[mecrox]

@Clavius: eyeswideshut's suggestion does have advantages, namely a brighter viewfinder, that as a result can be bigger. However that advantage comes with a trade-off that I'm afraid for many will be just too big. And such a camera also appeals to customers who want to recycle old lenses. Unless Pentax is going to make new MF only lenses (they could perhaps justify it if they made a much more video centric camera) that's not what they want. Also, these MF only lenses are usually _very_ expensive. Canon sells their MF only primes for $5000 each IIRC, and that is relatively affordable. I'm afraid of those who would actually want such a camera, many are rather budget conscious (including eyeswideshut, who wants a relatively cheap FF camera IIRC).


Hm. A Pentax FF camera, mirrorless or not, with that A7s sensor would be tempting, as long as dimensions and weight are there.


@eyeswideshut: I'm the one talking about a FF K-3, not Kunzite. Moving the K-3 successor upmarket, and then building the same camera (complete with FF viewfinder) with APS-C and FF sensors (perhaps even 2 versions, one with the A7s sensor, one with a more conventional one) would be appealing to me. They just need to keep the size and weight low enough.


Am I the only one who finds a larger than sensor viewfinder appealing? It was IIRC touted as an advantage of the Sigma, and it's also an advantage on rangefinder cameras. It's great for street photography. It's great for sports photography. Anything where there is movement. It makes it much easier to await the right moment for your composition, if your motive is moving. Pentax wants to be different? Then be different.

Ricoh could just as easily take a leaf from the books of Canon and Nikon. So, the K3 remains as it is, rather like the Canon 7D. The main action moves down a level to the successor to the K50. What would have replaced the K3, and all cameras which might have followed it, is an FF number. The APS-C lenses remain more or less as they are, with just a few updates and replacements from time to time. Future lens action moves into the FF arena (which of course the APS-C folks can use). This seems to have worked fairly well for Canon and Nikon, since despite complaints from some people their financial returns have held up, so why should it not work for Pentax? One could argue that the challenge for Pentax isn't to be completely different, since that puts off as many customers as it attracts. It is to be just different enough. And given the conservatism of their new owners, it's not perhaps realistic to expect fireworks. Solid business sense seems to be the order of the day now. I admit I find that dull as heck, but then photocopiers are pretty dull to begin with and at least Pentax is still in business. For wild and wacky stuff - things which might just catch the moment and chart high - they still have one-off Ricoh-branded cameras to play with.

---

Last edited by mecrox; 07-04-2014 at 09:54 AM.

[normhead]

It would certainly have something extra over a mediocre try-to-please-all 24/36mp late-to-the-party why-would-anybody-get-one FF DSLR.

Especially since I just passed only K-x to my step son' girlfriend this spring. (My way of creating new Pentaxians.)
It's not like most of us don't understand when we can get away with 12 Mp.

[RonHendriks1966]

It would certainly have something extra over a mediocre try-to-please-all 24/36mp late-to-the-party why-would-anybody-get-one FF DSLR.

This is offcourse a serious issue since Pentax is late at the party and because off the economics the party is getting a bit lame....

[kadajawi]

@mecrox: I'd argue that Pentax profits from Canon and Nikon ignoring APS-C. That gave Pentax the chance to do something different. A camera that is as serious as it can get with APS-C. It also differentiated with SR, WR (to an extend that Canikon don't offer) and that all is packed into a little bundle of joy... great to use, comfortable enough to carry around (Canikons APS-C flagships are really about the size of their FF offerings...). Pentax can attract the crowd who are fed up with Canikon's monsters, but for whom mFT is a bit small.


Sadly Pentax' marketing isn't really taking advantage of the benefits of shooting Pentax... I'm sure they could steal some of those moving from FF to mFT if they put some effort in it (of course that also means the video part should be nice too. Olympus offers sensor based video stabilization! Pentax could to... they did long before Olympus).


What I really don't get is why Pentax went through the effort of adding a headphone jack for proper audio monitoring to the K-3 (adding cost to every camera produced), and then made the firmware so extremely lacklustre, deactivating video features that were great on previous Pentax cameras.

[Kayaker-J]

How I wish that somebody at Ricoch/Pentax would read that !!
,,,
' >' manntax

* Ref. -- Paul MaudDib, 6-03-14...

I'm with you, too, Paul & manntax! I'd buy one fast. But I would also suggest that full frame might be not be as practical, for either Ricoh Imaging [lack of fully modern full frame, fully compatible lenses] or for many, even most, users... IF Brian Caldwell and Metabones could be persuaded to make the Speed Booster for Pentax whatever-you-call-it mount! I would discount suggestions that this would not be a cost effective approach for users in the long run: a Speed Booster will have a much longer 'competitive' life than a camera model, both for the original owner and in the secondary market. I'd choose that approach preferentially myself at this time, taking into account the big picture. No pun intended.*

* Consider what some Sony A7R owners must be thinking already, given the "quiet shutter" performance of the A7S!

