Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
03-13-2016, 02:57 AM   #76
Pentaxian
mecrox's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Oxford, UK
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,115
QuoteOriginally posted by monochrome Quote
That's where Ricoh will enter video, I suspect - it can be K-mount, and they can offer a FF, feature-rich, ergonomically superior product at a compelling price versus the then-current standard MILC body. Wait until the 42Mp BSI video sensor matures (isn't that the one?). The ergonomics and the Limited lenses will be the sell - the anti- 'skinny, shiny, hipster plate' camera - but it will need to be a GREAT vidcam to overcome the embedded form factor preference.

Ricoh is developing a reputation as a market disruptor. It's kind of fun to be an insurgent - with a 45 year CV of experience with the brand.
My understanding is that MILCs do best when their lenses are designed with very fast CDAF in mind. That was one of the things which held back the K-01 (except for the lightweight 40mm XS). I suspect that to do well, a MILC needs to be a full-on MILC designed from the ground up and not a DSLR in disguise.

03-13-2016, 03:42 AM   #77
Pentaxian
D1N0's Avatar

Join Date: May 2012
Location: ---
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 4,347
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by mecrox Quote
My understanding is that MILCs do best when their lenses are designed with very fast CDAF in mind. That was one of the things which held back the K-01 (except for the lightweight 40mm XS). I suspect that to do well, a MILC needs to be a full-on MILC designed from the ground up and not a DSLR in disguise.
CDAF is not very fast, just very accurate. And what is cdaf optimisation in a lens? Optics for better contrast? Or Electronics. milc systems are starting to use on sensor pdaf for faster focussing nowadays, so no need for cdaf optimisation anymore.
03-13-2016, 03:44 AM   #78
Loyal Site Supporter
monochrome's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Kirkwood (St. Louis) MO
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 20,423
QuoteOriginally posted by mecrox Quote
My understanding is that MILCs do best when their lenses are designed with very fast CDAF in mind. That was one of the things which held back the K-01 (except for the lightweight 40mm XS). I suspect that to do well, a MILC needs to be a full-on MILC designed from the ground up and not a DSLR in disguise.
They also need a blank-sheet-of-paper manufacturing process to make financial sense. Ricoh certainly has the manufacturing process design skill, neither of which necessarily excludes K-mount. The issue is, fast CDAF requires focus-by-wire technology in the lenses, which excludes all but a very few K-mount lenses. It isn't so much that Pentax needs a new mount - it's that if you aren't designing a camera to be backward-compatible, why use the K-mount at all?

The tell will be in the rumored 5-6 new primes for late 2016 - 2017. If they're all DC with no screwdrive there's at least a way forward for a K-mount MILC, but a K-mount MILC with no screwdrive will be an earthquake in the Pentax community.
03-13-2016, 04:31 AM   #79
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Tromsų, Norway
Photos: Albums
Posts: 955
The screwdrive can sit inside the mount adapter. There should be a new line of lenses optimized to take advantage of the shorter flange distance, so compatibility should be kept with an adapter.

I can see Pentax releasing a K-02 as a short term MILC, maybe with a couple of more lenses.

In the longer run they should make a medium format MILC with short flange distance. This system may have adapters to both 645 and K mount. Both adapters should have a built in screw drive motor. The new cameras should offer an optional crop mode (to FF), just like K-1 offers a APS-C mode.

03-13-2016, 04:51 AM   #80
Pentaxian
mecrox's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Oxford, UK
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,115
QuoteOriginally posted by D1N0 Quote
CDAF is not very fast, just very accurate. And what is cdaf optimisation in a lens? Optics for better contrast? Or Electronics. milc systems are starting to use on sensor pdaf for faster focussing nowadays, so no need for cdaf optimisation anymore.
Light in weight because not so many heavy glass elements to move around, fast modern motor, not a big throw unless a macro, etc. CDAF is also fast, in my experience.

My understanding is that on-sensor PDAF, so far anyway, has its limits compared to the dedicated array on a DSLR which delivers better results at longer focal lengths.

Also, some MILCs like the Olympus E-M1 use a dual system, I think, though I may be wrong. CDAF for fixed point mode, and on-sensor PDAF for tracking mode (this is also to accommodate older, 4/3 Olympus lenses, I believe). It might be that a good combination of the two AF methods is the way forward. A way to remove the need for lens-camera calibration with PDAF would be a blessed relief, too.

I suspect what it comes down to is that one can make a MILC out of anything, but the standout successful ones were designed as a MILC system from the get-go.
03-13-2016, 05:45 AM   #81
Loyal Site Supporter
monochrome's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Kirkwood (St. Louis) MO
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 20,423
Well here we come again to the real problem.

