Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
06-25-2014, 06:18 PM   #151
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: GMT +10
Photos: Albums
Posts: 10,600
QuoteOriginally posted by eyeswideshut Quote
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
Why look at patent drawings when you can see a whole camera tear-down:
Ifixit tear down of the D600

The D600 'heatsink' is visible here, being removed, doing double duty as EM shielding. Interestingly, the heat sink isn't even directly in contact with the sensor:


The heat-sink of the mirrorless NEX-7 is also visible here, sitting within a very compact body: (image from Sony Alpha Labs NEX-7 tear down):


Camera sensor heatsinks don't need to be as beefy as the heatsinks on over-clocked home PC's. Fundamentally, they aren't drawing that much power.


Last edited by rawr; 06-25-2014 at 06:24 PM.
06-25-2014, 06:53 PM   #152
Veteran Member
wullemaha's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Tokyo
Posts: 503
QuoteOriginally posted by rawr Quote
Interestingly, the heat sink isn't even directly in contact with the sensor:
From an engineers point of view, I don't think it has to. Would be more effective of course...

QuoteOriginally posted by Kunzite Quote
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.
I do not have a K-3 to tear apart to check in detail, but I am pretty sure the K-3 has a way of dissipating its heat as well.
On the other hand, if a system does not have enough heat dissipation capacity, it has to limit the function to make sure that even with shitty heat dissipation, the parts will not be damaged. That's not specific to cameras, but valid for all electronics.
For example, if you cannot prevent overheating by getting the heat out, you have to limit the video length, etc...

For my part, I am not sure whether eyeswideshut's idea of a camera would sell well - I am not that interested in the DSLR camera market.
But I for one would love the camera he described. Not having AF might be a challenge again, but hell, why not.
Live view? Never use it. Video? Never used it.
Most of the people that I know that own DSLR's only use the video function once when they buy it, and then check "oh look, it does videos...", but after that never touch it again.

But not to step on any toes, that's just the people I know :-)
06-25-2014, 11:49 PM   #153
Site Supporter




Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: North
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,780
QuoteOriginally posted by eyeswideshut Quote
eo is said to be horrible and it really is a MILC in DSLR clothing anyway.

So from my own very personal perspective I would like to see a digital K1000 with stellar iq and old style optical view finder (interchangeable). No customizable buttons please. Indeed - and now I'm taking my luddism to extremes - I would rather they dropped autofocus than compromise on the ground glass micro/split prism goodness of the viewfinder. If they can bring phase detection back in on the chip, fine. But if the price is a semi-translucent portion of the main mirror which then interferes with the viewfinder I would rather they didn't.

PS. This of course assumes they are working on a DSLR and not some MILC camera.[COLOR=Silver]
Er...
You just described a Canon 5D or 1Ds
12mp (easy on old lenses); as much mp as most really need
Focus screen easily swapped out for the better EEg one.
No frills (poor lcd by todays standards to be not worth using; no SR; slow AF )
What you do get is a very nice OVF+focusing screen MF camera that meters well with quite good AWB.


The good focusing screen is already available.
Its the EEG (for 5D ) and EES (for 5DII)
06-26-2014, 01:53 AM   #154
Senior Member




Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Hamburg
Posts: 287
QuoteOriginally posted by pinholecam Quote
Er...
You just described a Canon 5D or 1Ds
12mp (easy on old lenses); as much mp as most really need
Focus screen easily swapped out for the better EEg one.
No frills (poor lcd by todays standards to be not worth using; no SR; slow AF )
What you do get is a very nice OVF+focusing screen MF camera that meters well with quite good AWB.


The good focusing screen is already available.
Its the EEG (for 5D ) and EES (for 5DII)
Good try Pinholecam. But no, I think I'll pass.
I'd really like to see a viewfinder with a magnification of 1, not 0.7. Think Pentax MX rather than Canon 5d (or even the 1D which i believe has the largest viewfinder of any current slr?). I'm not familiar with the EE-G screen but the EE-S gets close, basically one that still brightens the image as you go past f/2.8 to wider apertures. Yes! Micro prism and split level? Yes! Of course in such a way that metering still works .

