[Brangdon]

So what? Current cameras already feature a back LCD. Getting rid of mirror just means more battery available overall. And again, there's more room to improve the energy efficiency of a LED screen than of a mirror actuator.

True, but at this level the EVF is required and that takes power above and beyond the back LCD. Especially as to compete with an OVF the EFV has to be very, very good.

Personally I'm not yet sure if FF mirrorless makes sense for Ricoh. First of all, I believe they are committed to K-mount. It's a big part of what what they bought when they bought Pentax. So they already have 3 mounts, and I don't think they want to add a 4th for some mirrorless FF. For me, a major part of the attraction of a purported Pentax FF is to be able to produce lenses that can be sold to K-x owners as well as FF owners, to provide an upgrade path for those who invest in entry-level bodies and succumb to lens-buying addiction, and to be able to reuse old K-mount designs and get them to market relatively quickly. The claim is that the existence of a FF body will help them sell more APS-C bodies, and deliver economies of scale across the range. A new mount throws away so much.

In addition, if they do have a new mirrorless mount, it probably wants to have a smaller image circle to get the most benefit from size reduction of the smaller flange distance. A new mirrorless APS-C mount makes more sense to me than a new mirrorless FF mount, and I'd be inclined to go smaller than larger. (The Q-mount takes that about as far as it can go, and maybe slightly further.)

So I think a new Pentax FF mirrorless has to be K-mount. So not much size reduction from losing the mirror. And if I'm wrong and it does have a new mount, most users will be using it with a K-mount adapter anyway so it will still be large in practice, so what's the point? No adapters.

Secondly, another major attraction of FF is how they capture plenty of light for the bright optical viewfinder (and focussing). Replacing the OVF with an electronic one seems to throw away a major benefit of the full-frame image circle. However, I concede that in the long run, this is likely to happen. I'd quite like to see one last great FF SLR, and then mirrorless thereafter, but I suppose that would be too much of a waste of R&D.

So I'm not sure. Sometimes it makes sense to me. Although a mirrorless FF K-mount has to be (relatively) large, presumably without the mirror or prism it would be lighter than a FF SLR, and weight is probably more important than size here. It's not like a FF needs to be small - it's not a pocketable, always with you kind of product. It's for dedicated photographers. Big but light would make it easier to use without being tiring to carry all day.

[Emacs]

In addition, if they do have a new mirrorless mount, it probably wants to have a smaller image circle to get the most benefit from size reduction of the smaller flange distance.

What? They do not need this, the decreased flange distance itself reduces the demand for the lens size.

[soalle]

where is the answer??????????????????????????????

the post in the first page links to a general page....

[jsherman999]

...Agreed, SDM replacement is almost mandatory to make this work. And that benefits aps-c directly too.

"New" FF lenses I wouldn't be surprised to see over a period of time:

Premium: 16-35 f/2.8, 24-70 f/2.8, 70-200 f/2.8, 120-300 f/4, 600 f/4 or f/5.6, 500 f/4 or 5.6, 400 f/4, 300 f/2.8, 200 f/2, 135 f/1.8

Mid Tier: 20 f/2.8, 17-35 f/4, 24-105 f/4, 70-200 f4, 135 f/2.8 (maybe Limited),

Entry: 24 f/2.8, 35 f/2, 50 f/1.8, some variable-aperture zooms like Nikon's new 28-300 FF zoom

1. So many fantasies... It's the list of lenses for 8-10 years ahead.

.


Yep, that figures to be about an 8 or 10 year roadmap. They might be able to accelerate it a bit if they really wanted to, though (it's really breaks down to a function of funding.)

But 2-3 lenses per year gets you that list in 7-8 years.


Can you imagine the excitement the yearly lens roadmaps will bring again, as they're delivering that list? What will be on it? Is the new limited really coming? Pentax news & rumours will be hitting 1000 viewers a couple times per year Lots of buzz, lot's of activity, lots of eyes on the brand from places like dpreview, T.O.P, pophoto, etc. Add to that the Tamron/Sigma/Tokina/Zeiss/VL/etc renewed focus on K-mount...

Who will produce so many lenses and where?

.

Ricoh. One of their new businesses is the making and selling of lenses now, isn't it?

They probably aren't going to repeat Sony's main FF mistake.


