[yusuf]

Does anyone think that Pentax may give us a pleasant surprise in CP+ with new DSLR while we all discussing K-01 - may be a Ricoh strategy to leak K-01 to divert any attention from upcoming DSLR?

[Fogel70]

Does anyone think that Pentax may give us a pleasant surprise in CP+ with new DSLR while we all discussing K-01 - may be a Ricoh strategy to leak K-01 to divert any attention from upcoming DSLR?

What would be the point if doing that?
It's not much of a secret that new DSLR are to come soon.

[rawr]

Does anyone think that Pentax may give us a pleasant surprise in CP+

Hopefully several pleasant surprises.

After all, it has been a while now since Ricoh took over Pentax. They need to show their hand soon. Showing a few more point and shoots won't meet market expectations of why exactly Ricoh bought Pentax.

[gazonk]

I wouldn't be surprised at all if they show a K-r successor with 16 mp.

[Clavius]

What would be the point if doing that?

The point of that would be to soothe the competitors into believing that's all Pentax got to show. If they did that to divert any attention from the full features FF DSLR that they would introduce, then that will catch the competitors by surprise. All eyes, ears and talk would be on Pentax right then for some time.

[Fogel70]

The point of that would be to soothe the competitors into believing that's all Pentax got to show. If they did that to divert any attention from the full features FF DSLR that they would introduce, then that will catch the competitors by surprise. All eyes, ears and talk would be on Pentax right then for some time.

If you expect something like that to happen, you are probably going to be really dissspointed.

[falconeye]

You are comparing old outdated EVF to OVF, the one in my post is 10x better.

MicroOLED promises even greater electronic viewfinder resolution: Digital Photography Review

Au contraire, the NEX7 EVF is the current state of the art as far as photo cameras are concerned.

The MicroOLED is an expensive offering for medical, industrial, military applications etc.

And then it isn't nearly as good as it would be required to rival an OVF.

E.g., its 1280x1024 resolution needs to double to become true HD (1920x1080), the currently accepted standard for a sharp display. Personally, I expect this to go up to about 3.3MP, based on what the human eye can resolve, even more when comparing with an OVF with a wide field of view like in a Pentax MX.

Contrast is reported 100,000:1 or 16EV. That would just meet my spec if the display controller drives it with 16 Bit. But that's not the case, the actual contrast is very compressed and has a lot of shadow noise in live view because only a subset of pixels is read out and are noisy at 1/60s which is as good as it gets at 60p. Moreover, all the cinema going on in an EVF makes it impossible to display a scene with its original contrast which means that a lot of detail remains unvisible. Like a face besides an open fire, or the mentioned polarizer effect on the sky, or a starry sky etc. ... So:

- Price competive to an OVF: no
- Resolution competive to an OVF: no
- Contrast / dynamic range competive to an OVF: no
- Responsiveness competive to an OVF: no

I didn't even talk about the latter. Even at 60p, the lag is noticeable with current EVF, the processing pipeline is too slow. It is slow enough that you cannot frame a bird in flight with an A77 and a long tele. My estimate is that everything above 20ms lag is too slow to rival an OVF. The current lag is more like 5x this value. I really would like dpreview to measure lag, which is easy by photographing a camera looking at a rotating disk (at 100rpm) with both disk and live view display visible on the image.

may be a Ricoh strategy to leak K-01 to divert any attention from upcoming DSLR?

Yeah, only the best marketing can attempt to release a new product in a way nobody takes notice

[Aku Ankka]

I am not sure. Retrofocus and tele lenses have rather small rear elements. You could be right in theory for a fast symmetrical 31mm though. However, it's lens diameter at f/1.4 is just 22mm, half the mount's diameter. So, I think there is no real limitation here. The big lens elements would all remain outside the mount.

The point was about the lenses designs which are advantageous for rangefinders and mirrorless, ie. normals and wides of symmetric or close to symmetric designs. Teles are naturallly hardly relevant and retrofocus is precicely the kludge one would like to avoid.

Also, the lens would really need to be designed in a way where it would not only be deep inside the mirror(less) chamber, but also in part outside the chamber (either for lens size, or angle of view reasons), causing extra design restrictions.

[Aku Ankka]

Any chance something was lost in the translation along the way and 40mm is referring to the 35mm camera equivalent field of view (making it something like a 27/2.8)?

Not likely. To me it seems the new camera is a cost cut version of the camera it's supposet to replace, thus recirculating old optics would make sense, inspite of 40mm being uninteresting focal length for a crop camera.