Now these finders are relatively expensive to manufacture and so I would personally be happy to compromise on some of the other features that many here deem absolutely essential. I had addressed autofocus / pdaf because that is what led into the development of "sub par" viewfinders in the first place and the sensor assembly which may be in danger of being completely overwrought with 'features' that no longer contribute to photography but simply make the assembly more complex, increase heat and noise and drain the battery quickly.

Regarding the megapixel count I'm completely agnostic and I'll take whatever Pentax engineers deem the best (or whatever their purchsing department can get a good deal on...)

06-26-2014, 02:31 AM   #155
Site Supporter




Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: North
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,780
QuoteOriginally posted by eyeswideshut Quote
Good try Pinholecam. But no, I think I'll pass.
I'd really like to see a viewfinder with a magnification of 1, not 0.7. Think Pentax MX rather than Canon 5d (or even the 1D which i believe has the largest viewfinder of any current slr?). I'm not familiar with the EE-G screen but the EE-S gets close, basically one that still brightens the image as you go past f/2.8 to wider apertures. Yes! Micro prism and split level? Yes! Of course in such a way that metering still works .

Now these finders are relatively expensive to manufacture and so I would personally be happy to compromise on some of the other features that many here deem absolutely essential. I had addressed autofocus / pdaf because that is what led into the development of "sub par" viewfinders in the first place and the sensor assembly which may be in danger of being completely overwrought with 'features' that no longer contribute to photography but simply make the assembly more complex, increase heat and noise and drain the battery quickly.

Regarding the megapixel count I'm completely agnostic and I'll take whatever Pentax engineers deem the best (or whatever their purchsing department can get a good deal on...)

Magnification problem also solved easily with the Pentax magnifying eyepiece or a 3rd party 1.3x one
(I had both)

You can't get the best of both worlds with precision focusing screen and bright finder.
The EES screen darkens when the lens is darker than f2.8
To get more light into the viewfinder, you'd need a 100% mirror (nothing going thru to the PDAF system)
Of course MX, ME had such mirrors since they had no AF and thus the brighter viewfinder.
One can 'hack' a 5D to use such a mirror, but it would probably need shimming on the focusing screen to get it right between sensor and f.screen.


Its 3mths from Photokina.
Lets see what happens.
06-26-2014, 03:26 AM   #156
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Romania
Posts: 8,428
QuoteOriginally posted by wullemaha Quote
I do not have a K-3 to tear apart to check in detail, but I am pretty sure the K-3 has a way of dissipating its heat as well.
On the other hand, if a system does not have enough heat dissipation capacity, it has to limit the function to make sure that even with shitty heat dissipation, the parts will not be damaged. That's not specific to cameras, but valid for all electronics.
For example, if you cannot prevent overheating by getting the heat out, you have to limit the video length, etc...
That's the theory, and I'm not disputing it. But then, there's the practical part: how much heat is actually generated and by which components? Heatsinks (if necessary) would be sized accordingly.
I don't see any sizable heatsink in the cut-in-half Pentax cameras. I'm talking about something that, when removed, would significantly reduce the camera size (of course, it would have to be not needed at all in a non-video camera).

