Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

View Poll Results: Will you buy Pentax EVIL in LX like body
Yes. I like LX body design. 2726.21%
No. I'd prefer another style body. 1514.56%
I don't care. I prefer DSLR. 6159.22%
Voters: 103. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
02-03-2010, 09:49 AM   #61
Senior Member




Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Kansas City, MO
Posts: 174
QuoteOriginally posted by KungPOW Quote
If Hoya does make an EVIL based on the LX, it would be an admition that they have no plans, or they are not able, to develope a small high spec FF DSLR, that has the same gestalt.

The logical choice for a Pentax EVIL camera name would have been derived from the 110. But they just used that in a point and shoot. The 110 SLR is a film version of a possible Pentax EVIL. It was small, and it used a different lens lineup.

But back to the LX design. Using a name based on "LX" ie L-x would signify we will never see a DSLR with the same design concept, or feel as the LX. Imagine if Chevy stopped production of the Corvette. Then, 20 years later introduced a 4 door hatchback called the Corvette. Do you think you would ever see another high spec sports car from Chevy called a Corvette?
If a particular brand name is believed to have value then it is wise to not dilute the value. If an EVIL camera comes out and they decide to give it high grade specs and call it L-X, this should not be a problem. The key is to give it the full specs if that is what the target market is.

If the L-X names has such great marketing value they could have an L-X E version for electronic viewfinder system and L-X R for reflex system.

02-03-2010, 10:13 AM   #62
K7shooter
Guest




I don't give a rat's ass if they use pixels, cubits, or nanometers. If the device being used to display the image data is inconsistent and non-standardized, then how can you possible call it "precise"? If you think that the image data isn't being interpolated, rather, "converted on the fly" for the intended display device, then I don't know what to tell you.

The only reason people care about ISO is because marketing folks made it an issue. I never recall photographers clamoring for ASA 6400 film back in the day, and even ASA 3200 was considered a special use film.

Who cares if a camera can shoot at ISO 6400 if it looks like crap? The Nikons go up to what now, somethign insane like 12800? Have you seen what that looks like? My iPhone take a better image at whatever its fixed ISO is than those Nikons set to 12800!
02-03-2010, 10:15 AM   #63
Senior Member




Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: New York
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 216
Wnders when Ogl will actually be right about the countless rumors he's been spreading.

Even the boy who cried wolf was right once.
02-03-2010, 10:16 AM   #64
Veteran Member




Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: The Untied States
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,882
QuoteOriginally posted by K7shooter Quote
I don't give a rat's ass if they use pixels, cubits, or nanometers. If the device being used to display the image data is inconsistent and non-standardized, then how can you possible call it "precise"?

The only reason people care about ISO is because marketing folks made it an issue. I never recall photographers clamoring for ASA 6400 film back in the day, and even ASA 3200 was considered a special use film.

Who cares if a camera can shoot at ISO 6400 if it looks like crap? The Nikons go up to what now, somethign insane like 12800? Have you seen what that looks like? My iPhone take a better image at whatever its fixed ISO is than those Nikons set to 12800!


And now you've proven you don't know what you're talking about. Wheatfield is right.

Listen, if you're just a small-time hobbyist who doesn't know much about photography, that's fine. That's what most people with a camera are. But don't try to engage in intelligent debate about camera specs when your level of debate is going to be as low as you've shown.

02-03-2010, 11:18 AM   #65
Senior Member




Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Kansas City, MO
Posts: 174
QuoteOriginally posted by falconeye Quote
An AF motor is miniscule and an USM ring driving the AF screwdrive would perfectly fit a mount adapter w/o adding any bulk.

The mount adapter is not tiny because of differences in registration distance anyway.

Phase detect is a special form of contrast detect. One where the aperture has two/four holes f/5.6 apart and where contrast is only computed over a small region of the image.

As soon as computing power paired with a non-nonsense AF algorithm is deployed will contrast AF beat the hell out of phase AF. Both in terms of accuracy and speed. For instance, because much more light is available to base computation upon (better signal). I say this as an author of a fast contrast detect AF algorithm.
Falk, I like the way you think. I have similar thoughts. Would it be feasible to have a mirror-less camera with similar dimensions as the k7, but with a movable sensor? This would allow the sensor to provide some tilt ( minor shift); could provide a type of AF for non-AF lenses; and could provide better macro focusing range for some lenses. And, of course, good old horizon adjustment. It would also allow the use of all other lens brands via adapters by moving the sensor to whatever registration distance as needed, adjusted for the thickness of the adapter of course (well maybe Pentax would not want cut into lens sales for this feature). I hope I do not get banned for mentioning such a crazy notion, but with the mirror mechanism out of the way, there are new possibilities for creative engineers. Think outside of the mirror-box.

