you'd have an OVF, then it would be called an SLR. The translucent mirror doesn't move, and since it already lets most of the light go to the sensor, what do you expect an OVF to show?

12-21-2011, 04:18 PM	#356
Emacs Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: Moscow Posts: 1,223	Originally posted by Pål Jensen Cannot be true. In the film days a entry level SLR hardly costed more than a similarly specced P&S. The cost cannot be great; particularly on a DSLR where the sensor is what really cost money. It is. Do you realize how many adjustments should be done for DSLR to work properly? It's fully handmade work, need a lot of time to complete.

12-21-2011, 04:55 PM	#357
Anvh Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 4,616	Originally posted by Laurentiu Cristofor No, it's not. If you'd have an OVF, then it would be called an SLR. The translucent mirror doesn't move, and since it already lets most of the light go to the sensor, what do you expect an OVF to show? For your information, the mirror in SLR with AF also lets light through for the AF sensor. Behind the main mirror there is a second mirror, the main mirror reflects the light up to the viewfinder and the second reflects the light down to the AF sensor.

12-21-2011, 05:05 PM	#358
selar Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Sydney, Australia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,042	I dont think its going to be particularly advantageous for Pentax to come out with a "Me too!" FF Pro dSLR body this late in the game. There's also the question how many of these would sell given that Pentax caters mostly to amateurs and a few enthusiasts. For a FF Pentax to sell enough numbers it needs to be priced around the same as K5, so anything that keeps the cost down should be considered. If I got a FF, I'd use it mostly for lansdcapes, the absence of a mirror box and PDAF wouldn't bother me at all. CDAF is slow, but with landscapes AF speed doesn't really matter.

12-21-2011, 05:12 PM	#359
selar Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Sydney, Australia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,042	Originally posted by Pål Jensen In the film days a entry level SLR hardly costed more than a similarly specced P&S. In the film days, especially with the entry level dSLRs, most prints were postcard size and a few 8x10s. The magnification was not enough for FF/BF to show. Nowadays, nearly everyone blows up digital images to 100% and peep at every pixel. So in film days, entry level dSLRs were built with looser tolerances than todays dSLRs.

12-21-2011, 05:43 PM	#360
Clinton Site Supporter Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: Salt Lake City, UT Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,912	Originally posted by selar I dont think its going to be particularly advantageous for Pentax to come out with a "Me too!" FF Pro dSLR body this late in the game. There's also the question how many of these would sell given that Pentax caters mostly to amateurs and a few enthusiasts. For a FF Pentax to sell enough numbers it needs to be priced around the same as K5, so anything that keeps the cost down should be considered. If I got a FF, I'd use it mostly for lansdcapes, the absence of a mirror box and PDAF wouldn't bother me at all. CDAF is slow, but with landscapes AF speed doesn't really matter. Respectfully, I disagree. It's not only advantageous, it's downright necessary. We are already loosing resolution at F13 on our K-5s, and the next gen will drop that to F8. I also disagree on the price. I think $3000 is a fine pricemark for the full frame camera, while keeping the less expensive option at APS-C. I also think FF gives an advantage to telephoto, as we can always crop to APS-C size, if needed otherwise we shoot at a wider angle of view with more resolution.