Photokina!

jimr-pdx · 08-06-2014, 09:14 AM

I still believe the on-sensor AF will soon be used by Pentax engineers to do something surprising, as SR was adapted to astro-imaging. Maybe Lytro all-in-focus shots in camera, special AF bracketing or some such?

**Doundounba** · 08-06-2014, 09:30 AM

Originally posted by jimr-pdx

I still believe the on-sensor AF will soon be used by Pentax engineers to do something surprising, as SR was adapted to astro-imaging. Maybe Lytro all-in-focus shots in camera, special AF bracketing or some such?

In-camera focus stacking would be wonderful...

**Aristophanes** · 08-06-2014, 10:10 AM

Originally posted by Fogel70

Sony A-mount has the same mechanical linkage as K-mount have, and they have adapters that fully support A-mount lenses on E-mount.

The disadvantage is that the adapter get expensive as it need AF-motor and mechanical linkage for aperture.
Sony A-Mount to E-Mount Lens Adapter with Translucent LAEA4 B&H

But on the other hand a Sony A7 + fully supported A-mount adapter is cheaper than A99.

The adapter is large, heavy, costly, and sells poorly.

**GlassJunkie** · 08-06-2014, 10:18 AM

What value does a mirrorless EVF camera of any mount in APSc or FF have, with a sub par diluted quality focusing finder have? Does anyone here actually believe that a photographer that has customer satisfaction and IQ to deliver would stake their rep on something focused on a pixelated VF? If so, ok. Just hard to fathom....

Snaps, Backup camera/body? Maybe. Underwater? Yup. Product shoot? Macro? Wildlife? Not for our clients. Worked too hard to get them....

And as I noted before.... FF cannot out resolve a 24mp APSC until it reaches near 51mp. Simple optical engineering.... Landscapes? 645z/ hassy or d810 with a tidy widey..... Else, what is all of the buzz/ kvetching about on FF or worse yet FF mirrorless? I haven't seen output anywhere that would make me rollover for FF. At 24-36mp, FF is a sub-optimal resolver.

Risk averse businesses that have proven themselves will always be the hype-skeptics. Better a fast follower than a bleeding-edge lesson-learner.... Give me great glass, a good tough body, and a crisp sensor. And Please.... Pentax Gods, deliver a 100-450mm 0r 150-450, or 135-380, or 100-400, or 250-500, or anything so we are not consigned permanently to Sigma. I wait, with baited breath, to turn over a 120-400 DG (whatever)... OK, but just wrong

...on a K-3...

Fogel70 · 08-06-2014, 11:15 AM

Originally posted by Aristophanes

The adapter is large, heavy, costly, and sells poorly.

Yes of course, just like fast high quality glass . But they are still important products to have.
With the A-mount adapter you can get DSLR performance on continuous AF, which otherwise would require an even more heavy and costlier DSLR.

ElJamoquio · 08-06-2014, 11:27 AM

Originally posted by Aristophanes

The adapter is large, heavy, costly, and sells poorly.

How many units has it sold?

**boriscleto** · 08-06-2014, 11:43 AM

Originally posted by Aristophanes

The adapter is large, heavy, costly, and sells poorly.

But other than that it is something Ricoh should do. Because MIRRORLESS!!!!!

jcdoss · 08-06-2014, 01:19 PM

Originally posted by Aristophanes

The adapter is large, heavy, costly, and sells poorly.

You forgot ugly!

Mike.P® · 08-06-2014, 02:49 PM

Originally posted by mecrox

The next lens should be not a 2,8 70-200. It is the telezomm till 4xxmm

Personally I would be more than happy with just that. Anything else would just be a bonus.

Nicolas06 · 08-06-2014, 03:10 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by GlassJunkie

What value does a mirrorless EVF camera of any mount in APSc or FF have, with a sub par diluted quality focusing finder have? Does anyone here actually believe that a photographer that has customer satisfaction and IQ to deliver would stake their rep on something focused on a pixelated VF? If so, ok. Just hard to fathom....

Few years ago, this was digital that was not good enough for pro... Now film is used by fews. How many years for electronic view finder to replace most reflex? 10 years? 20 years?