The prospect that Pentax will/can develop another entire new system (new mount / new electronics) for any format, plus new lenses with plastic elements that will only work on the new mount (an adapter can't go the other way), plus sophisticated adapters with contacts and a screwdrive motor (large component) to allow backward compatibility - all at a price that can compete and sell against the market leader AND has some really thoughtful cutting-edge distinguishing feature AND that finally answers the video question - all while simultaneously maintaining reflex APSc, building out reflex FF, updating reflex 645 lenses, building out pro support, building out distribution infrastructure globally and - gasp! - marketing - I just don't see that happening without Ricoh dumping $100 Million into Pentax.
03-13-2016, 06:40 AM   #82
New Member
oldfashioned_aj's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Dubai
Photos: Albums
Posts: 13
common mounts should be a good thing i suppose. it used to happen in old days then why not now ? fuji itself had nikon mount dslr and a lot of companies did share the M mount
03-13-2016, 07:02 AM   #83
Pentaxian




Join Date: Sep 2012
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,728
QuoteOriginally posted by monochrome Quote
Well here we come again to the real problem.

The prospect that Pentax will/can develop another entire new system (new mount / new electronics) for any format, plus new lenses with plastic elements that will only work on the new mount (an adapter can't go the other way), plus sophisticated adapters with contacts and a screwdrive motor (large component) to allow backward compatibility - all at a price that can compete and sell against the market leader AND has some really thoughtful cutting-edge distinguishing feature AND that finally answers the video question - all while simultaneously maintaining reflex APSc, building out reflex FF, updating reflex 645 lenses, building out pro support, building out distribution infrastructure globally and - gasp! - marketing - I just don't see that happening without Ricoh dumping $100 Million into Pentax.
I doubt they'd bother making an adapter with a screw drive motor as a new mount doesn't need to have compatibility with every K-mount lens ever produced. There are plenty already with focus motors and I doubt we'll ever see a new K-mount lens without a focus motor. Aperture lever would obviously be needed.

Sure, this would be a big effort but isn't that the point of partnering with another producer, especially one with outstanding lens design capability and experience in producing MILCs (such as Fujifilm)?

03-13-2016, 07:50 AM   #84
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: NJ
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 4,880
QuoteOriginally posted by Kunzite Quote
But if it's not smaller, what would be the point? Except video, perhaps?
Some people simply prefer an EVF. Focus zooming is pretty awesome to use with manual focus, for instance. The brightness of the EVF is not dependent on lens aperture, unlike an OVF. MILC doesn't suffer from mirror-slap, although the genre does have it's own shutter-shock issue. MILC can be quieter.

Not saying one is better than the other - I currently shoot both - but MILC has enough going for it that size doesn't have to be the key selling point.
03-13-2016, 08:18 AM   #85
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2011
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,735
QuoteOriginally posted by luftfluss Quote
MILC doesn't suffer from mirror-slap, although the genre does have it's own shutter-shock issue.
Which is nicely avoided in the current Pentax MILCs, thanks to the in-lens (or in-adapter) leaf shutters.
03-13-2016, 08:34 AM   #86
Pentaxian
D1N0's Avatar

Join Date: May 2012
Location: ---
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 4,347
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by mecrox Quote
Light in weight because not so many heavy glass elements to move around, fast modern motor, not a big throw unless a macro, etc. CDAF is also fast, in my experience.

My understanding is that on-sensor PDAF, so far anyway, has its limits compared to the dedicated array on a DSLR which delivers better results at longer focal lengths.

Also, some MILCs like the Olympus E-M1 use a dual system, I think, though I may be wrong. CDAF for fixed point mode, and on-sensor PDAF for tracking mode (this is also to accommodate older, 4/3 Olympus lenses, I believe). It might be that a good combination of the two AF methods is the way forward. A way to remove the need for lens-camera calibration with PDAF would be a blessed relief, too.

I suspect what it comes down to is that one can make a MILC out of anything, but the standout successful ones were designed as a MILC system from the get-go.
Focus by wire is not a characteristic I would care for. IMHO it is a characteristic to simplify lens design by not having to implement a physical connection between focussing ring and the lens groups. Without power it will not focus it is an indirect way of of focussing and building in too many dependencies. The amount of heavy glass you have to move depends more on the aperture focal length ratio for a certain image circle than focussing technology. The fastest glass is still built for heavy full frame cameras. Maybe it is more of a necessity to make small m43 and aps-c lenses. There is a danger of these lenses quickly becoming obsolete because their design is so integrated with the camera technology. I would not like to spend a thousand dollars or euro's on a lens I can only use for about ten years.
03-13-2016, 08:57 AM   #87
Pentaxian
mecrox's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Oxford, UK
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,115
QuoteOriginally posted by monochrome Quote
Well here we come again to the real problem.

The prospect that Pentax will/can develop another entire new system (new mount / new electronics) for any format, plus new lenses with plastic elements that will only work on the new mount (an adapter can't go the other way), plus sophisticated adapters with contacts and a screwdrive motor (large component) to allow backward compatibility - all at a price that can compete and sell against the market leader AND has some really thoughtful cutting-edge distinguishing feature AND that finally answers the video question - all while simultaneously maintaining reflex APSc, building out reflex FF, updating reflex 645 lenses, building out pro support, building out distribution infrastructure globally and - gasp! - marketing - I just don't see that happening without Ricoh dumping $100 Million into Pentax.
It all depends on what the runes tell them - what Ricoh's best estimate of the camera market over the next 5-7 years or so is. We certainly don't know. If the conclusion is that Ricoh have to spend a fortune just to stay in business because they think the market will change substantially, then a partnership or consortium starts to make sense. But as of today a mirrorless system isn't essential; there are plenty of mirrorless choices out there from other brands and no need to lament Ricoh not having a MILC system. Ricoh has plenty to be getting on with and so far they have hot products in their main markets. I just think that if Ricoh do ever decide to "go MILC" they'll do best if they make a really proper job of it and avoid half measures of the K-01 kind.

