[monochrome]

I'd be very surprised at the dual processor thingie.
More info if anybody finds out would be nice

(asahi man)

[rawr]

I'd be very surprised at the dual processor thingie.

I am no chip expert, but I remember reading that there was some limitation in the Fujitsu Milbeaut image processor achitecture that made it impractical to 'chain' several of them together to boost performance - ie have two PRIME chips working together. Same limitation confronts Nikon, who also use Milbeaut, so you do not see dual EXPEED chips running on any of their bodies either. Unlike Canon, where their DIGIC chips can run together to boost camera performance, as seen in the 7D, 7D2, 1D IV, 1Dx and other Canon bodies, which all feature dual DIGICs.

[reh321]

I am no chip expert, but I remember reading that there was some limitation in the Fujitsu Milbeaut image processor achitecture that made it impractical to 'chain' several of them together to boost performance - ie have two PRIME chips working together. Same limitation confronts Nikon, who also use Milbeaut, so you do not see dual EXPEED chips running on any of their bodies either. Unlike Canon, where their DIGIC chips can run together to boost camera performance, as seen in the 7D, 7D2, 1D IV, 1Dx and other Canon bodies, which all feature dual DIGICs.

The "limitation" could be as simple as the signals (connectors) made available to the circuit designer. For example, when Intel designed the 8086, the basis of all the Wintel computers, they specifically provided the signals needed to gracefully enable multi-processor designs; other processor families, not so much.

[beachgardener]

maybe they should make a new 135mm lens.

[robthebloke]

But a Q with an EVF will become a rather ungainly thing, and lose it's size advantage.

The pentax 110 has a surprisingly good OVF, and it's even smaller than the Q.

[Alizarine]

Sony just released the A7 II with IBIS. If Pentax "should" make an FF it should have IBIS and they should release it very soon - they're getting later and later than what competition can offer now. ('cept the FA Limiteds, they're just too unique...)

[thibs]

I am no chip expert, but I remember reading that there was some limitation in the Fujitsu Milbeaut image processor achitecture that made it impractical to 'chain' several of them together to boost performance - ie have two PRIME chips working together. Same limitation confronts Nikon, who also use Milbeaut, so you do not see dual EXPEED chips running on any of their bodies either. Unlike Canon, where their DIGIC chips can run together to boost camera performance, as seen in the 7D, 7D2, 1D IV, 1Dx and other Canon bodies, which all feature dual DIGICs.

Yep, read that too.

---------- Post added 21-11-14 at 22:43 ----------

The "limitation" could be as simple as the signals (connectors) made available to the circuit designer. For example, when Intel designed the 8086, the basis of all the Wintel computers, they specifically provided the signals needed to gracefully enable multi-processor designs; other processor families, not so much.

It seemed to be much different, the thing you can change with a whole redesign (well... probably won't).

---------- Post added 21-11-14 at 22:44 ----------

(asahi man)

Mmm and 645Z would use a dual Milbeaut ?
Where is Asahi man when we need him ?

[shuttles12000]

I've just watched an interesting video on YouTube from the Camera Store where the two guys debated the future direction of Canon and Nikon. They bemoaned the fact that neither company had produced anything innovative in some time: since the 5D Mark II and the D800, in fact. It got me thinking about what Pentax needs to do. Does it remain in the APS-C DSLR arena, or is mirrorless the way to go?

Pentax is not an alternative to Nikon or Canon: it doesn't have a full-frame camera, nor the range of lenses or accessories needed to compete, let alone the fact that professional support is patchy, to say the least. While development of higher end Canikon APS-C sensor DSLRs seem to have stagnated, that could change at any time. And now Canon is rumoured to be entering the MF field, where they are bound to make an impression.

On the mirrorless front. the Q does not really compete with the Olympus, Fuji, Sony and Panasonic offerings. It is in this field that we are seeing most excitement generated, even though replacing the mirror and optical viewfinder with what is essentially a duplicate of the screen on the rear does not seem like a big deal to me. Having tried out some, I really dislike their EVFs: I have high-acuity vision, and I can see the pixels, even when there are over two million of them (or perhaps I'm imagining that). But hey, thousands would disagree with me. But a four/thirds sensor is too small for my taste, but I digress. Surely it can't be impossible to produce a full-frame DSLR not much bigger than an MX, though I agree either the body would have to be thicker to accommodate the rear display, or would need a sort of tube like protrusion behind the lens mount to maintain the registration distance. Pentax has shown with the Q that they can pack an awful amount of functionality into a small space. I also wonder if it's it possible for a camera to have the best of both worlds, with the option of an mirror and OVF, and an overlaid, fully functional EVF that comes into play when the mirror is flipped up, as in live view? That way, it may even be possible to get rid of the bulky rear display and use the EVF for checking exposure, etc. As for WiFi, I can take it or leave it, but instead of a eye-fi/flu-type card, why not have an optional WiFi adapter that slots away into the body like the battery does now, so that it doesn't stick out. Built in GPS, I would go for, however.