The reflex system cannot show what the camera really see. it cannot really insert information like focus peaking, histogram or just show the actual exposure not with just a number but with actual content. It cannot reframe. The view finder can't neither show the real deph of field without loosing most of it's light. The mirror make design of wide angle lenses more bulky, expensive and of lesser quality. Overall it is an expensive thing that can fail and limit the shooting rate.

Said like that I wonder why anybody would even want an optical viewfinder.

**monochrome** · 08-06-2014, 03:14 PM

Originally posted by Nicolas06

Few years ago, this was digital that was not good enough for pro... Now film is used by fews. How many years for electronic view finder to replace most reflex? 10 years? 20 years?

The reflex system cannot show what the camera really see. it cannot really insert information like focus peaking, histogram or just show the actual exposure not with just a number but with actual content. The view finder can't neither show the real deph of field without loosing most of it's light. The mirror make design of wide angle lenses more bulky, expensive and of lesser quality. Overall it is an expensive thing that can fail and limit the shooting rate.

Neither does an EVF - it is merely an electronic estimation of what the sensor captured.

**Pål Jensen** · 08-06-2014, 03:19 PM

Originally posted by Nicolas06

Few years ago, this was digital that was not good enough for pro... Now film is used by fews. How many years for electronic view finder to replace most reflex? 10 years? 20 years?

The reflex system cannot show what the camera really see. it cannot really insert information like focus peaking, histogram or just show the actual exposure not with just a number but with actual content. It cannot reframe. The view finder can't neither show the real deph of field without loosing most of it's light. The mirror make design of wide angle lenses more bulky, expensive and of lesser quality. Overall it is an expensive thing that can fail and limit the shooting rate.

Said like that I wonder why anybody would even want an optical viewfinder.

The point of a (optical) viewfinder is not to see like the sensor sees. It is an aiming, framing and composing device. Images are created and previsualized inside the photographers mind. DSLR's do have an electronic finder as well; it is called LCD screen.....
Optical viewfinders will go out of fashion the moment optical glass do the same...

**Aristophanes** · 08-06-2014, 03:44 PM

Originally posted by ElJamoquio

How many units has it sold?

18 reviews worth.

---------- Post added 08-06-14 at 07:46 PM ----------

Originally posted by boriscleto

But other than that it is something Ricoh should do. Because MIRRORLESS!!!!!

Ricoh GR and Q.

The Q-mount is the cute toy, last gasp of small sensors in a dedicated mount or form factor.

**boriscleto** · 08-06-2014, 03:58 PM

Originally posted by Aristophanes

Ricoh GR and Q.

The Q-mount is the cute toy, last gasp of small sensors in a dedicated mount or form factor.

this forum need a sarcasm font...

Kunzite · 08-06-2014, 04:04 PM

Originally posted by Nicolas06

The reflex system cannot show what the camera really see. it cannot really insert information like focus peaking, histogram or just show the actual exposure not with just a number but with actual content. It cannot reframe. The view finder can't neither show the real deph of field without loosing most of it's light. The mirror make design of wide angle lenses more bulky, expensive and of lesser quality. Overall it is an expensive thing that can fail and limit the shooting rate.

Said like that I wonder why anybody would even want an optical viewfinder.

The EVF also cannot show what the camera really see; the tiny LCDs have limits. It can of course insert information - some of it needed to compensate for its deficiencies (focus peaking), I'm not sure how it could reframe - as it can't see anything outside what the sensor captures.

I wonder why people aren't queueing to have their eyes removed and replaced with tiny digital cameras.

