Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
10-01-2014, 02:33 PM   #406
Pentaxian
ChristianRock's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Woodstock, GA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 4,532
I agree that SR would be wonderful. But apparently it might have to be a choice of either small body, or body with SR (full frame with SR mechanism would make it a bit bigger than we wish).

Of course, that could mean two models - one with SR and bigger, and one without SR and same size as K-3

10-01-2014, 02:50 PM   #407
Pentaxian
RobA_Oz's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Tasmania, Australia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 4,334
QuoteOriginally posted by ChristianRock Quote
I agree that SR would be wonderful. But apparently it might have to be a choice of either small body, or body with SR (full frame with SR mechanism would make it a bit bigger than we wish).

Of course, that could mean two models - one with SR and bigger, and one without SR and same size as K-3
Why "apparently"? I've already looked at the SR sensor platform, and decided it could probably be modified to fit a 35mm sensor with no change in the envelope. The only question remaining, I think, is whether some early lenses will experience clipping, because of their image circles. Even so, clipping will probably be small for those lenses, so the resultant cropped images (assuming people don't want rounded corners to their images) will still be larger than APS-C, and you might even be able to select an aspect ratio different to the present 3:2.
10-01-2014, 03:01 PM - 2 Likes   #408
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 25,861
The only thing I want out of a Pentax FF, small size, and SR. I don't buy that SR has to make it bigger than a K-3. The sensor will be 36mm by 24mm.. how does that put the SR system as larger than 70mm? Any such assertion means someone understands the costs and limits of the Pentax SR solution. I don't believe anyone here knows that. As for older lenses possibly vignetting because of SR, make it so you can turn SR off... end of problem. No need to leave it out all together, or another mindless solution. SR for those lenses with a large enough image circle, and the latest 70-200 has that, but turn it off when an older lens has a smaller image circle. A good way to sell new lenses, but allow older users to be able to "use their lenses as they were designed to be used", which is what everyone clamours for. None of those older lenses were be designed to be used with SR, so there shouldn't be an issue. If you want SR, you might have to use them on APS-c.
10-02-2014, 08:30 AM   #409
Pentaxian
Fogel70's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,748
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
The only thing I want out of a Pentax FF, small size, and SR. I don't buy that SR has to make it bigger than a K-3. The sensor will be 36mm by 24mm.. how does that put the SR system as larger than 70mm?
An active sensor area of 36x24mm will probably make the size of the whole sensor close to 50x40 mm.



And the the sensor need to move +- 5mm, so the hole in the SR frame has to be at least 60x50mm. with the surrounding frame for the magnets and other parts in the SR mechanism that probably add 10-15mm on each side, so it will probably end with a SR mechanism that needs to be 80-90mm wide and 70-80mm high.

But the steel frame will also affect some other parts in the body. FI the OVF have to be positioned higher up in a FF body as it has to be above the larger steel frame.

10-02-2014, 09:27 AM   #410
Loyal Site Supporter
monochrome's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Kirkwood (St. Louis) MO
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 20,434
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
The only thing I want out of a Pentax FF, small size, and SR. I don't buy that SR has to make it bigger than a K-3. The sensor will be 36mm by 24mm.. how does that put the SR system as larger than 70mm?
In addition to what Fogel70 wrote the mirror, mirrorbox and shutter must be larger. It is possible the mirror motors must be larger to drive the heavier mirror. All that extra mass must be damped somehow to control vibration. All that larger stuff still has to fit around the (new, larger on the K-3) screwdrive motor. Any additional heat must be dissipated somewhere. It is likely the focusing array will be different to cover a larger area - DK if that would mean larger. If it has Wi-Fi the antenna has to be outside the metal frame (assuming they stick to a premium body) and any hinged LCD (645Z-style) might need room. Anything they move has to go somewhere, and move something else. You can go on and on with this line - I assume Pentax engineers have done for years, off and on.

One consideration might be whether the market would accept a smaller IBIS assembly in a smaller camera and a slight crop of the FF sensor to allow for sensor shift. If that was the compromise, would you accept it?.

IMHO the likelihood any coming Premium Pentax FF is the same size as a K-3 is very slim. A less robust, or intentionally simple FF (the Unicorn digital K1000) maybe could work.
10-02-2014, 09:39 AM   #411
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 25,861
QuoteOriginally posted by Fogel70 Quote
An active sensor area of 36x24mm will probably make the size of the whole sensor close to 50x40 mm.