.

---

Last edited by jsherman999; 10-23-2011 at 04:14 PM.

[Chex]

Ohh I think the response is back on about page 4.. we're all just rambling (amazingly still fairly on topic too).

[filorp]

if i remember well nikon at the moment of releasing FF hadn't any new developed FF lens - its all relied on old junk from the beginning or the middle of 90' - Pentax isnt in any worse situation - however the longer thay will wait the more junkie junk we will put at the front of K1, time is main enemy! So what was actually sonys mistake?

[Chex]

where is the answer??????????????????????????????

the post in the first page links to a general page....

Adam posted a link back on page 5.. it's just a general response, saying they are forwarding the letter to Japan and that they are wanting to pursue the amateur and professional markets blah blah blah.. a very blanket statement, but the nugget we're all pushing on about is the pursuit of the professional market (AKA a FF body). IMO it could simply mean they are going to expand their 645D range of lenses and gear.. who knows, even release a slightly crippled 645D at a much lower price?? But I/we are REALLY hoping they meant they are(or want to) develop a FF sensored camera body. Now we all are at the point of indirectly telling Pentax/Ricoh via venting our thoughts on subject.

[Chex]

if i remember well nikon at the moment of releasing FF hadn't any new developed FF lens - its all relied on old junk from the beginning or the middle of 90' - Pentax isnt in any worse situation - however the longer thay will wait the more junkie junk we will put at the front of K1, time is main enemy! So what was actually sonys mistake?

Since when are older Nikkor lenses (primes especially) "junk"... That's like saying a Super-Tak 50 f1.4 is "junk" or a Pentax-A 85mm f1.4 not being good enough for a pentax FF.. I think this will just make those already coveted old manual glass that much more sought after and unfortunately worth a bit more!

[Spare Tire]

old junk from the beginning or the middle of 90'

Are you for real man?

[filorp]

i mean "junk" not junk chex.... however i remember 80-200 f2.8 it was really junk... comparing to Pentax FA*80-200f2.8....

[Spare Tire]

Optics hasn't seen any revolutionary improvement in the last 20 years.

[jsherman999]

if i remember well nikon at the moment of releasing FF hadn't any new developed FF lens - its all relied on old junk from the beginning or the middle of 90'

Difference is though that Nikon had many FF lenses in production at the time of the D3 release - not just on the used market, in production (meaning: revenue to Nikon.) They've since updated a few of those, but aside from better corners on the 70-200 2.8, those 'updates' don't amount to much besides adding AF-S and a higher price tag They saw the benefit of both pulling in new buyers and re-selling a few of those lenses to folks who had the older versions.

And very little 'junk' there. The only Nikon lenses I wouldn't recommend are the 24 and 28 2.8D. The 35 f/2 isn't really brilliant, either. All the rest, good to very good, and a few greats.

So what was actually sonys mistake?

Sony's Big Mistake.

.

[unfocused]

Re pellical mirror idea.

Sorry to pour cold water... Canon tried this decades ago with their Pellix and quickly abandoned it, not least because the pellical mirror divided the incoming light between viewfinder and film surface. Result: loss of half a stop and a dim viewfinder. Also the projected image passing through the fixed translucent mirror was unavoidably degraded especially as time went by and the whole thing got dirty.

[Aristophanes]

Optics hasn't seen any revolutionary improvement in the last 20 years.

Coatings are much superior now, especially for flare resistance.

As are the cements.

[Aristophanes]

Re pellical mirror idea.

Sorry to pour cold water... Canon tried this decades ago with their Pellix and quickly abandoned it, not least because the pellical mirror divided the incoming light between viewfinder and film surface. Result: loss of half a stop and a dim viewfinder. Also the projected image passing through the fixed translucent mirror was unavoidably degraded especially as time went by and the whole thing got dirty.

Pellicle took too much light from the film plane. Canon tried this when high-ISO films started to make their appearance.

But high-ISO capable sensors are a different, far more flexible beast. If the old ISO 1600 becomes the new ISO 200 suddenly a pellicle makes a lot of sense, especially for backwards compatibility of mounts.The OVF is diminished however, which becomes the rallying point for traditional SLR design. A prism finder with 100% DR and 0ms latency is the benchmark. EVF is not there yet.