08-06-2014, 10:18 AM	#439
GlassJunkie Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2014 Location: St Petersburg Photos: Albums Posts: 402	I just don't get it.... What value does a mirrorless EVF camera of any mount in APSc or FF have, with a sub par diluted quality focusing finder have? Does anyone here actually believe that a photographer that has customer satisfaction and IQ to deliver would stake their rep on something focused on a pixelated VF? If so, ok. Just hard to fathom.... Snaps, Backup camera/body? Maybe. Underwater? Yup. Product shoot? Macro? Wildlife? Not for our clients. Worked too hard to get them.... And as I noted before.... FF cannot out resolve a 24mp APSC until it reaches near 51mp. Simple optical engineering.... Landscapes? 645z/ hassy or d810 with a tidy widey..... Else, what is all of the buzz/ kvetching about on FF or worse yet FF mirrorless? I haven't seen output anywhere that would make me rollover for FF. At 24-36mp, FF is a sub-optimal resolver. Risk averse businesses that have proven themselves will always be the hype-skeptics. Better a fast follower than a bleeding-edge lesson-learner.... Give me great glass, a good tough body, and a crisp sensor. And Please.... Pentax Gods, deliver a 100-450mm 0r 150-450, or 135-380, or 100-400, or 250-500, or anything so we are not consigned permanently to Sigma. I wait, with baited breath, to turn over a 120-400 DG (whatever)... OK, but just wrong ...on a K-3...

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Photokina 2014 - FF	Tesla	Pentax Full Frame	797	11-14-2014 11:14 PM
Official PF Photokina Meetup	Adam	Travel, Events, and Groups	42	09-26-2012 11:33 AM
Photokina interview	larkis	Pentax Medium Format	5	09-22-2012 04:36 PM
Photokina price drop?	Dynasty	Pentax DSLR Discussion	10	08-21-2012 04:27 PM
Predict Pentax Photokina Announcements	selar	Photographic Industry and Professionals	72	08-20-2012 04:04 PM

08-06-2014, 09:14 AM	#436
jimr-pdx Pentaxian Join Date: May 2010 Location: now 1 hour north of PDX Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,885	I still believe the on-sensor AF will soon be used by Pentax engineers to do something surprising, as SR was adapted to astro-imaging. Maybe Lytro all-in-focus shots in camera, special AF bracketing or some such?

08-06-2014, 09:30 AM	#437
Doundounba Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2012 Location: Montréal QC Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,351	Originally posted by jimr-pdx I still believe the on-sensor AF will soon be used by Pentax engineers to do something surprising, as SR was adapted to astro-imaging. Maybe Lytro all-in-focus shots in camera, special AF bracketing or some such? In-camera focus stacking would be wonderful...

08-06-2014, 10:10 AM	#438
Aristophanes Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Rankin Inlet, Nunavut Photos: Albums Posts: 3,948	Originally posted by Fogel70 Sony A-mount has the same mechanical linkage as K-mount have, and they have adapters that fully support A-mount lenses on E-mount. The disadvantage is that the adapter get expensive as it need AF-motor and mechanical linkage for aperture. Sony A-Mount to E-Mount Lens Adapter with Translucent LAEA4 B&H But on the other hand a Sony A7 + fully supported A-mount adapter is cheaper than A99. The adapter is large, heavy, costly, and sells poorly.

08-06-2014, 11:15 AM	#440
Fogel70 Pentaxian Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Stockholm, Sweden Photos: Albums Posts: 2,888	Originally posted by Aristophanes The adapter is large, heavy, costly, and sells poorly. Yes of course, just like fast high quality glass . But they are still important products to have. With the A-mount adapter you can get DSLR performance on continuous AF, which otherwise would require an even more heavy and costlier DSLR.

08-06-2014, 11:27 AM	#441
ElJamoquio Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2011 Posts: 4,873	Originally posted by Aristophanes The adapter is large, heavy, costly, and sells poorly. How many units has it sold?

08-06-2014, 11:43 AM	#442
boriscleto Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: North Syracuse, NY Photos: Gallery Posts: 16,246	Originally posted by Aristophanes The adapter is large, heavy, costly, and sells poorly. But other than that it is something Ricoh should do. Because MIRRORLESS!!!!!

08-06-2014, 01:19 PM	#443
jcdoss Pentaxian Join Date: Nov 2012 Location: Ingelheim am Rhein, Germany Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 4,648	Originally posted by Aristophanes The adapter is large, heavy, costly, and sells poorly. You forgot ugly!

08-06-2014, 02:49 PM	#444
Mike.P® Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: New Milton, Hampshire, UK Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,150	Originally posted by mecrox The next lens should be not a 2,8 70-200. It is the telezomm till 4xxmm Personally I would be more than happy with just that. Anything else would just be a bonus.

