[Samsungian]

I don't think you should cut aperture speed in half to compenste for 2x crop sensor found in G-1

As far as DA on anything other than pentax you're right, no aperture control except for DA 50 macro and DA 100 macro. Just another reason why I like older adjustable aperture ring glass. And why I assume lenses like FA 77mm 1.8 Limited will be discontinued in favor of 70mm DA. Only other DA limiteds will survive over close focal length FA counterparts. Recently issued 35mm DA Limited macro is like this too:

No aperture ring at lensmount ;^(

I doubt we'll ever see a new design pentax lens with adjustable aperture ring at lens mount. I like adapting lenses, primarily to eos full frame dslr mount. If I owned an aps-c eos I could use all my older pentax lenses without aperture lever interference as I already own half dozen PK to Eos mount adapters. But with a K20D inhand that aps-c eos like 50D is a pointless purchase. On 5D I cannot use pentax lenses due to aperture lever interference with mirror and I am not going to remove or cut off levers to experiment.

Anyways, G-1 looks intersting, but so does D700.

Some problems:
With a k-mount-Olympus 4/3 adapter I would loose autofocus and only be able to shoot wide open since the adapter only allows completely manual exposure at the mechanically set aperture, and since the DA40 has no aperture ring...

Lets say I go Olympus 4/3 fully...yes the body is thin, but they have only one lens that is thin enough to use this advantage, the 25/2.8 pancake, a lens which correspond to a 50mm/5.6 on 35mm film or 37.5/4.2 on APS-C. Do I want such a slow lens anyway? It makes the Pentax pancakes look fast. And Pentax has three DA pancakes + the FA50 which would also be thin enough.

So while considering if the DA40 on my *istDS (which is 1.5mm thinner than the K-m) would be small enough, I keep using my MX and Super-A bodies with smallish 28 and 55mm lenses as my pocket SLRs, and with this I'm getting more functionality on these old bodies than these lenses would have on a 4/3 olympus with adapter.

Yet would like to see that Pentax DSLR that goes thinner than the K-m and *istDS. Is it possible or is the thickness of the APS-C sensor the limiting factor? Is the 66-67.5mm of the *istDS and the K-m the thinnes possible? Anyone who knows?

---

Last edited by Samsungian; 01-06-2009 at 05:15 PM.

[vinzer]

I don't think you should cut aperture speed in half to compenste for 2x crop sensor found in G-1

As far as DA on anything other than pentax you're right, no aperture control except for DA 50 macro and DA 100 macro. Just another reason why I like older adjustable aperture ring glass. And why I assume lenses like FA 77mm 1.8 Limited will be discontinued in favor of 70mm DA. Only other DA limiteds will survive over close focal length FA counterparts. Recently issued 35mm DA Limited macro is like this too:

No aperture ring at lensmount ;^(

I think that has been a point of contention many times in Olympus forums, about the actual light coming into a 4/3 lens. There's a lot of figures thrown around, and I really don't know what to believe in now.

I'd also be interested to know the physics behind halving the specified aperture of a 4/3 lens, but it's also interesting why Olympus chose their higher-end zooms to have a 2.0 constant aperture instead of 2.8.

I'm with you in opting for lenses with manual aperture control. Perfectly usable on both digital and film bodies, as well as through adapters.

[m8o]

Next year, we are planning to launch some three types, including minor design change versions, of single-lens reflex (SLR) cameras.

... means only two 'real' releases to anticipate. Geez I hope it's not the K20D that gets a "minor design change", and that they up the AF system of the K20D in a K30D as a major launch.

[thibs]

Some problems:
With a k-mount-Olympus 4/3 adapter I would loose autofocus and only be able to shoot wide open since the adapter only allows completely manual exposure at the mechanically set aperture, and since the DA40 has no aperture ring...

No, a DA or FAJ lens will be set at smalest aperture, not widest, unfortunately if there's a mechanical linkage. You'll be shooting at f/22 with a DA40. AFAIR.