[falconeye]

The point was about the lenses designs which are advantageous for rangefinders and mirrorless, ie. normals and wides of symmetric or close to symmetric designs. Teles are naturallly hardly relevant and retrofocus is precicely the kludge one would like to avoid.

Also, the lens would really need to be designed in a way where it would not only be deep inside the mirror(less) chamber, but also in part outside the chamber (either for lens size, or angle of view reasons), causing extra design restrictions.

I thought it was clear I considered symmetric designs.

They either have a long enough focal length (40mm or larger) that they would actually even fit the K-mount with a mirror, or they are shorter (which is why I considered the 31mm). So the "worst case" scenario is a 35mm f/1.2 with a 30mm front lens. But even this would still fit into a K mount's opening.

I agree that an e.g., 20mm symmetrical lens' front lens would be recessed into the mount, possibly restricting the angle of view. But at very short focal lengths, a mild retrofocus design is normally used to make the lens more telecentric to improve image quality with a digital sensor.

Overall, I don't think that a recessed lens design would suffer from any significant design limitations. If there are, then most probably for fast zooms covering both wide angle and tele.

[audiobomber]

Not likely. To me it seems the new camera is a cost cut version of the camera it's supposet to replace

What proof is there that the K-01 is replacing anything? For that matter, where's the credible rumour that it's a K-r replacement? I emphatically believe the K-r will be replaced by a DSLR, and I've stated why several times in this thread, i.e. quote from Pentax UK General Manager. So what have you got?

BTW, you haven't said whether you own any Pentax gear. I suspect you don't and you're just here to troll.

[Emacs]

based on what the human eye can resolve,

Human eye can, but matte focusing screens are not. So, decrease these 3.3Mp to something about 1.5-2 times lower

[Rondec]

Not likely. To me it seems the new camera is a cost cut version of the camera it's supposet to replace, thus recirculating old optics would make sense, inspite of 40mm being uninteresting focal length for a crop camera.

Using the DA 40 as a kit lens is not a bad idea. Sure, it would be nice if it was a little wider, say 30mm, but the DA 40 is a tiny, very fast focusing lens and there are plenty of people who use it currently as a walk around lens due to its corner to corner sharpness, nice colors, and small size

[jogiba]

Au contraire, the NEX7 EVF is the current state of the art as far as photo cameras are concerned.

The MicroOLED is an expensive offering for medical, industrial, military applications etc.

And then it isn't nearly as good as it would be required to rival an OVF.

E.g., its 1280x1024 resolution needs to double to become true HD (1920x1080), the currently accepted standard for a sharp display. Personally, I expect this to go up to about 3.3MP, based on what the human eye can resolve, even more when comparing with an OVF with a wide field of view like in a Pentax MX.

Contrast is reported 100,000:1 or 16EV. That would just meet my spec if the display controller drives it with 16 Bit. But that's not the case, the actual contrast is very compressed and has a lot of shadow noise in live view because only a subset of pixels is read out and are noisy at 1/60s which is as good as it gets at 60p. Moreover, all the cinema going on in an EVF makes it impossible to display a scene with its original contrast which means that a lot of detail remains unvisible. Like a face besides an open fire, or the mentioned polarizer effect on the sky, or a starry sky etc. ... So:

- Price competive to an OVF: no
- Resolution competive to an OVF: no
- Contrast / dynamic range competive to an OVF: no
- Responsiveness competive to an OVF: no

I didn't even talk about the latter. Even at 60p, the lag is noticeable with current EVF, the processing pipeline is too slow. It is slow enough that you cannot frame a bird in flight with an A77 and a long tele. My estimate is that everything above 20ms lag is too slow to rival an OVF. The current lag is more like 5x this value. I really would like dpreview to measure lag, which is easy by photographing a camera looking at a rotating disk (at 100rpm) with both disk and live view display visible on the image.


Yeah, only the best marketing can attempt to release a new product in a way nobody takes notice

OVF is a showstopper in video mode. All you will see is black. I shoot mainly video and I would take an EVF like the one on my GH2 over my K-7 anyday.

[Clavius]

OVF is a showstopper in video mode. All you will see is black. I shoot mainly video and I would take an EVF like the one on my GH2 over my K-7 anyday.

If you shoot mainly video then why do you use a PHOTOcamera for that?!?! That's what videocamera's are for.

I wish they would use a CCD for te higher IQ. Liveview and video can be stolen for all I care.