08-06-2014, 03:10 PM - 1 Like	#445
Nicolas06 Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2013 Posts: 4,854	Originally posted by GlassJunkie What value does a mirrorless EVF camera of any mount in APSc or FF have, with a sub par diluted quality focusing finder have? Does anyone here actually believe that a photographer that has customer satisfaction and IQ to deliver would stake their rep on something focused on a pixelated VF? If so, ok. Just hard to fathom.... Few years ago, this was digital that was not good enough for pro... Now film is used by fews. How many years for electronic view finder to replace most reflex? 10 years? 20 years? The reflex system cannot show what the camera really see. it cannot really insert information like focus peaking, histogram or just show the actual exposure not with just a number but with actual content. It cannot reframe. The view finder can't neither show the real deph of field without loosing most of it's light. The mirror make design of wide angle lenses more bulky, expensive and of lesser quality. Overall it is an expensive thing that can fail and limit the shooting rate. Said like that I wonder why anybody would even want an optical viewfinder.

08-06-2014, 03:14 PM	#446
monochrome Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Working From Home Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 26,276	Originally posted by Nicolas06 Few years ago, this was digital that was not good enough for pro... Now film is used by fews. How many years for electronic view finder to replace most reflex? 10 years? 20 years? The reflex system cannot show what the camera really see. it cannot really insert information like focus peaking, histogram or just show the actual exposure not with just a number but with actual content. The view finder can't neither show the real deph of field without loosing most of it's light. The mirror make design of wide angle lenses more bulky, expensive and of lesser quality. Overall it is an expensive thing that can fail and limit the shooting rate. Neither does an EVF - it is merely an electronic estimation of what the sensor captured.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

08-06-2014, 03:19 PM	#447
Pål Jensen Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Norway Photos: Albums Posts: 4,351	Originally posted by Nicolas06 Few years ago, this was digital that was not good enough for pro... Now film is used by fews. How many years for electronic view finder to replace most reflex? 10 years? 20 years? The reflex system cannot show what the camera really see. it cannot really insert information like focus peaking, histogram or just show the actual exposure not with just a number but with actual content. It cannot reframe. The view finder can't neither show the real deph of field without loosing most of it's light. The mirror make design of wide angle lenses more bulky, expensive and of lesser quality. Overall it is an expensive thing that can fail and limit the shooting rate. Said like that I wonder why anybody would even want an optical viewfinder. The point of a (optical) viewfinder is not to see like the sensor sees. It is an aiming, framing and composing device. Images are created and previsualized inside the photographers mind. DSLR's do have an electronic finder as well; it is called LCD screen..... Optical viewfinders will go out of fashion the moment optical glass do the same...

08-06-2014, 03:44 PM	#448
Aristophanes Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Rankin Inlet, Nunavut Photos: Albums Posts: 3,948	Originally posted by ElJamoquio How many units has it sold? 18 reviews worth. ---------- Post added 08-06-14 at 07:46 PM ---------- Originally posted by boriscleto But other than that it is something Ricoh should do. Because MIRRORLESS!!!!! Ricoh GR and Q. The Q-mount is the cute toy, last gasp of small sensors in a dedicated mount or form factor.

08-06-2014, 03:58 PM	#449
boriscleto Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: North Syracuse, NY Photos: Gallery Posts: 16,246	Originally posted by Aristophanes Ricoh GR and Q. The Q-mount is the cute toy, last gasp of small sensors in a dedicated mount or form factor. this forum need a sarcasm font...

08-06-2014, 04:04 PM	#450
Kunzite Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Romania Posts: 15,100	Originally posted by Nicolas06 The reflex system cannot show what the camera really see. it cannot really insert information like focus peaking, histogram or just show the actual exposure not with just a number but with actual content. It cannot reframe. The view finder can't neither show the real deph of field without loosing most of it's light. The mirror make design of wide angle lenses more bulky, expensive and of lesser quality. Overall it is an expensive thing that can fail and limit the shooting rate. Said like that I wonder why anybody would even want an optical viewfinder. The EVF also cannot show what the camera really see; the tiny LCDs have limits. It can of course insert information - some of it needed to compensate for its deficiencies (focus peaking), I'm not sure how it could reframe - as it can't see anything outside what the sensor captures. I wonder why people aren't queueing to have their eyes removed and replaced with tiny digital cameras.