Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
06-25-2014, 07:41 AM   #136
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: GMT +10
Photos: Albums
Posts: 10,594
QuoteOriginally posted by Kunzite Quote
One example would be a better optical viewfinder. Not as good as if removing AF altogether, but they could for example increase the magnification and eye relief, and use higher quality, HD coated optics.
Indeed. Offering the biggest, brightest OVF on the market would be a huge selling point. Not just 5% better than for example the Df or 1Dx viewfinder, but 50-100% better.

In this age of video games, smart phones and extended computer use, people's eyes are getting worse. Dim, tiny little viewfinders simply don't cut it anymore.

06-25-2014, 07:49 AM   #137
Veteran Member
Andi Lo's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Halifax, Nova Scotia
Posts: 2,925
QuoteOriginally posted by rawr Quote
Indeed. Offering the biggest, brightest OVF on the market would be a huge selling point. Not just 5% better than for example the Df or 1Dx viewfinder, but 50-100% better.

In this age of video games, smart phones and extended computer use, people's eyes are getting worse. Dim, tiny little viewfinders simply don't cut it anymore.
If it has MX viewfinder I'd buy it in a hearbeat
06-25-2014, 07:51 AM   #138
Pentaxian
Na Horuk's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Slovenia, probably
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 10,331
The problem with making the viewfinder bigger is:
-it increases overall camera size, weight and cost
-it means the viewfinder is darker (same light over a wider area)
-needs bigger focusing screens

That being said, I would love a DSLR with a SLR-style viewfinder. If the tiny m42 SLR cameras can have a huge window of a viewfinder, why not give us at least part of that. Also, Pentax stated some time ago that all future viewfinders would be 100% coverage, if i remember correctly, which is a nice trend. Lots of brands "cut corners" in this department
06-25-2014, 07:52 AM   #139
Senior Member




Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Hamburg
Posts: 287
QuoteOriginally posted by ChristianRock Quote
I don't understand why people want a camera with *only* the features they use, and want everybody else denied theirs. How egotistic and narcissistic can one get?

"I don't use video so NO ONE should be allowed to have it!"

"I only use RAW so JPEG should be OUTLAWED!!!"

Just use the features you want and ignore those you don't. Shheesh.
Hey, don't take it personally. Simply indulge those with tastes simpler than yours and don't feel like anyone is denying you the full benefit of your wishes and desires. And tell me, how many ff cameras are out there? How many of them deny you the full glory of video? And who said anything about outlawing jpegs?

Come to think of it though, accusing me of egomaniacal narcissism is really, well 'unchristian' Rocko.

---------- Post added 25-06-14 at 17:07 ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by Na Horuk Quote
The problem with making the viewfinder bigger is:
-it increases overall camera size, weight and cost
-it means the viewfinder is darker (same light over a wider area)
-needs bigger focusing screens

That being said, I would love a DSLR with a SLR-style viewfinder. If the tiny m42 SLR cameras can have a huge window of a viewfinder, why not give us at least part of that. Also, Pentax stated some time ago that all future viewfinders would be 100% coverage, if i remember correctly, which is a nice trend. Lots of brands "cut corners" in this department
This discussion of better OVF takes place in the full format sub-forum for just that reason: the larger sensor allows/requires a larger mirror which allows for a larger finder - without any loss of light.

06-25-2014, 08:22 AM   #140
Pentaxian
ChristianRock's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Marietta, GA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 4,048
QuoteOriginally posted by eyeswideshut Quote
Come to think of it though, accusing me of egomaniacal narcissism is really, well 'unchristian' Rocko.[COLOR="Silver"]
I've said this before, Christian is my real name.

Also, I was being tongue in cheek... have a sense of humor, will ya...
06-25-2014, 08:39 AM   #141
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Romania
Posts: 8,426
QuoteOriginally posted by Na Horuk Quote
The problem with making the viewfinder bigger is:
-it increases overall camera size, weight and cost
-it means the viewfinder is darker (same light over a wider area)
-needs bigger focusing screens
Yes, but I consider that a small price to pay. Let's say... +$100 for this feature alone would be something I'd pay without blinking (I don't know about others though).
Unfortunately, marketing might dictate a somewhat smaller camera

---------- Post added 25-06-14 at 07:06 PM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by eyeswideshut Quote
Agreed, and I never advocated removing shake reduction. It is Live View / Video that I'm after, more specifically the argument that there are no costs involved.
There is a cost involved - the cost of restricting the target market

QuoteOriginally posted by eyeswideshut Quote
My argument was not space but heat and mass resulting in more noise and less battery life. Without being an engineer, I just have the sneaking suspicion that the sensor assembly is slowly being overwrought with too many 'goodies' and the example of Sony going from a900 to a7/r and a99 seems to bear that out. It would also jibe with rumors that circulated awhile back that it was precisiely the issue of scaling the sensor to 35mm while retaining all previous capabilities that was holding back pentax engineers.
Having the same sensor but with LV/movie disabled vs. having the same sensor but with LV/movie not used should be about the same.
We're talking about an off-the-shelf, probably Sony sensor coupled to a Fujitsu Milbeaut processor - so Pentax doesn't have to scale them.