[philbaum]

What i like about recent posts on this thread - they were more of the positive brain-storming what is possible type thread - rather than the argumentative - let's shoot down every new idea type thread.

Several posts back - sorry i'm late about catching up - there was a discussion of having a large viewfinder - one that would even extend beyond the picture frame - so one could anticipate the subject moving into the frame.

I think thats an important concept and somewhat new to cameras. But its not new to the younger generations who are being raised with smartphone monitor views and even tablet views. But in this age - one is not going to do great without an AF function. But we could do the larger viewfinder with an EVF - we can make it as large as we want. Yeah, it might be a little laggy, but the benefit of seeing everything (and in some size) in the frame and what's coming into the frame.

Its easy enough to criticize the smart phone camera with its large "viewfinder", but the main thing wrong with smart phone cams (in my mind) is that they have such crappy sensor sizes. So an oversize EVF - and one that could be held to the eye - not the smart phone size :-), is a good idea in my mind. and combine it was a FF sensor and K3 -3ev low light focusing (which the K7 and K7r didn't do) - and i would be very very tempted. Actually, 12mp is smaller than i would like to go, but how about the 16mp size like the D4???

[Kunzite]

Several posts back - sorry i'm late about catching up - there was a discussion of having a large viewfinder - one that would even extend beyond the picture frame - so one could anticipate the subject moving into the frame.

Yes, Sigma did it - because they didn't had an APS-C viewfinder/mirrorbox/body (so they just used film ones). Passing through marketing, this transformed into a feature
But let's think a bit, what does it means?
1. For an APS-C camera (similar with what Sigma did):
- FF-sized mirror and prism/viewfinder
- lower magnification/size of the actual frame, down from the current 0.92x to some 0.77x (Sigma SD10 viewfinder's magnification; the D810 has a smaller 0.7x); unless they go really huge with the viewfinder
2. For a FF camera:
- larger than FF mirror and prism/viewfinder, perhaps sized for the 645Z?

1. could be done, I'm not sure if it's preferable (I would rather like Pentax going in the other direction, i.e. increase the viewfinder's magnification).
2. I don't think so. The difference in size must be large enough (so you will see something; a thin margin won't do) and the K-mount is FF sized.

[ElJamoquio]

Its easy enough to criticize the smart phone camera with its large "viewfinder", but the main thing wrong with smart phone cams (in my mind) is that they have such crappy sensor sizes

I think the crappy user interface is the worst thing about smartphones.

[kadajawi]

That was "my" idea, stolen from the Sigma SD10. That camera is so old and rare though that no one will remember


The basic idea is to share as many parts as possible between the FF Pentax DSLR and the top of the line APS-C Pentax DSLR. That way you can save money developing and producing the cameras, while giving the APS-C camera some nice features. A AF sensor module can be developed for both FF and APS-C, meaning higher density of sensors in the center, but AF points right up to the edge of the APS-C frame, allowing for easier "extreme" compositions.


Fuji has a hybrid OVF/EVF... one can switch between both depending on what is needed. You might do the same with a DSLR, with a bigger EVF being able to flip into the optical path. It would increase cost and size of the camera though. (Konica Minolta had a few superzooms where the normal display could fold away and turn into an EVF. That's not possible in a DSLR though.


As for EVF size... I'd like at least the size of a Nikon FM2.


I once had the idea that a mirrorless APS-C sized Pentax could be made that integrates a speedbooster. With the flick of a switch you could have it in the light path, or not. Your 50mm would be either a 50mm or a 75mm lens (the 50mm one being more or less as bright, and with as little DoF as it would be on a FF sensor). You'd have 2x as many lenses, basically. The camera wouldn't be as slim as possible, but I'd be willing to sacrifice that for such a function.

[Kayaker-J]

@mecrox: I'd argue that Pentax profits from Canon and Nikon ignoring APS-C. That gave Pentax the chance to do something different. A camera that is as serious as it can get with APS-C. It also differentiated with SR, WR (to an extend that Canikon don't offer) and that all is packed into a little bundle of joy... great to use, comfortable enough to carry around (Canikons APS-C flagships are really about the size of their FF offerings...). Pentax can attract the crowd who are fed up with Canikon's monsters, but for whom mFT is a bit small.


Sadly Pentax' marketing isn't really taking advantage of the benefits of shooting Pentax... I'm sure they could steal some of those moving from FF to mFT if they put some effort in it (of course that also means the video part should be nice too. Olympus offers sensor based video stabilization! Pentax could to... they did long before Olympus).


