So what happened to the K-3 ?

wigelII · 09-25-2012, 03:21 AM

Originally posted by Clavius

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.

FullertonImages · 09-25-2012, 10:41 AM

Originally posted by illdefined

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.

FullertonImages · 09-25-2012, 10:42 AM

Originally posted by Clavius

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.

wangyang · 09-25-2012, 11:24 PM

I think so...

Alizarine · 09-25-2012, 11:53 PM

Originally posted by illdefined

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....

Timothy · 09-26-2012, 12:26 AM

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?

_quicksilver_ · 09-26-2012, 12:30 AM

Originally posted by Clavius

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 it´s different with longer focal lengths? I dunno. But with my style of shooting the SR is not necessary at all.

disya2 · 09-26-2012, 12:54 AM

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.

Alizarine · 09-26-2012, 01:17 AM

Originally posted by Timothy

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

Originally posted by disya2

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...

Timothy · 09-27-2012, 03:09 PM

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.

**Canada_Rockies** · 09-27-2012, 05:42 PM

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.

Clavius · 09-28-2012, 12:07 AM

Originally posted by Timothy

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.

Snakeisthestuff · 09-28-2012, 12:28 AM

Originally posted by Clavius

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.

Clavius · 09-28-2012, 01:20 AM

Originally posted by Snakeisthestuff

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?

Kunzite · 09-28-2012, 02:08 AM

Originally posted by Clavius

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.

Quote:

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.

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

09-25-2012, 03:21 AM	#331
wigelII Forum Member Join Date: Aug 2012 Posts: 65	Originally posted by Clavius 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
FullertonImages Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Boulder, CO Posts: 883	Originally posted by illdefined 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
FullertonImages Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Boulder, CO Posts: 883	Originally posted by Clavius 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
wangyang New Member Join Date: Sep 2012 Posts: 13	I think so...

09-25-2012, 11:53 PM	#335
Alizarine Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2010 Location: Manila Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,185	Originally posted by illdefined 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
Timothy 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
_quicksilver_ Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2011 Posts: 207	Originally posted by Clavius 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 it´s 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
disya2 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
Alizarine Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2010 Location: Manila Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,185	Originally posted by Timothy 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 Originally posted by disya2 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
Timothy 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
Canada_Rockies Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Sparwood, BC, Canada Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 12,385	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
Clavius Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2011 Location: De Klundert Photos: Gallery Posts: 4,150	Originally posted by Timothy 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
Snakeisthestuff Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2011 Photos: Gallery Posts: 136	Originally posted by Clavius 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
Clavius Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2011 Location: De Klundert Photos: Gallery Posts: 4,150	Originally posted by Snakeisthestuff 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
Kunzite Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Romania Posts: 15,132	Originally posted by Clavius 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. Quote: 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.