QuoteOriginally posted by eyeswideshut Quote
True enough and I admire the way Leica transitioned their M series from film to digital (well probably excluding the somewhat ill fated M8) while remeaining true to the spirit of the camera. I would love a similar feat from Pentax. The modern features (evf, live view, video) are only skin deep and can be taken off - and of course they don't do image stabilization on the sensor level - or any level for that matter.
But what prompted Leica to include them?

QuoteOriginally posted by eyeswideshut Quote
Agreed on the likely price point, but I beg to disagree on the poor sales outlook. I have said this before - all proposals I have read on this ff sub-forum basically suggest either a better CaNikon or a better Sony a7/r (and sometimes even a lesser camera if the price is right). None of that will likely elicit more than a passing yawn from users of those brands. Pentax, however, relying solely on upselling good Pentaxians to ff will likely find that 'PentaxIsDoomed'.
What I'm suggesting is a better Pentax. I am against Pentax/Ricoh making a better Canikonywhatever.
06-25-2014, 09:36 AM   #142
Site Supporter




Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,892
Wow. The K-3 is a better D7100 now.
06-25-2014, 09:58 AM   #143
Pentaxian
ChristianRock's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Marietta, GA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 4,048
QuoteOriginally posted by Kunzite Quote
What I'm suggesting is a better Pentax. I am against Pentax/Ricoh making a better Canikonywhatever.
How about Fujcanikonympusonyc.

The issue with "better Pentax" is that Pentax always innovated - not for the sake of innovation, but because Pentax has always tried to be the company that gives tools to real world photographers (as in, not the ones that just buy stuff to show off or to collect gear). That is why they offer SR, which wasn't very "Pentax" when it came out. But now it is. Same with the SR-based AAA filter - very innovative, and now very Pentax...

06-25-2014, 01:41 PM   #144
Senior Member




Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Hamburg
Posts: 287
QuoteOriginally posted by Kunzite Quote
There is a cost involved - the cost of restricting the target market
Indeed, restricting, properly defining and finally serving your target market is the key!

QuoteQuote:
Having the same sensor but with LV/movie disabled vs. having the same sensor but with LV/movie not used should be about the same.
We're talking about an off-the-shelf, probably Sony sensor coupled to a Fujitsu Milbeaut processor - so Pentax doesn't have to scale them.
Don't forget that the ability to dissipate that extra energy/heat has to be built in and moved regardless of wether you use lv/video or not.

QuoteQuote:
But what prompted Leica to include them?
Beats me, perhaps a Pentaxian 'Me Too' impulse?


QuoteQuote:
What I'm suggesting is a better Pentax. I am against Pentax/Ricoh making a better Canikonywhatever.
No issue here
06-25-2014, 01:48 PM   #145
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Romania
Posts: 8,426
Restricting the target market only works if you find people willing to pay more for your products.

I don't see any noticeable heatsink on the Pentax DSLR sensors; about what ability to dissipate extra energy are you talking?
06-25-2014, 02:17 PM   #146
Senior Member




Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Hamburg
Posts: 287
QuoteOriginally posted by Kunzite Quote
Restricting the target market only works if you find people willing to pay more for your products.

I don't see any noticeable heatsink on the Pentax DSLR sensors; about what ability to dissipate extra energy are you talking?
Any and all products serve a restricted target market, your idea of a proper pentax ff does too. Having no sense of audience or market is perhaps the greatest threat to successful product development. Just because you think you can hit more flies with your swatter doesn't mean it'l be a better camera.