[cupic]

And how much are you willing to pay for that? I ask that in all seriousness.

A fair price US$2500 and not a penny more


cheers

[er1kksen]

Some problems:
With a k-mount-Olympus 4/3 adapter I would loose autofocus and only be able to shoot wide open since the adapter only allows completely manual exposure at the mechanically set aperture, and since the DA40 has no aperture ring...

Lets say I go Olympus 4/3 fully...yes the body is thin, but they have only one lens that is thin enough to use this advantage, the 25/2.8 pancake, a lens which correspond to a 50mm/5.6 on 35mm film or 37.5/4.2 on APS-C. Do I want such a slow lens anyway? It makes the Pentax pancakes look fast. And Pentax has three DA pancakes + the FA50 which would also be thin enough.

So while considering if the DA40 on my *istDS (which is 1.5mm thinner than the K-m) would be small enough, I keep using my MX and Super-A bodies with smallish 28 and 55mm lenses as my pocket SLRs, and with this I'm getting more functionality on these old bodies than these lenses would have on a 4/3 olympus with adapter.

Yet would like to see that Pentax DSLR that goes thinner than the K-m and *istDS. Is it possible or is the thickness of the APS-C sensor the limiting factor? Is the 66-67.5mm of the *istDS and the K-m the thinnes possible? Anyone who knows?

To be honest, I was never suggesting either using k-mount lenses on 4/3 or buying 4/3 at all, I was just suggesting that pentax could make something similar in size to your old film bodies if they produced a DSLR without the protruding hand grip, similar to the E-420. The potential thinness of the main body is somewhat limited, but by the lensmount, not the sensor. The design of the k-mount lenses requires a certain distance from the film/sensor in order to be able to focus properly. The 4/3 mount can produce a thinner camera (to an extent) because the distance from the lens to sensor is shorter with 4/3 than with the k-mount. However, a k-mount camera without the hand grip would be considerably more compact than even the K-m, and with the DA 40 (which is smaller than the Olympus 25mm) such a camera would fit into your coat pocket just as easily as your old film bodies (probably a lot lighter though, plastic being the norm today).

[creampuff]

... I was just suggesting that pentax could make something similar in size to your old film bodies if they produced a DSLR without the protruding hand grip, similar to the E-420. The potential thinness of the main body is somewhat limited, but by the lensmount, not the sensor. The design of the k-mount lenses requires a certain distance from the film/sensor in order to be able to focus properly. The 4/3 mount can produce a thinner camera (to an extent) because the distance from the lens to sensor is shorter with 4/3 than with the k-mount. However, a k-mount camera without the hand grip would be considerably more compact than even the K-m, and with the DA 40 (which is smaller than the Olympus 25mm) such a camera would fit into your coat pocket just as easily as your old film bodies (probably a lot lighter though, plastic being the norm today).

Seriously, what you're suggesting won't happen.
You need space for the electronic circuitry, batteries, shutter mechanism, motors, built-in flash, etc.

Look here and you'll know what I mean:
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/441149-post14.html

The 4/3 cameras may be smaller but the design requirement for tele-centricity to match the small sensor means their lenses aren't necessarily compact in size.
Iffy dynamic range and 2x crop factor is reason enough for me to steer clear of 4/3.

[Art Vandelay II]

Anyways, G-1 looks intersting, but so does D700.

The D700 is the camera that changed my opinion of FF. I used to be indifferent to FF and even somewhat against it due to the fact that, at best, maybe 1% of photographers actually need it. Then for the hell of it I asked a clerk if I could take a look at the D700 I saw in the case. I fell in love the second I touched it. It was like eating a steak for the first time after a life of nothing but hamburger. Yes, hamburger will fill you up just fine, but lets just say I understand why some people splurge on the good stuff. I've since been trying everything I can to justify to myself that I "need" to get a D700. I'm hoping Pentax will blow me away with the K30D. I want to see a big hunk of glass on top of it similar to the Sony A700's huge prism. IQ was good enough for me on my old K100D, but I upgraded to the K10D for the better viewfinder...now I'm ready to do it again.