QuoteOriginally posted by wullemaha Quote
For my part, I am not sure whether eyeswideshut's idea of a camera would sell well - I am not that interested in the DSLR camera market.
But I for one would love the camera he described. Not having AF might be a challenge again, but hell, why not.
Live view? Never use it. Video? Never used it.
Most of the people that I know that own DSLR's only use the video function once when they buy it, and then check "oh look, it does videos...", but after that never touch it again.
I wouldn't buy it:
AF is essential (my eyes aren't that good)
Live View is useful, for deliberate, precise focusing.
Video is useful... for broadening the target market and decreasing the product's price

IMO this kind of product would have no technical justification, no cost advantage - it would be sold just through marketing, just like Nikon's attempt with the Df. I can't think of a way to market it, though, and marketing isn't Ricoh/Pentax' forte anyway.
06-26-2014, 03:29 AM   #157
Senior Member




Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Hamburg
Posts: 287
QuoteOriginally posted by pinholecam Quote
Magnification problem also solved easily with the Pentax magnifying eyepiece or a 3rd party 1.3x one
(I had both)
I have the Pentax O-ME53 eyepiece permanently on my K20 plus a Katzeye screen. But that doesn't even get close to where I want to get. Such an eyepiece does not make the finder any larger. That'll have to come from the pentaprism. FF will help of course.

QuoteQuote:
You can't get the best of both worlds with precision focusing screen and bright finder.
The EES screen darkens when the lens is darker than f2.8
To get more light into the viewfinder, you'd need a 100% mirror (nothing going thru to the PDAF system)
Of course MX, ME had such mirrors since they had no AF and thus the brighter viewfinder.
Exactly and that is why I said, in a pinch I would prefer a camera that ditches autofocus IF that is the only way to get an MX style finder. But perhaps there is a way that I am not aware of? And if there isn't, then Pentax have created a wonderful tool for people shooting primes manually. It sucks at autofocusing zoom lenses - which every other camera does abundantly well, BUT excels at something that all other cameras do very poorly. That is not such a bad approach I think.
(It would also keep r&d $ well controlled as the problems involved in manufacturing such a finder were solved decades ago .)

QuoteQuote:
One can 'hack' a 5D to use such a mirror, but it would probably need shimming on the focusing screen to get it right between sensor and f.screen.


Its 3mths from Photokina.
Lets see what happens.
Not much of a hacker myself, I'd prefer Pentax do it for me and yes, come september we'll know more!
06-26-2014, 03:33 AM   #158
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Romania
Posts: 8,428
QuoteOriginally posted by eyeswideshut Quote
I have the Pentax O-ME53 eyepiece permanently on my K20 plus a Katzeye screen. But that doesn't even get close to where I want to get. Such an eyepiece does not make the finder any larger. That'll have to come from the pentaprism. FF will help of course.
I agree. And I wear glasses, I can't see the entire viewfinder through the O-ME53 on APS-C cameras.

QuoteOriginally posted by pinholecam Quote
Its 3mths from Photokina.
Lets see what happens.
What will happen? Nothing much, I'd say.

06-26-2014, 03:48 AM   #159
Senior Member




Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Hamburg
Posts: 287
QuoteOriginally posted by rawr Quote
Why look at patent drawings when you can see a whole camera tear-down:
Ifixit tear down of the D600

The D600 'heatsink' is visible here, being removed, doing double duty as EM shielding. Interestingly, the heat sink isn't even directly in contact with the sensor:


The heat-sink of the mirrorless NEX-7 is also visible here, sitting within a very compact body: (image from Sony Alpha Labs NEX-7 tear down):


Camera sensor heatsinks don't need to be as beefy as the heatsinks on over-clocked home PC's. Fundamentally, they aren't drawing that much power.
Thanks for the link. Very very interesting stuff.
06-26-2014, 04:00 AM   #160
Site Supporter




Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: North
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,780
QuoteOriginally posted by Kunzite Quote

What will happen? Nothing much, I'd say.
Yeah... better not to expect much, then its easier to get surprised and happy if it happens.
06-26-2014, 04:20 AM   #161
Pentaxian
Fogel70's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,737
QuoteOriginally posted by Kunzite Quote
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.
I agree, and on a camera without video/LV the heat issue still exist. At least if Bulb-mode and long exposure times is to be supported.



