[RonHendriks1966]

Imagine the FOV and perspective of a medium format video. I think it's gonna look gorgeous even if it's "just" full HD.

Yes that can look great, but for video you can use like DA*55mm on K-01 on f1.4 and that is already something to use. The MF lenses aren't all that fast.

[dcshooter]

Would your opinion change if it were capable of uncompressed HD?

Yes that can look great, but for video you can use like DA*55mm on K-01 on f1.4 and that is already something to use. The MF lenses aren't all that fast.

[RonHendriks1966]

Would your opinion change if it were capable of uncompressed HD?

Yes, but if PRIME III could offer that, why isn't it in the K-3?

[jogiba]

So who want this FullHD camera for 10+K $? If it is just a gimick then leave it out off the specs.

What specs ? BTW FullHD is not the future since the Panasonic GH4 has cinema 4K with 4096x2160 that is more than 4x the resolution what FullHD is (1920x1080 ) and the Samsung Note 3 smartphone has 4K (3840x2160).

[RonHendriks1966]

What specs ? BTW FullHD is not the future since the Panasonic GH4 has cinema 4K with 4096x2160 that is more than 4x the resolution what FullHD is (1920x1080 ) and the Samsung Note 3 smartphone has 4K (3840x2160).

I would be happy with 2.5k since I have a 2.5k screen.

But true video is shifting upwards where VGA resolution from just a few years ago is a dino.

[nanok]

Imagine you have an open wooden door and a wall made out of the same material. You attack both with a sledgehammer. Which do you think is going to happen first, the surface of the wall and/or the door (the screen) suffers significant damage, or you rip the door off its hinges? The hinges (the articulating joint) are not the weak point, the surface (the glass screen) is. The fact that the door can move when hit, instead of just taking the impact makes it harder to break down at all, unless you hit it in a very specific configuration.

There is no circumstance I can imagine where an articulated screen would break off before the screen itself would have been destroyed, whether fixed or not, unless you hit the joint directly, or the screen has been fully extended and bent beyond its limits. Presumably all these paranoid people would never flip it out, so the joint is never directly exposed nor extended to its limits, and thus it is only subject to the same kind of impact a fixed screen would. Now which would have a better chance of survival of a direct impact, a fixed screen that just takes the kinetic energy, or a screen that has at least some potential to move out harm's way when pushed?

okay, Professor (and i say it without the slightest hint of sarcasm, btw), your logic is, as seems to be the norm, rock-solid. There's only one tiny problem: your starting assumption is wrong;

most people don't worry so much about destructive impact. The truth is most modern cameras (dslr and up, not "digicams") couldn't withstand an impact capable of _incidentally_ destroying the back lcd, and keep on going (without internal damage etc), most people don't actually expect a dslr to survive a 3 foot drop for instance (though i hear many will, surprisingly enough, survive), after all our beloved celulloid film has turned to glass. etc.

the problem is mostly perception, but not all perception:

- a hinged/articulated screen is mechanically more complex, hence more prone to mechanical failure (how many fixed panels have you seen fail to.. ahem.. stay fixed, as opposed to damaged/worn off hinges on a car door?); yes, it can be well built, i admit, but you can't help thinking that "all else being equal(...) the fixed design will be sturdier"

- a fixed (burried/built into the body) screen will not catch on things, cloathing, etc, this means it is unlikely to incurr any un-intentional shock, and it is also less likely to cause loosing grip on the whole camera and potentially causing the camera to take a flying start to the bottom of the valley. silly? paranoid? perhaps, but some people shoot in rather extreme conditions, and apart from equipment cost, the loss of a camera will basically spoil an entire trip (especially a photo trip)

- a hinged/articulated screen will have a mecahnically mobile connection to power it and feed it data. some can't help cringe at all the trouble they have seen with even semi-mobile electrical connections of any complexity.

- some people don't trust the ability of properly weather sealing an articulated screen. obviously, it won't be impossible, but it seems many manufacturers struggle to seal "monoblock" cameras (see the long range of "sort of kind of maybe sealed, in places" canon x0d). I'm even more disturbed by this than most people, because while i love pentax and am used to having proper sealing, i _know_ that most decent quality cameras these days are in fact effectively sealed to some extent (tight enough tollerances by design/manufacturing process), but when you put a hinged screen on them, you're inviting moisture not only to enter in new and previously in-accessible places inside the camera, but also invite water to "stay for tea" in "water trap" areas; of course this can be alleviated by very clever and careful design, but such design is even more expensive than proper weather sealing itself i reckon, and i am talking about non sealed cameras to begin with, that are designed to (officially) never be used in such conditions.

having said that, i agree the idea is good (i always loved the waist level finders on my medium format gear).

anyway, can they stop playing silly buggers already, and bring on the wireless remote screen (perhaps with an "eye mounted" finder system, using the excellent electronic finders in some mirorrless cameras today)? it is clearly possible, it's just a matter of wanting to do it. i see no reason not to do it, sounds like a killer third party accessory to me (especially as many cameras have hdmi outputs and such these days), and an even more killer "system gimmick" for any brand who comes with it first (because if done properly, with all needed overlays, etc, it might be not only worth getting it instead of the third party, but make the system on the whole more desireable); not to mention that, again if done properly and paired with proper remote control "bundled in", serious sports photographers would eat them up.

ahem, excuse me while i go and file a patent or two :P

[Digitalis]

Well if it does video, it better delivers 4K!