[er1kksen]

Seriously, what you're suggesting won't happen.
You need space for the electronic circuitry, batteries, shutter mechanism, motors, built-in flash, etc.

Look here and you'll know what I mean:
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/441149-post14.html

The 4/3 cameras may be smaller but the design requirement for tele-centricity to match the small sensor means their lenses aren't necessarily compact in size.
Iffy dynamic range and 2x crop factor is reason enough for me to steer clear of 4/3.

I'm not sure you're quite getting what I mean. What I'm talking about has absolutely nothing to do with 4/3 except that there happens to be a 4/3 camera that matches the form factor I'm talking about. Actually there's 2, the Panasonic L1 also lacked a protruding hand grip. Yes, the internals need space, but the space in the hand grip is generally filled mostly by the battery and some control connections. What did Olympus do? They made the battery smaller and they got rid of sr. That's a compromise, admittedly, but the components are shrinking all the time. I see no reason why pentax could not produce such a camera.

All of this is completely unrelated to telecentricity, lens size, and the advantages and disadvantages of the 4/3 sensor.

[whatever7]

The D700 is the camera that changed my opinion of FF. I used to be indifferent to FF and even somewhat against it due to the fact that, at best, maybe 1% of photographers actually need it. Then for the hell of it I asked a clerk if I could take a look at the D700 I saw in the case. I fell in love the second I touched it. It was like eating a steak for the first time after a life of nothing but hamburger. Yes, hamburger will fill you up just fine, but lets just say I understand why some people splurge on the good stuff. I've since been trying everything I can to justify to myself that I "need" to get a D700. I'm hoping Pentax will blow me away with the K30D. I want to see a big hunk of glass on top of it similar to the Sony A700's huge prism. IQ was good enough for me on my old K100D, but I upgraded to the K10D for the better viewfinder...now I'm ready to do it again.

To me, it was when I saw a picture (of a Panasonic G1 no less) taken by a D700 in a press event, and the guy casually mentioned it was taken at ISO 6400. It blew me away. I never lost the interest of the G1 so fast.

[Douglas_of_Sweden]

No, a DA or FAJ lens will be set at smalest aperture, not widest, unfortunately if there's a mechanical linkage. You'll be shooting at f/22 with a DA40. AFAIR.

Even worse then!

[Douglas_of_Sweden]

The potential thinness of the main body is somewhat limited, but by the lensmount, not the sensor. ... However, a k-mount camera without the hand grip would be considerably more compact than even the K-m, and with the DA 40 (which is smaller than the Olympus 25mm) such a camera would fit into your coat pocket just as easily as your old film bodies (probably a lot lighter though, plastic being the norm today).

I think you have got this wrong.
For sure if you only compare DSLRs all using the same sensor, the lensmount and its registration distance will be limiting for the thickness of the body, but if you instead compare cameras with the same mount, the sensor and shutter must be limiting. When the sensor was not a sensor but film, Pentax bodies was much thinner. Take a look at the figures I've presented in this thread: https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-film-slr-discussion/45970-why-my-d...at-pocket.html

If they made a camera as thin as my thin old film bodies (say MX and Super-A) it would not be any lighter than these bodies. If you take a look at the body weights in the second figure in the same thread you will see that the digital KxxD camera body familly has caught up with the heavy weight analog K generation bodies from the 70's in terms of weight. The plastic film cameras of the late 80's and 90's was indeed lighter, but the digital bodies are back at a higher density. Better built and probably so stuffed with electronics that there is little empty space left inside the bodies. So I don't expect a more compact Pentax DSLR to be lighter than my MX or Super A, just smaller than the *istDS and K-m at 66mm and 67.5 mm thickness (*istDL at 67mm).

