[robjmitchell]

In the mirrorless FF segment, there is only 1 new player that's not fully established yet in a growing market. In the DSLR FF segment there are two veterants fighting over a shrinking market... Not very difficult.



You really think it's a high margin duopoly? That would be great indeed! But compare a Pentax APS-C DSLR price to any comparable APS-C MILC. There's no high margin duopoly to blame there, but the price difference still remains. That's because, to my knowledge, the difference is caused by the cost of the optical VF system of DSLRs. The mirror, mirror mechanism, focussing screen, prism, VF optics all need very carefull manual calibration and checking. In other words, if the price of the e.g. D810 could have been any more affordable, Nikon would have done it to outcompete Canon and vice versa. Therefore, I don't think the price of the K-mount FF DLSR can be very far off-beat either. And besides, Pentax has abandoned the cheap-concept quite some time ago.

All moot points though, as Pentax has clearly chosen their path. All we can do is to keep our fingers crossed an hope they will do well.

Canon and Nikon have stated that the FF segment highly profitable. The manufacturing cost of $500 aps-c vs $3000 FF is not hugely different. If sony is providing FF sensors for $300 dollars then the cost of a FF camera is less than $1000 dollars. (my guess would be approx $700) There is no reason Ricoh can't make a d810 level camera and sell it at d610 prices and still make good money on it! This has the added benefit of disrupting the canikon price structure at a time they are struggling with overcapacity and a huge reduction in the consumer camera sales. The key is selling enough units to recover the fixed cost (R&D and initial tooling) which becomes much easier with a longer product cycle.

---------- Post added 03-21-2015 at 09:23 AM ----------

The K-S1 with an EVF instead of a mirror, but the same mount, would not have the size advantage you'd get from proper mirrorless and new special for mirrorless lenses. And if you're late to the game you're late, and people will reject your camera because there are no lenses to go with it.


I still like the idea of a hybrid viewfinder in a DSLR. I think I'd be willing to give up on mirrorless if I could have that... yes, it would be a bit bigger and heavier, the lenses would be a bit bigger, but having an OVF when I want it, and an EVF when I want that instead...

As the format gets bigger the size saving from a shorter registration distance get less and less, since the lens size dictates camera form. At the moment APS-C seems to be the crossing over point. If you look at the size of fast fuji lenses on their bodies then it stops making sense having a smaller body if the lenses are unbalanced. Functionality and cost are the other reasons for dropping OVF for EVF. Again OVFs get less effective as your format gets smaller so it makes sense to use EVF in smaller formats. However at the moment the cost of a good EVF is equal or greater than the cost of OVF and most of the market still aspires to OVF.
Once Mirrorless becomes cheaper or more in demand then there is no reason you cant make an EVF K-mount with a body size that has good ergonomics for the lenses you are using.
Of course a functional hybrid viewfinder would be even better.
In the mean time bring out a Q with an simple EVF!

---

Last edited by robjmitchell; 03-20-2015 at 03:29 PM.

[kadajawi]

Hmm... I'm worried a hybrid viewfinder might compromise both the EVF and OVF parts (or just the OVF, that would be equally unacceptable).
But it depends on the implementation. If it's a contraption similar to what Sony used - some mechanism for switching between the optical and electronic image - it would be bad, probably very bad. Imaging splitting devices would steal light. However, if they can replace the matte screen with a transparent see-through display it could work pretty well - assuming they can find a panel (OLED?) with high transmittance and no color cast.
I'm no camera engineer though, so I'm waiting to be amazed.