For me, the option of an EVIL style camera reducing the thickness of the body a bit, but still not being a pocket camera is very minor advantage. This of course would provide easy use of all existing Pentax lenses without an adapter needed.
02-03-2010, 11:23 AM   #66
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Romania
Posts: 9,343
QuoteOriginally posted by falconeye Quote
Phase detect is a special form of contrast detect. One where the aperture has two/four holes f/5.6 apart and where contrast is only computed over a small region of the image.

As soon as computing power paired with a non-nonsense AF algorithm is deployed will contrast AF beat the hell out of phase AF. Both in terms of accuracy and speed. For instance, because much more light is available to base computation upon (better signal). I say this as an author of a fast contrast detect AF algorithm.
You're a very knowledgeable person, and I have much to learn from you.
But I'm bothered with a more basic issue: the phase-detection AF system knows how much and in which direction the lens elements must be moved, thus (in theory at least) it can move the lens elements in a single step for perfect focus; the contrast-detection AF doesn't, and needs several tries in order to detect contrast differences. It looks like the contrast-detection AF has a big theoretical disadvantage it must overcome, in order to equal the phase detection AF. How can be later be much faster?
What am I missing?
02-03-2010, 12:50 PM   #67
K7shooter
Guest




QuoteOriginally posted by wallyb Quote


And now you've proven you don't know what you're talking about. Wheatfield is right.

Listen, if you're just a small-time hobbyist who doesn't know much about photography, that's fine. That's what most people with a camera are. But don't try to engage in intelligent debate about camera specs when your level of debate is going to be as low as you've shown.
Careful, you are treading dangerously close to what is considered an Ad Hominem attack. If you wish to raise the level of debate to something of a higher standard, I suggest you go back and look at your previous posts directed at me.

For the record, I am a working professional photographer, educator, and trainer. I've seen many such marketing tactics over the years influence the general public and consumer base at large. I have learned not to make any assumptions as to the validity of a metric without knowing the source.

Now, if you want to debate about the precision of pixels in a photographic context, and keep it civil, I will gladly engage you in such a discussion. But any further thinly veiled attempts at personal attacks directed towards me and I'll have this thread pulled. Capice?
02-03-2010, 12:56 PM   #68
Veteran Member




Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Saint-Petersburg, Russia
Photos: Albums
Posts: 410
QuoteOriginally posted by K7shooter Quote
The only reason people care about ISO is because marketing folks made it an issue. I never recall photographers clamoring for ASA 6400 film back in the day, and even ASA 3200 was considered a special use film.
Cant agree with you here. I`m shooting at ISO2500 indoors and getting 1\125 shutter speeds without a flash. And I`m getting nice looking pictures ( oh well at least noise-wise ). I call that useful!

02-03-2010, 01:03 PM   #69
Veteran Member




Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: The Untied States
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,882
QuoteOriginally posted by K7shooter Quote
Careful, you are treading dangerously close to what is considered an Ad Hominem attack. If you wish to raise the level of debate to something of a higher standard, I suggest you go back and look at your previous posts directed at me.

For the record, I am a working professional photographer, educator, and trainer. I've seen many such marketing tactics over the years influence the general public and consumer base at large. I have learned not to make any assumptions as to the validity of a metric without knowing the source.

Now, if you want to debate about the precision of pixels in a photographic context, and keep it civil, I will gladly engage you in such a discussion. But any further thinly veiled attempts at personal attacks directed towards me and I'll have this thread pulled. Capice?
This is too funny...

Fact: You said high ISO didn't matter to people, I proved to you that it did.

Fact: You said displaying an image made of pixels on a medium made of pixels is less accurate than changing the medium, this is clearly wrong.

Fact: You have absolutely zero ability to get any 'threads pulled'. No one is impressed, and you're acting very childish and ignorant.

Fact: You are very funny, please keep the posts coming
02-03-2010, 01:54 PM   #70
juu
Veteran Member
juu's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 680
QuoteOriginally posted by K7shooter Quote
But any further thinly veiled attempts at personal attacks directed towards me and I'll have this thread pulled. Capice?
lol. I think if you do a faux-Italian impression then you should at least learn to spell it right.
02-03-2010, 05:04 PM   #71
Veteran Member
falconeye's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Munich, Alps, Germany
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,863
QuoteOriginally posted by Photomy Quote
Would it be feasible to have a mirror-less camera with similar dimensions as the k7, but with a movable sensor?
You think about move in 3 dimension even. Quite creative

Personally, I think it is possible but I don't think that benefit would offset the engineering challenges. The control of the sensor position would have to be ultra precise and focussing needs large motions. Certainly larger than the mirror box for some lenses.
02-03-2010, 05:16 PM   #72
Veteran Member
falconeye's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Munich, Alps, Germany
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,863
QuoteOriginally posted by Kunzite Quote
It looks like the contrast-detection AF has a big theoretical disadvantage it must overcome, in order to equal the phase detection AF. How can be later be much faster?
What am I missing?
You are correct. The unidirectional contrast method is at disadvantage because it cannot correlate contrast to distance, neither in direction nor magnitude.

