Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
09-25-2012, 03:21 AM   #331
Forum Member




Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 65
QuoteOriginally posted by Clavius Quote
I think the extra stop added by the FF sensor more then makes up for the stop(s) lost by the lacking SR.

Moreover, I switch SR off very often, because I mostly get sharper images with the SR off. (Yes, handheld too!) So, no I wouldn't miss it, and I have a feeling that I'm not the only one.
You're not the only one.

09-25-2012, 10:41 AM   #332
Veteran Member




Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Boulder, CO
Posts: 886
QuoteOriginally posted by illdefined Quote
the prism housing wouldn't have to be taller if they removed the flash.
I'd personally rather keep the flash and pickup a small increase in size. But Isuppose I could also live without it, I don't use it that much. But it's nice when you need it for a wee bit of fill.
09-25-2012, 10:42 AM   #333
Veteran Member




Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Boulder, CO
Posts: 886
QuoteOriginally posted by Clavius Quote
I think the extra stop added by the FF sensor more then makes up for the stop(s) lost by the lacking SR.

Moreover, I switch SR off very often, because I mostly get sharper images with the SR off. (Yes, handheld too!) So, no I wouldn't miss it, and I have a feeling that I'm not the only one.
Guess I'll have to try shooting more without it.
09-25-2012, 11:24 PM   #334
New Member




Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 13
I think so...

09-25-2012, 11:53 PM   #335
Veteran Member




Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Manila
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,190
QuoteOriginally posted by illdefined Quote
no reason it couldn't be. the clearances of K-Mount are inherently FF. only challenge is the SR platter for an FF sized sensor (like the monster A900/850), but I I think some people would even give SR up for FF. they did for the 645D...
They could keep the body size down to near a K-5's but it would be impossible if it will also have SR - but they can scale down the SR mechanism from the 645D lenses and use lens-based SR for FF....
09-26-2012, 12:26 AM   #336
Junior Member




Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Central Canada
Posts: 43
Yeah, they could, but why would they want to? Pentax has already-developed an SR system--why not use it?

Why are we trying so hard to make the full-frame body Pentax doesn't seem to want to make fit precisely into the size of the k-5? I love the ergonomics of the K-7/5, but can we just let a larger-sensored camera be a little bit larger? If Pentax's previous designs have been any indication, it will probably be as small as it can without losing any features--isn't that the best way to do it?
09-26-2012, 12:30 AM   #337
Senior Member




Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 209
QuoteOriginally posted by Clavius Quote
I think the extra stop added by the FF sensor more then makes up for the stop(s) lost by the lacking SR.

Moreover, I switch SR off very often, because I mostly get sharper images with the SR off. (Yes, handheld too!) So, no I wouldn't miss it, and I have a feeling that I'm not the only one.
+1

Actually, I have found that in my K200D the SR off is the way to go if you want to have sharper pictures. Maybe itīs different with longer focal lengths? I dunno. But with my style of shooting the SR is not necessary at all.
09-26-2012, 12:54 AM   #338
Forum Member




Join Date: Apr 2010
Photos: Albums
Posts: 91
I'll add some bits to SR talk.

Earlier this year I saw a link (can't find it) to an interview with K-01 developers in Japan. There was a picture there presenting K-01 SR plate next to K-5's. It was significantly smaller than the one used in K-5. I believe FF's SR plate can be made small enough.

As to use SR or not I made my own test shooting with 31mm mounted on K-5 and found that blur is clearly visible up to 1/125-1/180s. With SR turned on I was easily able to shot with 1/15-1/30 without noticeable image blurring. So I concluded that in MY hands SR is simply a must unless I shot outside in bright sunny day.

09-26-2012, 01:17 AM   #339
Veteran Member




Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Manila
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,190
QuoteOriginally posted by Timothy Quote
Yeah, they could, but why would they want to? Pentax has already-developed an SR system--why not use it?
Because they kept on developing things and keeping them small, at least, from the K-7 to the Q and with exception to the 645D. They avoided in-lens SR for the lenses to keep them small, have pancakes, etc. While
QuoteOriginally posted by disya2 Quote
I believe FF's SR plate can be made small enough.
may also be possible, how long will developing this technology take?

It would depend, of course, on "market demand". I guess Japan customers aren't shouting out loud enough for FF for Pentax heads to stop thinking and start working on it...
09-27-2012, 03:09 PM   #340
Junior Member




Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Central Canada
Posts: 43
But they didn't need in-lens SR because all of their DSLR bodies since 2006 (with two exceptions: K110D and 645D) have had in body shake reduction. Do you think because it's always been there that it's not a selling feature? It is the reason I bought into Pentax, and it would be maniacal to remove it from a flagship body.

If you were talking about a camera equivalent of a Superleggera car--a luxury sports car with limited features and ammenities, but a ballooned price tag, all in the name of lightness (analagous to size in cameras)--there's likely a limited but real market for it. Though that market appears to be imminently filled, in part, by the Sony RX1.