I don't think it would. Maybe the EVF part, but certainly not the OVF part. Basically my suggestion is... you know these red squares inside the viewfinder that light up when a point is in focus? You can't see them otherwise. You can see the location of this here, the article points out where it sits: Pentax K-30 vs K-5 IIs Cross Sections - Photokina 2012 | PentaxForums.com

I used to think it's some kind of etched glass perhaps with LEDs that can shine on them, or something like that, but really it's that thing between the Pentax logo and one of the sides of the pentaprism, the last before it goes straight to your eyes. Could be like those old LCD screens on watches that glow red. In any case, the pentaprism seems to act like a one way mirror/glass... like they'd use in interrogation rooms. As long as it's dark in the room behind the mirror, you can't see what's there. Turn on the lights, and you see what's behind. So you can overlay data with a screen that sits outside the pentaprism as long as that image is brighter than what comes from the sensor. You can't darken anything. Over dark/black parts however that screen is able to display data or an image. Fold up the mirror and it's black in there, all you'd see is the screen. If you want to display additional data you'd have to make the screen bigger, and you can use the areas surrounding the image from the mirror to display that data... like for example more detailed information coming from the multi segment light meter.

I don't see any problems with this idea, as all our cameras already feature a display in that position, all that's needed is a much finer multi color display, and those exist. The red squares are in focus, so I suppose the screen should be too? The only thing that worries me is that they seem to use a prism to redirect the light from the little screen to the pentaprism, instead of directly making it touch it. Perhaps something related to having the same distance so the eye doesn't have to refocus? In that case the area between pentaprism and Pentax logo would need to be extended in order to fit the screen, but that seems to be a rather small trade off, and none that should influence the camera size too much. With a lens mounted it will always be much bigger anyway.

Fuji btw. also uses a prism for their hybrid screen. That way you don't need to have a transparent screen as I thought you'd need to have. The transparent OLED screens I have seen are sort of transparent, not properly transparent. When not displaying anything they seem to be rather grey, and that with not so high resolutions. I imagine it gets worse with higher pixel densities.

I hope Ricoh has some serious OVF technology coming. The EVF doesn't provide the experience that the OVF offers, but the advantages with AF accuracy, metering, color/WB are bigger than the experience. Its the IQ that ultimately matters the most.

Can Ricoh design an OVF system that eliminates front/back focus or focus shift?

Take shooting in the snow as an example. With the OVF and a DSLR you have to manually increase exposure because the sensors are fooled by the white scene, but with mirrorless I can see what the sensor sees. The EVF doesn't have the DR of an OVF, but neither do my prints or the digital sensor.

Ideally if you have a proper RGB histogram coming from the light meter in the viewfinder, under the OVF image, you're able to judge how your exposure is going to turn out even without seeing the actual EVF image.

IQ of a photograph?
IQ of a camera?
IQ of a photographer?




All my SLRs from 1970s have that kind of OVF. Ricoh had it too.



When you plan your trip and go out, do you check weather forecast and road reports?
Do you go boating and have no idea about the wind for that day?
Go to the beach and have no idea about UV levels?

Similarly, you never meter the reflected light and accident light when you come to the scene you want to take photographs? You never measure and adjust white balance?

I don't understand it — is this a practical joke or something? What kind of photographers are people nowadays? You people expect cameras that will do all the thinking, including how compose the photographs? And also, when to say 'cheese' with your recorded voice?

Why bother going out there at all — send a drone!

Different subjects, motives, styles of photography. Personally I don't care about white balance unless I shoot video... with stills I always do it in post if necessary.

Have you tried shooting a concert? Good luck with your light meter. The light can change drastically roughly 20 times a second. You have to trust the camera.

Don't be so condescending please, not everyone shoots landscapes.

Canon and Nikon have stated that the FF segment highly profitable. The manufacturing cost of $500 aps-c vs $3000 FF is not hugely different. If sony is providing FF sensors for $300 dollars then the cost of a FF camera is less than $1000 dollars. (my guess would be approx $700) There is no reason Ricoh can't make a d810 level camera and sell it at d610 prices and still make good money on it! This has the added benefit of disrupting the canikon price structure at a time they are struggling with overcapacity and a huge reduction in the consumer camera sales. The key is selling enough units to recover the fixed cost (R&D and initial tooling) which becomes much easier with a longer product cycle.

