Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
06-01-2012, 02:17 AM - 1 Like   #2581
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Romania
Posts: 9,343
They are going mirrorless? Says who?
So far, they're working on expanding the K-mount - essentially a SLR system. That's a strange way of doing it

Your desire is for an entire company to steer out of its course and abandon their customers, because you like gadgets and not cameras. Yeah, sure.

06-01-2012, 02:34 AM   #2582
Pentaxian
gazonk's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Oslo area, Norway
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,512
QuoteOriginally posted by Foma Quote
It is not a hate, it is a desire to stay with Pentax and have a decent modern camera at the same time.
OK, Pentax is going to keep making bulky cameras with huge flange focal distance, so it's all yours. Enjoy.
It's not huge. With a lens mounted, the size differences aren't really that different. DSLRs can still be made much smaller, as electronics shrink and displays and sensors get thinner, it should be possible to make a full format DSLR that is smaller than the Pentax ME or MX. Currently the electronics from sensor and behind is pretty chunky, but in theory it could be made even thinner than the film and the plate keeping it in place were - see this cut-through of the ME-F: http://www.brayebrookobservatory.org/BrayObsWebSite/HOMEPAGE/PageMill_Resour...%20section.jpg

Even the NEX-7's very good EVF is a pain to look through compared to my K10d, and even more of a pain when compared to my ME or LX. DSLRs aren't dead, they don't even smell funny
06-01-2012, 03:04 AM   #2583
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Romania
Posts: 9,343
Smaller, yes, but I doubt they can be made that small. However, it's not always desirable to have the smallest camera.
06-01-2012, 04:24 AM   #2584
Pentaxian
gazonk's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Oslo area, Norway
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,512
QuoteOriginally posted by Kunzite Quote
Smaller, yes, but I doubt they can be made that small.
Most doubters about the possibilities of miniaturization of electronics over the last 30 years have had to constantly revise their doubts

(Would you have believed the spec list of a modern smart phone 30 years ago?)

06-01-2012, 05:07 AM   #2585
Site Supporter
markku55's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Hanko, Finland
Posts: 195
When I was a child, may be in fifth class at school at age 12 during 1961, I wrote that during year 2000 there are so small TV-sets that you can put it on your pocket like a comb - Now we know that I was slightly too optimistic conserning the year, but my teachers did not believe on my prediction at all.
06-01-2012, 05:16 AM   #2586
Senior Member
topace's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Stockholm
Posts: 197
QuoteOriginally posted by gazonk Quote
Most doubters about the possibilities of miniaturization of electronics over the last 30 years have had to constantly revise their doubts
It can be made smaller, probably. But the question is where. The mirrorbox will be the same size because of the registration distance. The prism house will be the same size (or bigger if full coverage and 1x is desired). I guess the bottom part could be cut away (supposing CDAF was made much awesomer than it is now) but I'm not so sure that's desirable. Or one could cut at the sides. But the truth is, the MX design is about as good as it gets with small lenses, and with big ones, I think I prefer something that balances against the lens weight.

QuoteOriginally posted by gazonk Quote
(Would you have believed the spec list of a modern smart phone 30 years ago?)
I would first and foremost have been appaled at how low the battery life is.
06-01-2012, 05:29 AM   #2587
Site Supporter
markku55's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Hanko, Finland
Posts: 195
I can easily believe that a FF sensor can be located in the same place and volume as film and film flattening plate, also one of the best prism was in Olympus OM-1 and that was really tiny, why should it be bigger etc etc.
The weight of old lenses are high, because of the weight of glas and aluminium, today you can produce a much lighter lens that in 1970ies, may be also smaller.
It is for sure a personal feeling and opinnion which decide if a small body is ok or not, but if the question is if it is possible to make much smaller FF body, I say yes.
06-01-2012, 05:31 AM   #2588
Pentaxian
gazonk's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Oslo area, Norway
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,512
QuoteOriginally posted by topace Quote
I would first and foremost have been appaled at how low the battery life is.
I would have been amazed at how good the battery life is. After all, there were no real mobile phones at all in 1982, and the first handheld Nokia appeared 5 years later: The Cityman 900, released in 1987, weighed 800 grams and had a standby time of only 14 hours.