Heat sink is not the size of your pc perhaps but yes, energy => heat has to go somewhere. I did not want to get too technical on this as there are others undoubtedly far more knowledgeable, but check this patent application from Canon Patent US8207489 - Imaging apparatus having heat dissipation structure for image sensor - Google Patente and here's one from Nikon Nikon Seeks to Solve Camera Overheating with Removable Heat Storage Patent
Manufacturers have to deal with this more and more as demands on the sensor increase. Pentax is facing the same problems of course.
06-25-2014, 03:10 PM   #147
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Romania
Posts: 8,426
So there are no mass products?
We're talking about restricting the target from the people who might buy a Pentax DSLR, to only those who would buy one without video nor live view; that, when Leica included video in their M-series cameras and the world is moving toward 4K. No video at all. No live view, which is useful - for stills - in many occasions. No tethering with live feed. We're talking about a niche within a niche within the niche of their small market share and brand recognition.
I'm not saying they shouldn't do it, that it absolutely can work; I just don't see any good reason for doing it. The Df is marketing and it's almost as expensive as a D800 - while being based on the D600 and apparently is not selling well; would we accept a similar product? Would we pay more for it?
In the absence of something convincing, I'd say they should make a product appealing to a broader audience.

Those are patents, not products - camera makers are able to offer video and live view without that (and Pentax would have a problem transferring heat from the mobile sensor due to in-body SR). If they can offer video in the current products, then removing video and live view just to avoid adding heatsinks doesn't make any sense.
06-25-2014, 03:43 PM   #148
Senior Member




Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Hamburg
Posts: 287
QuoteOriginally posted by Kunzite Quote
So there are no mass products?
Sure, the bible

QuoteQuote:
We're talking about restricting the target from the people who might buy a Pentax DSLR, to only those who would buy one without video nor live view; that, when Leica included video in their M-series cameras and the world is moving toward 4K. No video at all. No live view, which is useful - for stills - in many occasions. No tethering with live feed. We're talking about a niche within a niche within the niche of their small market share and brand recognition.
Without some real technical expertise we won't settle this, but I still find it very telling that an electronics giant like Sony did just this, dropping Shake reduction in favor of live view and video. Now we had already agreed that sr is the more important, right? Why then do YOU think Sony dropped a unique selling proposition like SR? Certainly not just for the hell of it. They undoubtedly faced some of the very same problems that Pentax is facing - and which have already been discussed before as holding up Pentax development. So sometimes perhaps you just can't have it all and choices need to be made.

QuoteQuote:
I'm not saying they shouldn't do it, that it absolutely can work; I just don't see any good reason for doing it.
Not seeing is your prerogative of course. I did however point out that the BEST viewfinder clashes with autofocus and slow zooms and that a unique offer from Pentax could turn this reality into a product by either dropping phase detect autofocus or finding an ingenious way of bringing it in without compromising the viewfinder. Perhaps there is a way, I just don't know it. On sensor pdaf of course falls flat as it requires the mirror to be up - rendering the viewfinder useless. Katzeye is not the answer either. I tried that and it is miserable.

QuoteQuote:
The Df is marketing and it's almost as expensive as a D800 - while being based on the D600 and apparently is not selling well; would we accept a similar product? Would we pay more for it? In the absence of something convincing, I'd say they should make a product appealing to a broader audience.
Assumprions assumptions assumptions without engaging my arguments. Come on. The Df is a camera done wrong imho, I had already said that. As I had already said that, it goes without saying that I would not be enthused about an even more expensive Pentax version, right? And finally, I already made the case that a basic but excellent ff dslr with the best viewfinder in the business IS broadly appealing. Appealed to you too. But there is no such thing as a free lunch and coming back to the sensor, there may (I'd love to be proven wrong) be no way to combine shake reduction, video, anti alias filtering and sensor cleaning all within one 35mm asembly. You have not presented even the faintest hint of an argument that it may in fact be achievable for pentax - for under $2500,-. Sony seems to have failed.

QuoteQuote:
Those are patents, not products - camera makers are able to offer video and live view without that (and Pentax would have a problem transferring heat from the mobile sensor due to in-body SR). If they can offer video in the current products, then removing video and live view just to avoid adding heatsinks doesn't make any sense.
Those are patents because the problems they address are basic to all electric signal processing, wether it is your camera, your smartphone or your computer.
Heat needs to be dissipated or it'll fry your circuitry and the more capable your circuitry becomes, the faster it'll fry in the absence of measures to dissipate heat.
Now that is not difficult to understand. Or perhaps I am just a bit dense this evening and you will tell me how it works when you come back to explain Sony's decision to drop shake reduction in favor of video .
06-25-2014, 04:23 PM   #149
Site Supporter




Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,892
QuoteOriginally posted by eyeswideshut Quote
Without some real technical expertise we won't settle this, but I still find it very telling that an electronics giant like Sony did just this, dropping Shake reduction in favor of live view and video. Now we had already agreed that sr is the more important, right? Why then do YOU think Sony dropped a unique selling proposition like SR?
Important point - the Pentax 645, with a sensor a bit bigger than 36x24, doesn't have sensor stabilization either. So it's not just Sony that's made the decision.