---------- Post added 03-13-16 at 04:02 PM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by D1N0 Quote

[snip]
There is a danger of these lenses quickly becoming obsolete because their design is so integrated with the camera technology. I would not like to spend a thousand dollars or euro's on a lens I can only use for about ten years.
I suspect that most modern lenses won't last all that long, at least not without adapters as camera/sensor tech changes and increasingly costly repairs to things like motors. The days of "buy for life", which many of us likely grew up with, are long gone.

Last edited by mecrox; 03-13-2016 at 09:07 AM.
03-13-2016, 09:28 AM   #88
Loyal Site Supporter
monochrome's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Kirkwood (St. Louis) MO
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 20,423
QuoteOriginally posted by luftfluss Quote
size doesn't have to be the key selling point.
We don't believe size matters but that was the key selling feature when the mirror box was removed. A large MILC would need to somehow overcome that, perhaps misguided, objection.
03-13-2016, 11:00 AM - 1 Like   #89
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: South Bend, IN, USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,982
QuoteOriginally posted by mecrox Quote
It all depends on what the runes tell them ... no need to lament Ricoh not having a MILC system. Ricoh has plenty to be getting on with and so far they have hot products in their main markets. I just think that if Ricoh do ever decide to "go MILC" they'll do best if they make a really proper job of it and avoid half measures of the K-01 kind.
After the relative stability of the years when MF 35mm "ruled", the camera world went through two tipping points relatively quickly, when AF became standard, and then digital became standard. Pentax is just now recovering from those times. I don't know if MILC will ever become standard, but the market could tip fairly quickly, so Pentax needs to have a product just off stage in case it does happen, since they cannot afford to spend as long developing an MILC product as they apparently spent developing the K-1.

QuoteOriginally posted by mecrox Quote
I suspect that most modern lenses won't last all that long, at least not without adapters as camera/sensor tech changes and increasingly costly repairs to things like motors.
I understand the trauma in the minds of Pentaxians after their first experiences with in-lens motors. I missed all of that because I moved to Canon because I liked their usm lenses better than what Pentax was doing. My first Canon SLR came with a usm lens that I used almost continually for eleven years, until I got a Rebel that was kitted with a shorter focal length lens. However, I was still using that lens on occasion until around 2010 {at which point it was 15 years old} when I lost it in an embarrassing incident involving my tripping over a root and donating that lens to the squirrel population of a state park. I believe changes in technology may shorten the useful lifetimes of some lenses, but I'm not convinced that motor failures will cause lenses to be retired any more quickly than they were when we went from M42-mount to K-mount to KA-mount to KAF-mount.

QuoteOriginally posted by mecrox Quote
The days of "buy for life", which many of us likely grew up with, are long gone.
I'm not sure that ever was true {see M42-mount, K-mount, KA-mount, KAF-mount again}, but we like to keep that myth.

---------- Post added 03-13-16 at 02:01 PM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by monochrome Quote
We don't believe size matters but that was the key selling feature when the mirror box was removed. A large MILC would need to somehow overcome that, perhaps misguided, objection.
Sony seems to be leading the way past that misconception.
03-13-2016, 11:56 AM   #90
Site Supporter
Clinton's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,826
I'm really trying to see why anyone would give a hoot? This is already a solved problem.

If I want mirrorless, and I don't want the super tiny Q; what can Pentax give me above the existing offerings? If I want mirrorless, I'll buy a Sony. If I want m4/3 I'll buy an Olympus. What is the Pentax brand going to offer me?
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!
adapters, camera, canon, dslr, fuji, fujifilm, innards, k-01, k-mount, lens, lenses, market, milc, mirrorless, pack, pentax, pentax news, pentax rumors, plenty, reflex, ricoh, sensor, system, technology
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
For Sale - Sold: Tokina AT-X 80-200/2.8 SD Ka-mount Lens with Hood and Case fwcetus Sold Items 7 09-24-2015 03:54 PM
upgrading from k-x should i go mirrorless? rabblefrabble Pentax DSLR Discussion 20 11-29-2014 03:53 PM
Ricoh's marketing email go straight to Spam folder RonakG Photographic Industry and Professionals 16 04-19-2014 11:08 AM
No FF for at least two years. normhead Pentax DSLR Discussion 22 10-02-2012 08:27 AM
I want to stay with Pentax, but which way to go? Horst Laumer Pentax DSLR Discussion 16 10-22-2011 05:41 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:53 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