It won't. Look at the mode dial, no video.

[Cannikin]

- a hinged/articulated screen is mechanically more complex, hence more prone to mechanical failure (how many fixed panels have you seen fail to.. ahem.. stay fixed, as opposed to damaged/worn off hinges on a car door?); yes, it can be well built, i admit, but you can't help thinking that "all else being equal(...) the fixed design will be sturdier"

- a fixed (burried/built into the body) screen will not catch on things, cloathing, etc, this means it is unlikely to incurr any un-intentional shock, and it is also less likely to cause loosing grip on the whole camera and potentially causing the camera to take a flying start to the bottom of the valley. silly? paranoid? perhaps, but some people shoot in rather extreme conditions, and apart from equipment cost, the loss of a camera will basically spoil an entire trip (especially a photo trip)

If you flip it out, then yes, the joint becomes exposed to stresses that a fixed screen would not. But if you never flip it out, then it doesn't, especially since this 645D2014's screen appears to be recessed into the body, meaning it is protected on every side except the bottom. If I'm right, and the bottom edge does not actually extend past the edge of the body, it is virtually impossible to hit it.

Now that I think of it, a recessed articulated screen that is not attached to the frame along its edges would be extremely hard to damage with anything but a direct hit on the glass. It is protected on the sides by the frame, but at the same time is not attached to it, so energy absorbed by the frame doesn't pass into the screen itself. It is also virtually impossible to flip it out accidentally, unless you manage to slide a very small, flat object under the bottom edge.

Believe me, my bodies (and lenses) have it quite rough on my hikes and everyday outings. My K-5 has taken many falls, enough to noticeably dent the magnesium alloy, and scratch up the paint all over, not to mention the (sometimes major) damage my lenses have suffered over the years. The most common cause has been the neck strap catching on things when I go to pick it up, ripping it out of my hand, so I am well aware of the danger of such incidents. But in almost 2 years of using, and dropping, cameras with articulated screens (first the E-M5 and then the E-M1), I have never managed to get the screen to flip out when I didn't intend to or catch on anything, even though the screens on those bodies are not recessed at all, and make up the outer left and bottom edges of the cameras.

As for weather sealing, it hasn't been a problem for Olympus dating all the way back to the E-3 in 2007, and no one seriously questions the weather sealing capabilities of their cameras, which are easily on par with Pentax's. Adding a few rubber gaskets to the joints is a simple matter compared to sealing the sheer number of exposed areas on a lens for example. If Oly can do it, Pentax can, easily.

---

Last edited by Cannikin; 02-10-2014 at 05:16 PM.

[philbaum]

I find it odd that in the discussion of tilting screens, the objections are about the possible durability of the screen. But very few folks consider how the tilting screen opens up more possibilites in taking pictures - which is what its all about, IMO.

I was at the edge of a beaver pond 3 days back, which had interesting patterns from the air trapped under the ice. A tripod was called for because of the fading light, but once the camera was installed on the tripod, it was not possible to look thru the viewfinder because of the slope of the shoreline and brushy obstructions.

Luckily i had along a Nex camera, so i flipped out the tilting screen and angled it so i could then see to frame the shot from where i was sitting on ground. Also, there was not enough light to illuminate an optical VF like my K3 has, but on the nex, i merely pointed my headlamp at the ice covered pond, and the amplification of the LCD screen was sufficient to allow me to see the red colored focus peaking. Now, i would be unlikely to use a 10,000 dollar camera in a situation like that, but it shows how mirrorless and tilting screens allow shots that the traditional DSLR could not attempt. Obviously both kinds of digital camera have different advantages and disadvantages. I'm just delighted that Ricoh decided to consider the advantages of mirrorless for the new model.

[Mistral75]

It won't. Look at the mode dial, no video.

Look at the mode dial, there is a space (something has been erased) between U1 and P:

http://news.ricoh-imaging.co.jp/rim_info/1_645D_2014_2.jpg

[gazonk]

Look at the mode dial, there is a space (something has been erased) between U1 and P:

Interesting :-)

I wonder if it's the Live View button that is just barely visible to the right of the tilted screen?

[RonHendriks1966]

It won't. Look at the mode dial, no video.

K-3 also has no mode dial for video.

[Zygonyx]

Look at the mode dial, there is a space (something has been erased) between U1 and P:

http://news.ricoh-imaging.co.jp/rim_info/1_645D_2014_2.jpg

They are still making their minds up, if 645D should have video, or if it's better to have a "Ricoh" labelled on that one.

[Steelski]

there is something that is edited or taped off..... between the Play symbol and Menu button.

[Digitalis]

Look at the mode dial, there is a space (something has been erased) between U1 and P:

The mind sees what it wants to see, there isn't anything there - nor has anything been removed to my experienced eyes.

here is something that is edited or taped off..... between the Play symbol and Menu button.

That is probably the part light used to indicate memory card activity, they needed to use a transparent material hence the appearance of tape. trust me if they didn't want you to see anything on that side they could have easily have used the clone brush - but even that leaves traces in the image that can be revealed by close scrutiny.