The 645 is more of a Studio camera than the Sony's, of course, but the 645 is also much mor expensive and 'deserves' or 'requires' the best, too.
06-25-2014, 04:47 PM   #150
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Romania
Posts: 8,426
QuoteOriginally posted by eyeswideshut Quote
Sure, the bible
The smartphone market was around 1 billion units, last year. That's mass market. The total camera production was 61 million units, and that's only CIPA members. I'm sure we can find mass market products there, too.

QuoteOriginally posted by eyeswideshut Quote
Without some real technical expertise we won't settle this, but I still find it very telling that an electronics giant like Sony did just this, dropping Shake reduction in favor of live view and video. Now we had already agreed that sr is the more important, right? Why then do YOU think Sony dropped a unique selling proposition like SR? Certainly not just for the hell of it. They undoubtedly faced some of the very same problems that Pentax is facing - and which have already been discussed before as holding up Pentax development. So sometimes perhaps you just can't have it all and choices need to be made.
Hold your horses. Sony dropping in-body stabilization in favor of live view and video? That's a pretty big assumption you're making, and I'd say an unfounded one - unless you have any proof that the two are mutually exclusive? Unlikely, as Sony SLTs and Pentax DSLRs have both.

QuoteOriginally posted by eyeswideshut Quote
Not seeing is your prerogative of course. I did however point out that the BEST viewfinder clashes with autofocus and slow zooms and that a unique offer from Pentax could turn this reality into a product by either dropping phase detect autofocus or finding an ingenious way of bringing it in without compromising the viewfinder. Perhaps there is a way, I just don't know it. On sensor pdaf of course falls flat as it requires the mirror to be up - rendering the viewfinder useless. Katzeye is not the answer either. I tried that and it is miserable.
I'm not sure what's your point here, you jumped from "no video and live view" to "no autofocus for a better viewfinder"...

QuoteOriginally posted by eyeswideshut Quote
Assumprions assumptions assumptions without engaging my arguments. Come on. The Df is a camera done wrong imho, I had already said that. As I had already said that, it goes without saying that I would not be enthused about an even more expensive Pentax version, right? And finally, I already made the case that a basic but excellent ff dslr with the best viewfinder in the business IS broadly appealing. Appealed to you too. But there is no such thing as a free lunch and coming back to the sensor, there may (I'd love to be proven wrong) be no way to combine shake reduction, video, anti alias filtering and sensor cleaning all within one 35mm asembly. You have not presented even the faintest hint of an argument that it may in fact be achievable for pentax - for under $2500,-. Sony seems to have failed.
Not assumptions but questions which must be asked. Again: would we pay more for a camera with features removed? In order to do so, these features must be replaced by something with a greater perceived value (be it only marketing, though that's unlikely for Ricoh/Pentax). Which is that? Just knowing our camera would be cooler?

Why won't you try to prove me that it's not achievable, instead of asking me to prove otherwise?

QuoteOriginally posted by eyeswideshut Quote
Those are patents because the problems they address are basic to all electric signal processing, wether it is your camera, your smartphone or your computer.
Heat needs to be dissipated or it'll fry your circuitry and the more capable your circuitry becomes, the faster it'll fry in the absence of measures to dissipate heat.
Now that is not difficult to understand. Or perhaps I am just a bit dense this evening and you will tell me how it works when you come back to explain Sony's decision to drop shake reduction in favor of video .
No, they are patents because IP must be protected The K-3 works quite well without any such heat dissipation system so I'm not sure what you're trying to prove.

The one thing I'll tell you is that I won't discuss assumptions I don't agree with.
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!
24x36mm, camera, cameras, challenge, change, display, dslr, features, ff, full-frame, image, issue, lenses, light, live, market, mirrorless, mode, money, pentax, post, sensor, system, technology, video, view, viewfinder
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Could Different Sensors Be Compared To Different Films? rbefly Pentax DSLR Discussion 6 01-15-2014 06:36 AM
DA lenses that could be used on FF toukan Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 4 11-28-2013 05:04 AM
How could a Pentax FF be cost effective? normhead Non-Pentax Cameras: Canon, Nikon, etc. 3 09-18-2012 12:18 PM
FF Pentax could be like Nikon D3 Denis Pentax News and Rumors 7 08-01-2008 09:05 PM
Pentax hybrid FF camera. Could it be real? ogl Pentax News and Rumors 38 07-07-2008 04:27 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:27 PM. | See also: NikonForums.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