---------- Post added 03-21-2015 at 09:23 AM ----------

As the format gets bigger the size saving from a shorter registration distance get less and less, since the lens size dictates camera form. At the moment APS-C seems to be the crossing over point. If you look at the size of fast fuji lenses on their bodies then it stops making sense having a smaller body if the lenses are unbalanced. Functionality and cost are the other reasons for dropping OVF for EVF. Again OVFs get less effective as your format gets smaller so it makes sense to use EVF in smaller formats. However at the moment the cost of a good EVF is equal or greater than the cost of OVF and most of the market still aspires to OVF.
Once Mirrorless becomes cheaper or more in demand then there is no reason you cant make an EVF K-mount with a body size that has good ergonomics for the lenses you are using.
Of course a functional hybrid viewfinder would be even better.
In the mean time bring out a Q with an simple EVF!

I think Pentax would like to be profitable too. They already stated they don't want to compete solely on cost, and that's totally understandable. Also keep in mind that for Canikon, the development work is mostly completed and long paid for, they only have to update once in a while. Pentax has more to do right now. A facelift is cheaper than a new car from ground up. And I do hope that they manage to leave a mark and attract customers with more than just price. Do I think my K-5 is great value for money? Yes. Would I buy it over competing products if they all cost the same? Yes. It's better, it has stuff I use that others don't have.

You can have a mirrorless camera with a new mirrorless mount, that is really slim between display and mount, that still has great ergonomics. Feel free to make the other parts thicker, you only need to leave enough space around the mount so that all lenses will fit. It is still possible to have a big, deep grip, etc.

As for the Q... I fear that on such a small camera having a regular screen AND an EVF is impossible. You would have to create a bigger body, which kind of makes you question why Q. However, what about fitting it with a really sharp screen. Resolution beyond what the human eye can resolve. And then design the frame of the screen so that Pentax can also offer something like the Zacuto Z-Finder (DSLR Viewfinder, DSLR EyePiece, Optical Viewfinder - Zacuto Z-Finder). Make it good, and make it compatible with upcoming Pentax DSLRs too. Have it have mounting points in the same place... like that you can slide it on, or snap it on (easily removable of course). it would look awkward, yes, but it could work rather well.

[Kunzite]

I don't think it would. Maybe the EVF part, but certainly not the OVF part. Basically my suggestion is... you know these red squares inside the viewfinder that light up when a point is in focus? You can't see them otherwise. You can see the location of this here, the article points out where it sits: Pentax K-30 vs K-5 IIs Cross Sections - Photokina 2012 | PentaxForums.com

I used to think it's some kind of etched glass perhaps with LEDs that can shine on them, or something like that, but really it's that thing between the Pentax logo and one of the sides of the pentaprism, the last before it goes straight to your eyes. Could be like those old LCD screens on watches that glow red. In any case, the pentaprism seems to act like a one way mirror/glass... like they'd use in interrogation rooms. As long as it's dark in the room behind the mirror, you can't see what's there. Turn on the lights, and you see what's behind. So you can overlay data with a screen that sits outside the pentaprism as long as that image is brighter than what comes from the sensor. You can't darken anything. Over dark/black parts however that screen is able to display data or an image. Fold up the mirror and it's black in there, all you'd see is the screen. If you want to display additional data you'd have to make the screen bigger, and you can use the areas surrounding the image from the mirror to display that data... like for example more detailed information coming from the multi segment light meter.

I don't see any problems with this idea, as all our cameras already feature a display in that position, all that's needed is a much finer multi color display, and those exist. The red squares are in focus, so I suppose the screen should be too? The only thing that worries me is that they seem to use a prism to redirect the light from the little screen to the pentaprism, instead of directly making it touch it. Perhaps something related to having the same distance so the eye doesn't have to refocus? In that case the area between pentaprism and Pentax logo would need to be extended in order to fit the screen, but that seems to be a rather small trade off, and none that should influence the camera size too much. With a lens mounted it will always be much bigger anyway.

