Originally posted by Chex Please remove head from.... ONCE AGAIN, how would higher FPS or Video which are processor ABILITY dependant (AKA firmware programmed abilities) related directly to camera size???? I think the Tilt-swivel rear should never be considered.. give us tethering ability instead (in the extra real estate of a GRIP) and use a remote device (cell phone/tablet/netbook etc..). Most of the WR system does not require extra space that could be saved by NOT having it, and a tripod mount taking up valuable space?? really? how about those pesky shutter release buttons.. damn things always need space below them too.. I think if you really want to split hairs about what takes up space you should stick to the AF system.
This is not exactly true and/or accurate.. many companies help fund other companies R&D tech for their specific purpose and therefor get better pricing and availability of said units when they are ready. IF Pentax took this route with developing parts of their camera's it may cost them up front, but it can pay off huge in the long run.
I agree that a better AF system will take up more space in the camera, and it unfortunately is an unavoidable step I think Pentax HAS to make to get to where they need to be... piecing together all the interior components in a camera is like packing a sub-compact car for a 2 week camping trip.. you want a VERY good tetris player at the controls.
The key equation when it comes to FF: smaller does NOT necessarily translate to more sales.
Dual processors and video processors (separate) take up circuit board space. These data dumps are chip-dependent. I strongly doubt that Pentax can do better than what Canon, Nikon, and Sony have been able to do. Unfortunately there are significant heat/bandwidth issues that cannot be overcome readily (and affordably) through silicon design as much as some here would like Ricoh to superfund this.
This is not an engineering or design issue. There is zero evidence that marginal compactness of a camera body significantly impacts sales upwards. Not when the lens mount is the same as it has been since the 1970's and all else follows that circle of confusion.
Every WR seal requires a 1/2mm of baffle, and it all adds up, both in weight and dimensionality.
About 50% of the DSLR market has little access to personal home computers (the developing world, especially Asia). So rear screens and on-board PP and editing are necessary. That's more power and more chip.
Remote tethering is long overdue from Pentax. It's absence is a travesty of marketing.
One way to reduce space would be to eliminate manual controls and move to an all-LCD touchscreen system. We're seeing this in P&S cameras. Of course that's a tradeoff for photography purists who prefer tactile feedback and ergonomic design. Which group buys $2,500 cameras? Will this design suck people from a Nikon D800 purchase? Are you sure?
Tripod mounts were not a problem in 135 because the film plane was so thin they could intrude forward of the plane easily in the delta between the bottom edge of the pressure plate and the shutter. A sensor and supporting electronics cannot accommodate that. So the tripod mount has to locate underneath; one reason why DSLR's are a bit taller than 135 SLR's. Actually, this trend started in the 1990's as bodies became lighter due to plastic construction and the reinforcing necessary to support the big glass had to fill space internally. Plastic needed to be 4x thicker than metal for the same structural integrity, but still be 60% lighter and probably 80% cheaper. From about 1985 on we got cameras bigger in dimension but lighter in weight, across all brands. In fact, Olympus could not make this transition with their OM system and abandoned the SLR market entirely.
The whole idea that a stripped down FF will be affordable does not hold true, nor does the concept that Pentax can simply miniaturize their cameras while others neglect to do so. You think the other companies don't try and make their cameras smaller? There are obviously universal design constraints, so that's why mirrorless is coming up in the rear-view mirror (sic).