And the the sensor need to move +- 5mm, so the hole in the SR frame has to be at least 60x50mm. with the surrounding frame for the magnets and other parts in the SR mechanism that probably add 10-15mm on each side, so it will probably end with a SR mechanism that needs to be 80-90mm wide and 70-80mm high.

But the steel frame will also affect some other parts in the body. FI the OVF have to be positioned higher up in a FF body as it has to be above the larger steel frame.
Sounds good but makes a lot of assumptions, as I said, I doubt anyone here knows exactly what the constraints are, except for maybe Pentax engineers...
10-02-2014, 10:32 AM   #412
Pentaxian
philbaum's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Port Townsend, Washington State, USA
Posts: 3,659
Nikon (was it D800), Sony (was it A7r) and Pentax (k7) have all had problems with Shutter Shake on images around 1/100s (think that was it).

One way to reduce the amount of mass moving around inside a camera body is to eliminate the mirror assembly, e.g. IIRC the A7 with its electronic second curtain, and the A7s with its electronic shutter, have suffered less or not at all with shutter shock. Would Pentax shooters tolerate a mirrorless camera or one with an electronic shutter to improve image quality at all shutter speeds??? There are trade-offs to any design decision, and only the naive expect perfection in design, and low cost besides.

One advantage Pentax has, is that having designed the 645Z, they should be better prepared to design a full frame chassis. The idea that the K3 body could be used without change is probably not a realistic idea.


QuoteOriginally posted by monochrome Quote
In addition to what Fogel70 wrote the mirror, mirrorbox and shutter must be larger. It is possible the mirror motors must be larger to drive the heavier mirror. All that extra mass must be damped somehow to control vibration. All that larger stuff still has to fit around the (new, larger on the K-3) screwdrive motor. Any additional heat must be dissipated somewhere. It is likely the focusing array will be different to cover a larger area - DK if that would mean larger. If it has Wi-Fi the antenna has to be outside the metal frame (assuming they stick to a premium body) and any hinged LCD (645Z-style) might need room. Anything they move has to go somewhere, and move something else. You can go on and on with this line - I assume Pentax engineers have done for years, off and on.

One consideration might be whether the market would accept a smaller IBIS assembly in a smaller camera and a slight crop of the FF sensor to allow for sensor shift. If that was the compromise, would you accept it?.

IMHO the likelihood any coming Premium Pentax FF is the same size as a K-3 is very slim. A less robust, or intentionally simple FF (the Unicorn digital K1000) maybe could work.
10-02-2014, 10:33 AM   #413
Senior Member




Join Date: Sep 2013
Photos: Albums
Posts: 128
QuoteOriginally posted by monochrome Quote
One consideration might be whether the market would accept a smaller IBIS assembly in a smaller camera and a slight crop of the FF sensor to allow for sensor shift. If that was the compromise, would you accept it?.
That's a compromise that could also be helpful to the image circle of the DAs and the soft perimeter of some of the vintage stuff.

The other compromise, of course, would be to lose the mirror box. A K1000D could look pretty great mirror less.

QuoteOriginally posted by philbaum Quote
Would Pentax shooters tolerate a mirrorless camera or one with an electronic shutter to improve image quality at all shutter speeds???
Oh look, while I was writing this, Philbaum mentioned the mirrorless. I for one have no attachment to the mirror, and around NYC I almost never see people put cameras to their eyes, they are always using the screens. But I do have a sinking feeling that Pentax users are committed to a viewfinder. Maybe they'd be ok with an EVF or an EVF option?


Last edited by easyreeder; 10-02-2014 at 10:39 AM.
10-02-2014, 10:36 AM   #414
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 25,861
QuoteQuote:
One consideration might be whether the market would accept a smaller IBIS assembly in a smaller camera and a slight crop of the FF sensor to allow for sensor shift. If that was the compromise, would you accept it?.
A slight crop to the FF sensor, as In APS-H? See the myriad of threads in which RonH and myself have advocated such a plan, and been booed and hissed at and had cyber-rotten tomatoes thrown at us.
10-02-2014, 10:46 AM   #415
Senior Member




Join Date: Sep 2013
Photos: Albums
Posts: 128
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
A slight crop to the FF sensor, as In APS-H?
Ha, I guess I'm the one fool who liked APS-H. It could also contain the rolling shutter issue of FF, and solve some of the DA image circle problems. If they wanted to make it more appealing, maybe they could go a little wider and call it "Super 35."