06-01-2012, 06:00 AM   #2589
Veteran Member
mattdm's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Boston, MA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,964
QuoteOriginally posted by markku55 Quote
I can easily believe that a FF sensor can be located in the same place and volume as film and film flattening plate,
It might be able to, but not with current technology.
06-01-2012, 06:19 AM   #2590
D0n
Banned




Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 530
I think the main draw back to a ff sensor might be the size and space needed for the sr mechanism...
06-01-2012, 06:38 AM   #2591
Veteran Member
mattdm's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Boston, MA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,964
QuoteOriginally posted by D0n Quote
I think the main draw back to a ff sensor might be the size and space needed for the sr mechanism...
And a 100%-frame viewfinder is correspondingly bigger.
06-01-2012, 06:45 AM   #2592
D0n
Banned




Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 530
it'd be a big camera by Pentax standards for sure..but not soo big compared to the competitors....
can't see it being priced low enough to be a big seller... just a handfull of well healed pros that want something halfway between the k5 and 645d.... be a tough sell I think..from the perspective of making a profit for the company.
06-01-2012, 06:48 AM   #2593
Veteran Member
Asahiflex's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Netherlands
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,754
QuoteOriginally posted by mattdm Quote
And a 100%-frame viewfinder is correspondingly bigger.
Is that a problem? My MX is still smaller than my K-5. I'd love a FF Pentax with no SR at all. No moving parts = no things which can get defective over time.
06-01-2012, 07:02 AM   #2594
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Romania
Posts: 9,343
QuoteOriginally posted by gazonk Quote
Most doubters about the possibilities of miniaturization of electronics over the last 30 years have had to constantly revise their doubts

(Would you have believed the spec list of a modern smart phone 30 years ago?)
(Yes: 5kg CRT high definition display, a cluster of Z80 processors and a diesel generator to power it )

We can't resume everything to "miniaturization of electronics", even if through miniaturization and (much) higher integration, the electronics can be made more compact.
A thinner LCD could be made, but still it will add to camera's thickness. The SR platform - not sure how much can be saved there. The AF, unless migrating to the sensor, would need dedicated optics and sensors. The AF motor, bigger battery, shutter with automatic rewind... there are too many things missing.
Even if you say all those components would be smaller, they would still add to the camera. I don't think having a very compact manual camera is a reasonable target.
06-01-2012, 07:26 AM   #2595
Site Supporter
Aristophanes's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Dartmouth, Nova Scotia
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,922
QuoteOriginally posted by mattdm Quote
It might be able to, but not with current technology.
True. Not affordably. Even without SR and with high-ISO capabilities the circuitry is considerable. Power management and data buffers are all necessary, and digital sensors are far less robust than film, so there is a protective structure in the design of modern SLR's to maintain alignment.

If you want smaller form factors, you will be compelled to use smaller sensors until there are some fairly radical changes in tech.
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!
aps-c, bodies, body, dslr, full-frame, lenses, lineup, pentax, system, users
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Full frame pentax cem.kumuk Pentax DSLR Discussion 11 11-12-2010 03:13 PM
Pentax and Full Frame... Shutter-bug Photographic Technique 60 11-03-2010 10:03 AM
Pentax A 50/1.2 on Full Frame aegisphan Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 23 10-28-2010 04:16 PM
News Regarding Advertising on PentaxForums.com: An Official Statement Adam Site Suggestions and Help 5 03-24-2010 07:37 PM
Official: New DSLR Body is Coming; Full Frame Model is Under Planning! RiceHigh Pentax News and Rumors 78 08-04-2008 06:18 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:30 PM. | 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