However, and this is how I did it in my algorithm, two measurements tell you the direction and a third measurement gives you an approximate magnitude.

With the kind of sensor I am assuming (full pixel 60fps device), you would constantly measure contrast, at the second frame (i.e., after 30ms) you would know the direction and while driving into focus, you would "see" it coming and make a "soft landing" at the exact optimum focus point. I made a customer demonstration showing it back in 1995 ... Needed supercomputing power then. However, I used quite an efficient algorithm (about 10 ops per pixel) and therefore, today...
Esp. if you limit the region of interest, it should be possible now (read out rates should be high for a limited region).

So, contrast detect needs more measurements but each individual measurement can be made much faster because it can use much more light. Given a fast enough sensor and processor, contrast detect eventually wins.

Last edited by falconeye; 02-03-2010 at 05:23 PM.
02-03-2010, 05:17 PM   #73
Pentaxian
Wheatfield's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The wheatfields of Canada
Posts: 10,157
QuoteOriginally posted by falconeye Quote
You think about move in 3 dimension even. Quite creative

Personally, I think it is possible but I don't think that benefit would offset the engineering challenges. The control of the sensor position would have to be ultra precise and focussing needs large motions. Certainly larger than the mirror box for some lenses.
Contax did a movable film plane AF on one of their RTS based cameras, so it is certainly possible to do it, and is probably simpler with a DSLR than a film camera, where the entire film carriage had to be mobile.
02-04-2010, 01:04 AM   #74
Pentaxian
Fogel70's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,748
I think i would be better to have the lens adapter to do AF.
If Pentax make an EVIL camera maybe a K-mount adapter could be made as the F 1.7x AF TC, but without (or less) magnification.
02-04-2010, 01:35 AM   #75
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Romania
Posts: 9,343
QuoteOriginally posted by falconeye Quote
[...]However, and this is how I did it in my algorithm, two measurements tell you the direction and a third measurement gives you an approximate magnitude.

With the kind of sensor I am assuming (full pixel 60fps device), you would constantly measure contrast, at the second frame (i.e., after 30ms) you would know the direction and while driving into focus, you would "see" it coming and make a "soft landing" at the exact optimum focus point. [...]
So, contrast detect needs more measurements but each individual measurement can be made much faster because it can use much more light. Given a fast enough sensor and processor, contrast detect eventually wins.
Three measurements and we're talking about "approximate magnitude"; assuming new sensors would be developed (60fps full image read-out, even in low light)... so we're talking about a distant future; OK then, I'm more concerned with the near future, and I don't see the contrast detection AF (while their best current implementation is comparable to entry level DSLRs) to beat phase detection AF so badly, in only few years
And even then, we'll have to talk about predictive AF Sorry, I'm just not convinced this would be the better technology instead of a well-calibrated, high end phase detection AF.

About a moving sensor: I have my doubts about the SR, already (does the sensor plate remains perfectly calibrated in time?)
Focusing by moving the sensor - that would be done by moving it backwards, not in the mirror box; thus adding a lot of bulk. Even with a 645-style&size "compact EVIL" camera, it would lose close-up/macro capabilities for all but the shortest lenses, and on long teles you'll have two option: infinity and near infinity
There are a lot of good reasons why this shouldn't be done.
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!
body, camera, lx, mirrorless, pentax, pentax mirrorless camera, pentax news, pentax rumors
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
[RUMOR] Canon's First Mirrorless Camera! jct us101 Non-Pentax Cameras: Canon, Nikon, etc. 12 09-14-2010 08:08 PM
Pentax's Reply to my inquiry about a Mirrorless Camera SMPhoto Pentax News and Rumors 91 08-15-2010 01:58 PM
Pentax is investigating a mirrorless system camera falconeye Pentax News and Rumors 172 04-01-2010 01:03 PM
Samsung GX fullframe mirrorless camera system? amonsul Pentax News and Rumors 46 11-12-2009 05:37 AM
Pentax K30D body design! vitalsax Pentax DSLR Discussion 23 01-14-2009 11:32 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:28 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