Fuji btw. also uses a prism for their hybrid screen. That way you don't need to have a transparent screen as I thought you'd need to have. The transparent OLED screens I have seen are sort of transparent, not properly transparent. When not displaying anything they seem to be rather grey, and that with not so high resolutions. I imagine it gets worse with higher pixel densities.

I'm wary of being told "all that's needed is..."; it's usually some boss actually telling you "I want it done fast, don't care if it's hard or not".
Of course, it's not a "just put a better display in there". It's never that simple. First, EVF panels don't fit in there - a projecting system would have to be larger, and where do you fit it? Two solutions: extend the pentaprism housing forward (but can you? It's shaped that way to leave room for the lens), or use smaller OVF components. Second, the LEDs are projected only on the center of the viewfinder image, we'd need a system using all of it. Which means space.
Good point about the possible need for optics. Without the small prism, the LEDs and their focusing optics would have to be perpendicular to the prism's surface, hitting the lens mount.

Fuji is another story, a completely different viewfinder arrangement (no large glass pentaprism, more freedom in design, more space available).
I mentioned transmittance being a problem - and I'm not aware of any current transparent LCD having a transmittance higher than 30%. Obviously that won't work. Perhaps some one could solve this issue, or perhaps the solution is to project the image on a side of the pentaprism.

I think the idea of a hybrid viewfinder should be pursued (if only for video); but it won't be easy, some ingenuity and new technology would be needed. So I'm not expecting a working version soon.
Or perhaps we'll see something else, which would make the idea of a hybrid viewfinder look like an useless kludge. Who knows...

[kadajawi]

I'm wary of being told "all that's needed is..."; it's usually some boss actually telling you "I want it done fast, don't care if it's hard or not".
Of course, it's not a "just put a better display in there". It's never that simple. First, EVF panels don't fit in there - a projecting system would have to be larger, and where do you fit it? Two solutions: extend the pentaprism housing forward (but can you? It's shaped that way to leave room for the lens), or use smaller OVF components. Second, the LEDs are projected only on the center of the viewfinder image, we'd need a system using all of it. Which means space.
Good point about the possible need for optics. Without the small prism, the LEDs and their focusing optics would have to be perpendicular to the prism's surface, hitting the lens mount.

Fuji is another story, a completely different viewfinder arrangement (no large glass pentaprism, more freedom in design, more space available).
I mentioned transmittance being a problem - and I'm not aware of any current transparent LCD having a transmittance higher than 30%. Obviously that won't work. Perhaps some one could solve this issue, or perhaps the solution is to project the image on a side of the pentaprism.

I think the idea of a hybrid viewfinder should be pursued (if only for video); but it won't be easy, some ingenuity and new technology would be needed. So I'm not expecting a working version soon.
Or perhaps we'll see something else, which would make the idea of a hybrid viewfinder look like an useless kludge. Who knows...

That's why I was asking, I'm sure there are smarter people able to tell my why this idea won't work. Do lenses exist that are huge right around the mount? The screen size needed for APS-C isn't as big as that for FF, so maybe this may only work for APS-C. Bezels around screens have become pretty small. I'd love to see how the light exactly travels inside the camera, and what exactly the components are. I guess the confirmation lights are directly behind the Pentax logo, then go through a mirror, a lens, a prism and then into the sensor. I suspect these many bounces around could be because the distance to the focusing screen, which is what the eye focuses on, is pretty big at this point. In that case, how about under the flash shoe? If the space is increased... Speaking of flash, the FF doesn't have an internal flash, which means the space that uses up is now clear. At least orientation wouldn't be a problem with a proper display, that can be fixed in software.