I believe it's many reasons for Sony to choose to design mirrorless camera without sensor stabilization. Heat might be parts of the equation, but probably not the most important one.
1. Sonys sensor stabilization is designed by Konica/Minolta, and Sony might not have had the resources needed for re-design it for mirrorless. It might have been a potential risk of delaying the release of Nex.
2. Minimizing camera body size might have been higher priority than to keep in-body stabilization.
3. Minimizing need of moving parts in the camera might have been a important part of the project. Makes it cheaper to produce the camera as manufacturing and QC are simplified. Fewer parts to be manufactured and easier to automate production. Lower risk for QC issues.
4. They might want to have stabilized viewfinder on the camera, but using sensor stabilisation drain the battery quicker than optical stabilisation.
5. Optical stabilisation is usually quieter than sensor stabilization, so optical stabilization might work better for the targeted market for Nex.
06-26-2014, 04:57 AM   #162
Senior Member




Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Hamburg
Posts: 287
QuoteOriginally posted by Kunzite Quote
IMO this kind of product would have no technical justification, no cost advantage - it would be sold just through marketing, just like Nikon's attempt with the Df. I can't think of a way to market it, though, and marketing isn't Ricoh/Pentax' forte anyway.
Hey Kunzite it's perfectly allright for us to disagree but I would at least expect of you an appreciation that a camera optimized for manually focusing prime lenses does answer a definite need of many or perhaps just some photographers - even if it doesn't turn your crank. Eh? It is decidedly NOT a question of simple marketing.
06-26-2014, 05:29 AM   #163
Pentaxian
Clavius's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: De Klundert
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 4,115
Sacrificing usefull features is a very plausible way of making room for other/better features. This however, isn't the case with autofocus at all. It's just crippling a product in order to do something that can be done with any AF camera too with the flick of a switch. I don't even think it would decrease the cost price of such a camera very much. In fact, it could even be so niche / such a limited production run, that the whole exercise makes it more expensive.

Now sacrificing a mirror, mirror mechanism, prism and vf optics (that only increase the cost price of the camera and which they can't get to work correctly anyway) and to replace it with something more up to date, less costly and more reliable seems to make perfect sense.
06-26-2014, 05:42 AM   #164
Senior Member




Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Hamburg
Posts: 287
QuoteOriginally posted by Clavius Quote
Sacrificing usefull features is a very plausible way of making room for other/better features. This however, isn't the case with autofocus at all. It's just crippling a product in order to do something that can be done with any AF camera too with the flick of a switch. I don't even think it would decrease the cost price of such a camera very much. In fact, it could even be so niche / such a limited production run, that the whole exercise makes it more expensive.

Now sacrificing a mirror, mirror mechanism, prism and vf optics (that only increase the cost price of the camera and which they can't get to work correctly anyway) and to replace it with something more up to date, less costly and more reliable seems to make perfect sense.
You probably did not follow this discussion lately. Right now we are looking at a viewfinder with 100% coverage and 1.0 magnification - the kind of thing that has not been manufactured in ages - precisely because it clashes with pdaf and autofocus. How would you then propose to solve that? (Hint: evf and milc are cop outs in the context of this discussion ) It is not as simple as flicking a switch unfortunately.
06-26-2014, 06:11 AM   #165
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Romania
Posts: 8,428
QuoteOriginally posted by eyeswideshut Quote
Hey Kunzite it's perfectly allright for us to disagree but I would at least expect of you an appreciation that a camera optimized for manually focusing prime lenses does answer a definite need of many or perhaps just some photographers - even if it doesn't turn your crank. Eh? It is decidedly NOT a question of simple marketing.
The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. I accept that there might be some people:
1. with no need for autofocus
2. which would buy modern (and not cheap!) manual focus lenses
3. which would pay more for a non-AF modern camera (than for a fully-featured one).
I just don't think there are enough of them. Of course, I'm not one of them - I need autofocus.

Regarding the 100% viewfinder, a part of the solution is in-body stabilization I read some time ago that Pentax found a less expensive solution by using SR for viewfinder alignment.
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 12:42 AM. | 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