Should Pentax be competing in the size war against interchangable-lens compact systems (which are smaller), or the Sony (which has a bigger sensor--though let's say limited appeal at its price point)? I think they should make a real, competitive product. And make it as small as possible without losing real features that sell cameras, such as shake reduction.
09-27-2012, 05:42 PM   #341
Loyal Site Supporter
Canada_Rockies's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Sparwood, BC, Canada
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 9,398
A larger pentaprism could be accomplished without increasing the height of the box by moving the hot shoe back to where it was on the SF series. I'll never understand why the moved it. It was brilliant.
09-28-2012, 12:07 AM   #342
Pentaxian
Clavius's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: De Klundert
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 4,118
QuoteOriginally posted by Timothy Quote
I think they should make a real, competitive product. And make it as small as possible without losing real features that sell cameras, such as shake reduction.
A Pentax FF, with SR and K-mount is not possible. K-mount is a FF yes, but only for film. When the media is going to be bouncing around like with SR, then the K-mount suddenly becomes to small. So, Pentax FF + SR means a new mount. Which in turn equals: Angry mob of Pentaxians. Leaving out the SR will end up in the same angry mob. And just not doing FF end up in... Well, we all know the 1001 FF threads...

Somehow they should make a new mount, with a shorter registry distance, that would enable a K-mount adapter, that includes screw drive and SDM contacts to be mounted on the new mount. That should result in smaller angry mob. But then still SR wouldn't work on FF.

I wouldn't want to be in the Pentax Ricoh Imaging director's shoes that has to make this decision.
09-28-2012, 12:28 AM   #343
Forum Member




Join Date: Jul 2011
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 87
QuoteOriginally posted by Clavius Quote
A Pentax FF, with SR and K-mount is not possible. K-mount is a FF yes, but only for film. When the media is going to be bouncing around like with SR, then the K-mount suddenly becomes to small. So, Pentax FF + SR means a new mount. Which in turn equals: Angry mob of Pentaxians. Leaving out the SR will end up in the same angry mob. And just not doing FF end up in... Well, we all know the 1001 FF threads...

Somehow they should make a new mount, with a shorter registry distance, that would enable a K-mount adapter, that includes screw drive and SDM contacts to be mounted on the new mount. That should result in smaller angry mob. But then still SR wouldn't work on FF.

I wouldn't want to be in the Pentax Ricoh Imaging director's shoes that has to make this decision.
Really? Sounds strange to me since not the lens is bouncing in the camera but the whole camera is bouncing. So there is no bouncing of the media as you describe it. If the camera is shaking the sensor just needs to move to compensate for that.
I do not think this involves any problem with the K-mount, or maybe I just got the wrong idea of SR.
09-28-2012, 01:20 AM   #344
Pentaxian
Clavius's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: De Klundert
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 4,118
QuoteOriginally posted by Snakeisthestuff Quote
Really? Sounds strange to me since not the lens is bouncing in the camera but the whole camera is bouncing. So there is no bouncing of the media as you describe it. If the camera is shaking the sensor just needs to move to compensate for that.
I do not think this involves any problem with the K-mount, or maybe I just got the wrong idea of SR.
Well, I hope you're right, but then we're back to why Pentax hasn't issued one yet.

Actually, in one of the interviews one of their representatives explicitly stated that FF would demand a new mount. And that developing that new mount would take a lot of developement, time and investment.

I'm having a bloody hard time finding that comment amongst the ocean of FF- and photokina threads. Anyone know the location of the statement I'm referring to?
09-28-2012, 02:08 AM   #345
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Romania
Posts: 9,104
QuoteOriginally posted by Clavius Quote
Actually, in one of the interviews one of their representatives explicitly stated that FF would demand a new mount. And that developing that new mount would take a lot of developement, time and investment.
Sigh. They were talking about a dedicated mirrorless mount, not about a "full frame" - it's in the interview ogl posted.
QuoteQuote:
If we launch mirrorless camera with a larger sensor, it means a new mount, and it's difficult to create one. If we launch a product with a larger sensor, we'd have to change the direction from the K mount to a different one. For example, Panasonic and Olympus moved to Micro Four Thirds.
Photokina 2012 -
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-news-rumors/200179-one-more-interv...n-english.html
Please, don't sound so certain in your assertions unless you can precisely remember such things. Thank you.
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!
ii, k-5, pentax, pentax news, pentax rumors, ricoh
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Question What happened? RollsUp Site Suggestions and Help 2 01-10-2012 12:30 PM
Misc What happened here? Workingdog Post Your Photos! 10 02-04-2011 08:56 AM
What happened? thrillerb Troubleshooting and Beginner Help 16 10-13-2010 09:01 PM
Travel What happened? Gashog Photo Critique 3 09-25-2010 02:41 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:59 PM. | 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