Btw., it looks like this camera doesn't have an AF confirmation light? http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8e/E-30-Cutmodel.jpg But it does have those lights. There are no lenses or mirrors or prisms around that pentaprism (apart from the status bar underneath the OVF, which is a very similar design to Pentax), and only one thing that seems to touch it that isn't part of the body. Looks like that part has some wires going into, so perhaps that's where the overlay is? It's on the top most side of the pentaprism.

It seems like there are plenty of different ways of placing the screen, http://www.ephotozine.com/articles/nikon-at-photokina-2012-20300/images/high...1348653961.jpg for example. Where did they place their screen in that beast? What is the thing touching the top most side of the pentaprism? Looks like there are these flat cables going there...

And Canon uses a transparent LCD... _1-12.jpg Photo by msowsun | Photobucket Maybe that's the difference between the cameras where you constantly see the location of the focusing points, with a couple of black squares, that are lit up when there is focus, and what we have in our Pentaxes, where you only see the points when they are lit up.

Sadly ifixit doesn't disassemble the whole top half of the cameras they disassemble, they only care about the sensor.

[fs999]

Shoudn't that post be named "what should Ricoh do ?" ?

[kadajawi]

Shoudn't that post be named "what should Ricoh do ?" ?

True.

I have created a new thread for the hybrid viewfinder discussion, so that this one doesn't go further off topic. I'd like to invite anyone interested to go over there and participate.
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/6-pentax-dslr-discussion/291273-can-hybri...ml#post3197546

[philbaum]

"form follows function" is an old design mantra.

One of the most important functions i get out of a VF is the focus peaking/magnify function - which has made the EVF popular in my view. When you see the twinkling lights on the edges - you know that you've got focus and which areas. Not sure if that is compatible with the proposed hybrid design. If its not - than that is a "fail" in my mind. Framing and focusing is primarily what i want out of a viewfinder.

If i want to see a "normal" view of the scene, i'll just put the camera down and enjoy the view. Not sure what a hybrid design would add to that mix that i would want to pay additional money and bulk for.

[kadajawi]

"form follows function" is an old design mantra.

One of the most important functions i get out of a VF is the focus peaking/magnify function - which has made the EVF popular in my view. When you see the twinkling lights on the edges - you know that you've got focus and which areas. Not sure if that is compatible with the proposed hybrid design. If its not - than that is a "fail" in my mind. Framing and focusing is primarily what i want out of a viewfinder.

If i want to see a "normal" view of the scene, i'll just put the camera down and enjoy the view. Not sure what a hybrid design would add to that mix that i would want to pay additional money and bulk for.

Of course you could have focus peaking, as long as the processor is powerful enough for that. Likewise magnify. Everything that can be done via live view can be done with the hybrid design. In EVF mode it acts like a mirrorless camera, light goes to the sensor, is processed by the processor and displayed by a small display sitting in the OVF path... and since the mirror is up no light can enter the viewfinder.

For you, who really only want an EVF and no OVF, it makes no sense, yes. But many others like OVFs, but may not want to give up the benefits of EVF sometimes. For them being able to switch seems like a nice idea.

But could we have this discussion in the other thread? Thanks.

[ElJamoquio]

I've had the pleasure of using a Tamron 70-200 f2.8 and it is NOT slow, or at least maybe because I anticipate in time. It's way better than Canikony comparison-makers think it is, too.

Most of the reviews online are for the Canon or the Nikon version. The Nikon version is mind-boggle-ling slow. Didn't measure it, but from a subjective perspective it felt at least 2-3x slower than the Pentax version.

Keep in mind that Pentax's best lenses are largely screw-drive. They have far more incentive to keep screw-drive AF responsive than Nikon.

[philbaum]

Most of the reviews online are for the Canon or the Nikon version. The Nikon version is mind-boggle-ling slow. Didn't measure it, but from a subjective perspective it felt at least 2-3x slower than the Pentax version.

