Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
08-17-2015, 01:30 AM   #46
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Tromsø, Norway
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,031
QuoteOriginally posted by rawr Quote
Only two? Are they even trying?
.. in October - November. They didn't say how many in December. ;-)

But seriously, it sounds great for me. Both the K-3 size and two price points from the start. (It means i probably will buy the cheaper soon rather then waiting for an expensive to become cheaper when new models get launched maybe a year or two from now. Hope both have built in astro tracer and pixel shift mode. If the speculation turns out to be on spot.

08-17-2015, 02:40 AM   #47
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 22,258
QuoteOriginally posted by JPT Quote
I don't think the FF could literally have the same body as the K-3. But what struck me when I saw the FF mockup at CP+ was how close it was in overall size and ergonomics to the K-3. People were holding their K-3s against the glass to judge how big it was and it was only really the prism that makes it any bigger.

The other mysterious thing for me was that they showed it with the FA31 attached, not their latest and greatest DFA giants. That made me think that this isn't really the model that they are meant for. That's when I started thinking that there would probably be two models, with the other one being bigger.

Let's face it, there isn't one single magic spec and price point that would keep everyone satisfied. The competitors offer products at multiple price points, and if Ricoh doesn't, their system will look very limited in comparison. Also, the logic of having to make a whole line of lenses but only having one body to capitalise on it looks suspect to me.

Actually, making camera bodies is the east part for Ricoh, comparatively. Making several new cameras a year is business as usual for camera companies. Ricoh currently make DSLRs bigger and smaller, and they redesign things like SR, AF, metering, the prism and the mirror mechanism every couple of generations anyway. Two FF cameras OK in quick succession is totally feasible.
QuoteOriginally posted by thibs Quote
Of course it would need slight body update but FF in k3 body here imo means the same as D300 body talking about the D700 which really are the same body but mirror box and prism.
All well and good. The discussion on the previous page was delving into how Pentax could released one camera with the same body type, but turn off features on the cheaper one.

I am sure that a full frame sensor would fit in a K3 body without any problem. But if Pentax is going to release a newly designed full frame body, wouldn't it make more sense to put two different sensors in it aka the K50/K500 models, rather than retro-fit the K3 body for a different sensor?

Anyway, I just think this is one of those rumors that doesn't really have much real information behind it.
08-17-2015, 04:44 AM   #48
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 6,555
QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
I am sure that a full frame sensor would fit in a K3 body without any problem.
I'm not sure they can put the FF SR into a K-3 body. The SR system has to get bigger in every way. looking at cutaways of the K-3 I don't think it is possible. You could squeeze the FF sensor in to the K-3 body if you took out the SR system, but Ricoh isn't going to do that (hopefully).
08-17-2015, 05:08 AM   #49
Pentaxian
deus ursus's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Stårheim, Norway
Posts: 538
Unless they develop a more compact SR mecanism.

08-17-2015, 05:51 AM   #50
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Zygonyx's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Ile de France
Posts: 3,654
QuoteOriginally posted by Winder Quote
I'm not sure they can put the FF SR into a K-3 body. The SR system has to get bigger in every way. looking at cutaways of the K-3 I don't think it is possible. You could squeeze the FF sensor in to the K-3 body if you took out the SR system, but Ricoh isn't going to do that (hopefully).
Same with pentaprism for FF : it definitely doesn't fit in K-3 body unless ridiculous magnification and coverage.
08-17-2015, 06:59 AM   #51
Pentaxian
D1N0's Avatar

Join Date: May 2012
Location: ---
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,240
The K-3 was designed for aps-c. Apart from sr and pentaprism, the mirror housing has the grow. I don't think there is a lot of empty space around it. You'd have to totally redesign it and you'd still have a compromise. Much cheaper to use the FF base for a second maybe more compact en cheaper FF.
08-17-2015, 08:21 AM   #52
Pentaxian
Mistral75's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 5,928
QuoteOriginally posted by dcshooter Quote
Eat my hat.

(...)
Bon appétit !
08-17-2015, 01:35 PM   #53
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: GMT +10
Photos: Albums
Posts: 11,868
QuoteOriginally posted by Winder Quote
'm not sure they can put the FF SR into a K-3 body.
Pentax engineers could probably do it. The IBIS mechanism in the 24MP Sony A7 II, for example, as one can see from LensRental's teardown of the A7II, shows that SR does add bulk but can be made rather compact, even for a FF. The basic design of the mechanism resembles Pentax SR a lot, the image circle of E-mount is about the same as K-mount, and the K-3 body is larger than the A7 II too.

08-17-2015, 02:02 PM   #54
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: SW Washington
Posts: 833
If any of you have seen a Pentax APS-C DSLR cut in half, you will see that about 1/4 of the mirror box is taken up by the PDAF system at the bottom. It protrudes well into the lens mount circle, all the way up to the bottom of the APS-C sensor, which is not a problem because of APS-C coverage, but will most certainly interfere with a FF mirror and image circle.

There is no room to expand upwards because of the pentaprism, and no room to expand downwards because of the PDAF system. If Pentax could somehow shrink the PDAF system and pentaprism while at the same time making their coverage significantly larger, that would be quite the feat of wizardry (and something not supported by their trend of forgoing small size in favor of optical performance in their recent lenses like the 16-85, 70-200 and 150-450).

And yes, you would have to expand both upwards and downwards, because if you move the sensor downwards, it will no longer be centered on the lens mount. And the lens mount cannot be moved downwards because that would be off the body.

No, I'd say there is a 0% chance of cramming a FF sensor in the K-3 body.