So is this body depth of 66-67mm the absolute limit? Is it the result of the registration disance of the K mount + the smallest possible shutter package + the smallest possible sensor package? Or is there any chans of cutting it down any further? Anyone with real knowledge of how the sensor and shutter packages are built and if there is any thinner options now or in the future?

[slocant]

The source of those Hoya statements is the:

Summary of financial results meeting for the three months ended September 30, 2008 - Tokyo, November 10, 2008

It is translated from Japanese, written by the Company’s Corporate Communications Group and is not a "verbatim record of all statements made at the meeting".

Here's a larger chunk from the document (pages 7-8)

Essentially, the products we are now producing and selling were developed last summer or autumn, with a roadmap that lacked strategy in my view. As I said in the previous meeting, we remade a completely new roadmap for the next fiscal year in accordance with the "scrap & build" policy: creating unique cameras of a new and different field, and releasing and commencing the marketing of interchangeable lenses at the same time as new cameras. As for new products for this year, a new single-lens reflex camera K-m model (an entry level high-end model) was launched about two 8 weeks ago, while new compact digital cameras have also been released on a quarterly basis. Next year, we are planning to launch some three types, including minor design change versions, of single-lens reflex (SLR) cameras. With a desire to offer cameras which will demonstrate our advantages, as announced in the Photokina held in Germany, we will relaunch ourselves next year as a manufacturer of all-weather cameras which are strong outdoors, highly water-resistnat, splash-proof, and dustproof, small and light, easily portable and tough (durable).

And here's a link to the document itself:

http://www.hoya.co.jp/english/investor/2009_2Q_meeting_summary.pdf

Cheers,

[er1kksen]

I think you have got this wrong.
For sure if you only compare DSLRs all using the same sensor, the lensmount and its registration distance will be limiting for the thickness of the body, but if you instead compare cameras with the same mount, the sensor and shutter must be limiting. When the sensor was not a sensor but film, Pentax bodies was much thinner. Take a look at the figures I've presented in this thread: https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-film-slr-discussion/45970-why-my-d...at-pocket.html

If they made a camera as thin as my thin old film bodies (say MX and Super-A) it would not be any lighter than these bodies. If you take a look at the body weights in the second figure in the same thread you will see that the digital KxxD camera body familly has caught up with the heavy weight analog K generation bodies from the 70's in terms of weight. The plastic film cameras of the late 80's and 90's was indeed lighter, but the digital bodies are back at a higher density. Better built and probably so stuffed with electronics that there is little empty space left inside the bodies. So I don't expect a more compact Pentax DSLR to be lighter than my MX or Super A, just smaller than the *istDS and K-m at 66mm and 67.5 mm thickness (*istDL at 67mm).

So is this body depth of 66-67mm the absolute limit? Is it the result of the registration disance of the K mount + the smallest possible shutter package + the smallest possible sensor package? Or is there any chans of cutting it down any further? Anyone with real knowledge of how the sensor and shutter packages are built and if there is any thinner options now or in the future?

The sensor and shutter do require greater thickness than a film body, admittedly, but I do think they could be made thinner in that respect than they are today. imo, the current thickness of the main body portion is already in the "coat-pocketable" range. It's that danged grip that snags on everything and gets in the way.

I've never played with an MX or Super A, but I do know that my modern plastic DSLR has twice the volume of my old Olympus OM-2, but only half the weight. Maybe the MX and Super A are considerably lighter than that, I guess.

[Ratmagiclady]

I've never played with an MX or Super A, but I do know that my modern plastic DSLR has twice the volume of my old Olympus OM-2, but only half the weight. Maybe the MX and Super A are considerably lighter than that, I guess.

Lightness is, frankly, overrated. Great till you get somewhere, then when you go to shoot, all of a sudden you need high tech SR and/ or ballast.. and maybe a grip... for a steady shot, anyway, with anything longish. Small and solid works fine. Before cameras needed AAs or big batteries to run, people wondered why you had to put a winder on just to *have* a grip.