Keep in mind that Pentax's best lenses are largely screw-drive. They have far more incentive to keep screw-drive AF responsive than Nikon.

That's perhaps one thing Pentax should do. Work with third party lens providers to get at least one of them back. Its probably not what a camera maker wants to do, because it hurts their revenue. But third party support is one thing i look for when i purchase a camera. Its why i originally bought into pentax vice another brand. And even sony opened up their e-mount to other providers to increase the number of lenses for their e-mount cameras. And Sigma responded to that.

[clackers]

And even sony opened up their e-mount to other providers to increase the number of lenses for their e-mount cameras. And Sigma responded to that.

I'm not sure they worked very hard, Phil.

Sigma haven't added to the measly three pancakes they adapted from their m4/3 lineup.

They're good little lenses, though - I have two of them. :-)

[Kunzite]

Sony opening up the e-mount, while it looks very nice in marketing materials, is it anything else but admitting they severely lack lenses? As clackers said, it didn't help much; and while it helps making things a bit less expensive, a 3rd-party lens maker can always resort to reverse engineering (Sigma) or licensing a mount.

OTOH Sigma reverse-engineered the K-mount ages ago, so what would happen if Pentax would open up the K-mount? Nothing.

[Winder]

so what would happen if Pentax would open up the K-mount? Nothing.

Because there is no demand for K-mount glass compared to Canon, Nikon, or Sony E mount.

I'm not sure they worked very hard, Phil.

Sigma Interview:

"Is it difficult to correct for certain formats like Sony's full-frame Alpha series which have very short flange-back distances? Is that one of the reasons why we're not seeing Sigma lenses for those systems?"

"No - we want to increase our lineup for mirrorless cameras, but it's just a matter of priorities."

"Can you give us an idea of your current priorities?"

"DSLRs first, particularly Canon and Nikon, since most of our customers use those systems. And after that mirrorless. Sony FE-mount."

Sigma is working on FE mount glass and in a couple of interviews they have pointed out the opportunity (vacuum) that exists for glass for the Sony FE mount. It appears Zeiss is going to make the manual focus premium glass that will attract the Leica wannabe crowd. Sony is focusing on the premium AF glass. I don't know where Sigma will fit in, but there is a lot of room.

[Kunzite]

Because there is no demand for K-mount glass compared to Canon, Nikon, or Sony E mount.

Because mount "openness" is not a deciding factor. Demand is, indeed, but Sigma is making how many lenses for Pentax K compared to Sony E?

Sony is playing catch-up here and there are lots of holes in their lens range. Perhaps Sigma realizes that many who bough Sony with the idea of adapting lenses would soon realize they actually want native lenses.

[Winder]

Sigma is making how many lenses for Pentax K compared to Sony E?

How many years has Sony E mount been in production compared to K-mount? Sigma has discontinued more lenses for K-mount than they have introduced in recent months. The 70-200 F/2.8 is not longer available in K-mount. The Art 50mm is not expected to be sold in K-mount unless Ricoh can sell more bodies and generate more demand.

Sony is indeed playing catch-up. The FE line is just over 1 year old. They obviously have a lot of catching up to do. This also means there is opportunity for Sigma.

Sigma has been watching the market. They have been watching sales and demand. Sony A7 line is selling more bodies than the A99 even with the lens issue. The A7 line's compatibility with legacy glass has sold a lot of bodies. All of these bodies have created demand for native glass. A demand that Sony has done a pathetic job of meeting. Sigma is a small company and very conservative when it comes to expansion. If Sigma were to start developing glass for FE mount it would probably mean less support for mounts not named Canon or Nikon. I would not be surprised if Sigma starts to pull back support for A-mount next.

I'm not really in the market for Sigma lenses for the A7m2 unless they have something rather amazing in the works. I'm shooting 2 systems so I can wait on quality glass from Sony, and so far Sony really has not disappointed with the Zeiss or G line of lenses.