Last edited by Cannikin; 08-17-2015 at 02:30 PM.
08-17-2015, 02:18 PM   #55
New Member




Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 1
FF? There goes my household budget!!
08-17-2015, 02:28 PM   #56
mee
Pentaxian




Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 6,888
QuoteOriginally posted by Cannikin Quote
If any of you have seen a Pentax APS-C DSLR cut in half, you will see that about 1/4 of the mirror box is taken up by the PDAF system at the bottom. It protrudes well into the lens mount circle, which is not a problem because of APS-C coverage, but will most certainly interfere with a FF mirror and image circle.

There is no room to expand upwards because of the pentaprism, and no room to expand downwards because of the PDAF system. If Pentax could somehow shrink the PDAF system and pentaprism while at the same time making their coverage significantly larger, that would be quite the feat of wizardry (and something not supported by their trend of forgoing small size for optical performance in their recent lenses like the 16-85, 70-200 and 150-450).

And yes, you would have to expand both upwards and downwards, because if you move the sensor downwards, it will no longer be centered on the lens mount. And the lens mount cannot be moved downwards because that would be off the body.

No, I'd say there is a 0% chance of cramming a FF sensor in the K-3 body.
Well if you don't try to force the idea literally it is possible.. K-3 body can mean face value the actual K-3 body, a modified K-3 body, or a body that is K-3 like..
08-17-2015, 02:31 PM   #57
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
geomez's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Preskitt Arizona
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,756
QuoteOriginally posted by Cannikin Quote
If any of you have seen a Pentax APS-C DSLR cut in half, you will see that about 1/4 of the mirror box is taken up by the PDAF system at the bottom. It protrudes well into the lens mount circle, all the way up to the bottom of the APS-C sensor, which is not a problem because of APS-C coverage, but will most certainly interfere with a FF mirror and image circle.

There is no room to expand upwards because of the pentaprism, and no room to expand downwards because of the PDAF system. If Pentax could somehow shrink the PDAF system and pentaprism while at the same time making their coverage significantly larger, that would be quite the feat of wizardry (and something not supported by their trend of forgoing small size in favor of optical performance in their recent lenses like the 16-85, 70-200 and 150-450).

And yes, you would have to expand both upwards and downwards, because if you move the sensor downwards, it will no longer be centered on the lens mount. And the lens mount cannot be moved downwards because that would be off the body.

No, I'd say there is a 0% chance of cramming a FF sensor in the K-3 body.
Hybrid on-sensor PDAF?
08-17-2015, 03:03 PM - 1 Like   #58
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Central Ohio (formerly SF Bay Area)
Posts: 1,519
I'm honestly surprised at how much "nuh uh, no way, can't do it, impossible" there is in this thread.

I'm not going to be a Pentax apologist -- I have seen too many flubs in recent years to give them a complete pass -- but have a little faith in the talent, cleverness, competence, and perseverance of the engineers who have worked on this!
08-17-2015, 03:07 PM   #59
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: SW Washington
Posts: 833
QuoteOriginally posted by mee Quote
Well if you don't try to force the idea literally it is possible.. K-3 body can mean face value the actual K-3 body, a modified K-3 body, or a body that is K-3 like..
At the very least it would have to be about 1cm or so taller than the K-3 to accommodate the expanded mirror box/sensor and larger viewfinder. Which is pretty much what the CP+ FF mockup looks like to me.

So I guess that ends up being whether you consider the FF mockup as just a modified K-3 body that's about 1cm taller, with a pointy viewfinder hump and minus the headphone jack hump, or a separate "new" body.

QuoteOriginally posted by geomez Quote
Hybrid on-sensor PDAF?
I assume you mean getting rid of the separate PDAF system entirely and going with on-sensor. That would mean either going full mirrorless or heavily redesigning the mirror beam splitter to redirect light towards the sensor (which still wouldn't solve the lens mount centering issue by shifting the center of the sensor downwards).

Yeah, I don't think Ricoh is going to spend millions in R&D to bend over backwards making everything somehow fit in the K-3, probably making several performance compromises along the way, when they could just solve everything by simply making the chassis 1cm taller (which is apparently what they did with the mockup). Especially since the rumor is the "K-3 body FF" is the "budget" model.

It's not like that would make it gigantic either. The K-3 and K-5 series are already the smallest in the high end APS-C class. Increasing the height would only make it about the overall size of the D7200 (minus the pointy tip of the viewfinder hump).

Last edited by Cannikin; 08-17-2015 at 03:36 PM.
08-17-2015, 03:44 PM   #60
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 22,258
QuoteOriginally posted by mee Quote
Well if you don't try to force the idea literally it is possible.. K-3 body can mean face value the actual K-3 body, a modified K-3 body, or a body that is K-3 like..
But why?

Let's see that there is a flagship camera that is coming out with a new style body, that has plenty of space for the sensor and wiring and whatever else you need to put in a full frame camera, why would you not use that? Why would you use a K3 body instead?
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
axis, body, camera, d810, ff, frame, hardware, k-3, mechanism, nikon, pentax, pentax news, pentax rumors, photogs, post, price, res, ricoh, sensor, sr, system, thread
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Pure speculation... FF to include GPS? Conqueror Pentax Full Frame 21 06-19-2015 11:42 AM
Speculation: What if Pentax did not go FF but rather a 1.3x? brecklundin Pentax DSLR Discussion 36 08-13-2013 10:36 PM
Anyone heard of the latest FF rumor on Pentax Discuss Mail List? LFLee Pentax Full Frame 39 07-03-2013 02:05 PM
The latest pentax ff news!! PentaxSX Pentax Full Frame 10 03-24-2013 06:33 AM
speculation about FA lenses on FF DSLR lpfonseca Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 19 11-05-2009 10:34 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:34 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top