Or why not go FF and crop to 1.1 or 1.15? Nobody would care about a .1 crop. That's insanity. You can always move your feet two steps.
10-02-2014, 11:10 AM   #416
Pentaxian
Fogel70's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,748
QuoteOriginally posted by monochrome Quote
One consideration might be whether the market would accept a smaller IBIS assembly in a smaller camera and a slight crop of the FF sensor to allow for sensor shift. If that was the compromise, would you accept it?.
A slightly smaller sensor would not affect size of the camera much, so it will probably just be a marketing suicide for hardly noticeable change in camera size.

How would Ricoh be marketing an "Almost FF" camera against other " Full FF" cameras.
10-02-2014, 11:15 AM   #417
Senior Member
Paul MaudDib's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Michigan
Posts: 292
QuoteOriginally posted by Fogel70 Quote
An active sensor area of 36x24mm will probably make the size of the whole sensor close to 50x40 mm.

And the the sensor need to move +- 5mm, so the hole in the SR frame has to be at least 60x50mm. with the surrounding frame for the magnets and other parts in the SR mechanism that probably add 10-15mm on each side, so it will probably end with a SR mechanism that needs to be 80-90mm wide and 70-80mm high.

But the steel frame will also affect some other parts in the body. FI the OVF have to be positioned higher up in a FF body as it has to be above the larger steel frame.
Sorry, I don't buy this. The Sony A99 is only 110mm tall in total, including a 1.3cm electronic viewfinder. That leaves a total height of ~100mm for the rest of the camera - including sensor, frame, moldings, etc. I'd believe 60mm or so in height, but not 80mm.

Overall the A99, with a full-frame SR sensor, is roughly the same size as the K-3. It might get a bit larger if you designed a true DSLR instead of an EVF SLT type camera of course.
10-02-2014, 11:28 AM   #418
Loyal Site Supporter
monochrome's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Kirkwood (St. Louis) MO
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 20,434
QuoteOriginally posted by easyreeder Quote
But I do have a sinking feeling that Pentax users are committed to a viewfinder. Maybe they'd be ok with an EVF or an EVF option?
For the last 5 or so posters - MILC, EVF and a smaller than FF sensor are NOT options for this discussion. Until they tell us otherwise Ricoh is committed to 100% Optical Viewfinder with a minimum of .95x magnification. That, along with WR and SR are brand-identity points. We're discussing a traditional, mirrored, glass-prism OVF dSLR with a 36x24 sensor installed - and the usual Pentax selling points.

As far as a 'slightly cropped' Sensor - I meant a standard FF sensor from which a small part of the image circle is electronically trimmed to allow a more compact area for sensor movement - I'm hypothesizing 2mm or something per dimension..
10-02-2014, 11:35 AM   #419
Senior Member




Join Date: Sep 2013
Photos: Albums
Posts: 128
QuoteOriginally posted by monochrome Quote
For the last 5 or so posters - MILC, EVF and a smaller than FF sensor are NOT options for this discussion.
On the 1.1 crop, not a smaller sensor, an ff sensor with a slight crop and no additional crop in SR, I think more or less as you say. Of course, the software SR that Pentax is currently employing has other significant problems.
10-02-2014, 11:37 AM   #420
Pentaxian
Fogel70's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,748
QuoteOriginally posted by Paul MaudDib Quote
Sorry, I don't buy this. The Sony A99 is only 110mm tall in total, including a 1.3cm electronic viewfinder. That leaves a total height of ~100mm for the rest of the camera - including sensor, frame, moldings, etc. I'd believe 60mm or so in height, but not 80mm.

Overall the A99, with a full-frame SR sensor, is roughly the same size as the K-3. It might get a bit larger if you designed a true DSLR instead of an EVF SLT type camera of course.
Sony use a completly different type of tech for sensor stabilization, which is a bit more compact than what Pentax use. But it don't have all the options Pentax have.
But the body size on A99 is closer to the size of Nikon D810, than Pentax k-3 (not comparing viewfinder size).
Compact Camera Meter
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, 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