I think Ricoh/Pentax needs to be clear about its future direction, and quickly too, if it's not too late already. Now is a good time to make an impact as the camera market is in flux. I think Ricoh-branded cameras could go down the EVF mirrorless route, while Pentax could stay in the DSLR arena, but not with conventional cameras. They have said they want to be different, well now's their chance. I just want Pentax to be around in five to twenty years, because I suspect that some of the established names may not be. Unless they make cameras that are innovative and capture the public's imagination, I fear they may not be.

Apologies if this thread is not in its proper place.

I don't think Ricoh is going to let the Pentax brand die any time soon. Ricoh has a lot invested in it, and have spent a good deal developing the Medium Format and bringing the APS-C format up to speed.
Whilst it would be nice to have the Full Frame to complete the whole range, I am sure Ricoh have plans in place. After all they still make a lot of Full Frame lenses (All the limiteds?) Why would they do that when they could make them cheaper with less glass using the smaller image circle that APS-C allows.
Right now, the money is in Premium Compacts, Full Frames cameras and Lenses. Ricoh could re-vamp their entire lens line up with DC upgrades.
I won't buy screw lenses anymore, not after SDM, DC and HSM (Sigma).
Full Frame can't be too far away, hopefully it will come with some unique features that Pentax does so well. (I still would love that Monochrome only version Pentax??)

[Kunzite]

Mmm and 645Z would use a dual Milbeaut ?
Where is Asahi man when we need him ?

A single "PRIME III" should be enough for a 51MP sensor, sampled at 3fps. In the K-3, it can do more than 8fps for a 24MP sensor.
I doubt that 645Z having two such processors is more than a supposition, even though I trust Asahi man.

[Alizarine]

The pentax 110 has a surprisingly good OVF, and it's even smaller than the Q.

the auto110 on the other hand doesn't have a 3-inch 460k-dot LCD on its back too... Also, the OVF was the only method to use for composition that time, too.

[reh321]

the auto110 on the other hand doesn't have a 3-inch 460k-dot LCD on its back too... Also, the OVF was the only method to use for composition that time, too.

My interpretation of that statement was that if the Auto 110 (which was even smaller than a Q) could have an OVF, then it should be possible to put an EVF on a Q without making it any bigger.

[kadajawi]

Whilst it would be nice to have the Full Frame to complete the whole range, I am sure Ricoh have plans in place. After all they still make a lot of Full Frame lenses (All the limiteds?) Why would they do that when they could make them cheaper with less glass using the smaller image circle that APS-C allows.

Developing lenses costs time and money.

[Alizarine]

My interpretation of that statement was that if the Auto 110 (which was even smaller than a Q) could have an OVF, then it should be possible to put an EVF on a Q without making it any bigger.

That might be technically possible, but would most likely mean making the LCD screen smaller too - where would Ricoh put the EVF? How large will the eyepiece be? Let's remember that the sensor in the Q is right smack in the middle of its height (due to SR mechanism, and other factors), unlike the film roll in an Auto110, where it was nearer the bottom plate, like in all film cameras.

[Fogel70]

It would be possible to use a pop-up EVF that sits behind the LCD when not in use. Just like Sony use on RX100 III.

[JPT]

I usually laugh at the idea of a viewfinder-only digital camera, because it usually seems to be from some kind of luddite perspective. But following on from the last few posts, wouldn't an EVF-only Q be an interesting camera? Imagine they put a generously sized EVF on it, like the ones Olympus has on their OMD cameras. Then they had just a small grey LCD for shooting parameters. You would review photos through the viewfinder and tether to a phone when you wanted to review them on a bigger screen. In the case of the Q, space is at such a premium and the screen takes up a lot of space where there could be controls, so it might just make sense.