What I really don't get is why Pentax went through the effort of adding a headphone jack for proper audio monitoring to the K-3 (adding cost to every camera produced), and then made the firmware so extremely lacklustre, deactivating video features that were great on previous Pentax cameras.

Yes, you've made a good observation... and one I've made myself here before. What I suggested as a think piece (it didn't appear to prompt any, I must admit!) is this: Why not a new 4/3 ratio format that retains the vertical dimension of full frame? MANY APS-C designated lenses will already be effectively compatible with that, including Pentax's! Put some nice vignetting correction right in the camera as the cherry on top. And, of course, allow for flexible vertical cropping in-camera by individual lens or subject (pre-programmable by the user). I would argue that the 3:2 format was never the best aesthetic choice anyway, being basically an accident of historical commercial consideration. And it wastes pixels, too. Nikon tried to get 32 x 24mm off the ground way back in the S-rangefinder series.

Now this would really put Pentax in a unique place, taking control of a nice little niche market -- a comfortably growing one, hopefully -- accommodating BOTH full frame format devotees, and crop-sensor pragmatists. And what a flexible ideal for the lens adapter crowd! People on both ends of the D-O-F factor debates can win. File sizes would be more efficiently handled... There are just numerous "wins" here. And it comes with a very small practical downside, too, if the Pentax-unique sensor formatting does not prove incompatible with existing production techniques at Sony, or Toshiba, or wherever. Remember, you are not really launching the kind of new format that entails risk for early adopters; or creates, inherently, new incompatibilities.

Pentax is not going to be able to build and market the better mousetrap that leads masses to their door, and away from Canikon, regardless of having the better option in a conventional form. Don't we all know that? I suggest, cast a wider net and "go rogue"!

[kadajawi]

Yes, Sigma did it - because they didn't had an APS-C viewfinder/mirrorbox/body (so they just used film ones). Passing through marketing, this transformed into a feature
But let's think a bit, what does it means?
1. For an APS-C camera (similar with what Sigma did):
- FF-sized mirror and prism/viewfinder
- lower magnification/size of the actual frame, down from the current 0.92x to some 0.77x (Sigma SD10 viewfinder's magnification; the D810 has a smaller 0.7x); unless they go really huge with the viewfinder
2. For a FF camera:
- larger than FF mirror and prism/viewfinder, perhaps sized for the 645Z?

1. could be done, I'm not sure if it's preferable (I would rather like Pentax going in the other direction, i.e. increase the viewfinder's magnification).
2. I don't think so. The difference in size must be large enough (so you will see something; a thin margin won't do) and the K-mount is FF sized.

The FF viewfinder would be a normal one. The APS-C camera would use the same viewfinder, thus hopefully getting an advantage out of cost savings. Your thoughts on magnification make sense. The viewfinder might get a bit small for APS-C (at least the important part). Maybe Pentax can find a way around it, or simply give eyeswideshut the huge FF viewfinder he wants (so that APS-C still is big enough).


There was a Nokia with a huge sensor. If phone makers/buyers weren't as obsessed with thickness we could have reasonably sized sensors in phones. Since it would only thicken the phone in a certain area, the rest of the added space could be used for batteries, to get the phone from useless battery life (I last clocked 1 1/2 hours on a charge...) to something decent.


Interesting idea of changing the shape of the sensor, though I must admit I like 3:2 (or even wider aspect ratios).

[Clavius]

Yes, Sigma did it - because they didn't had an APS-C viewfinder/mirrorbox/body (so they just used film ones). Passing through marketing, this transformed into a feature
But let's think a bit, what does it means?
1. For an APS-C camera (similar with what Sigma did):
- FF-sized mirror and prism/viewfinder
- lower magnification/size of the actual frame, down from the current 0.92x to some 0.77x (Sigma SD10 viewfinder's magnification; the D810 has a smaller 0.7x); unless they go really huge with the viewfinder
2. For a FF camera:
- larger than FF mirror and prism/viewfinder, perhaps sized for the 645Z?

1. could be done, I'm not sure if it's preferable (I would rather like Pentax going in the other direction, i.e. increase the viewfinder's magnification).
2. I don't think so. The difference in size must be large enough (so you will see something; a thin margin won't do) and the K-mount is FF sized.

Seems like an awful lot of extra costs and developement to have a feature that can already be done with your other eye. You know, the one that's not peering through the VF.

[kadajawi]

Seems like an awful lot of extra costs and developement to have a feature that can already be done with your other eye. You know, the one that's not peering through the VF.

The point was to reduce costs. Develop one viewfinder for FF, use it for APS-C too.


Also, I find using the other eye while looking through the viewfinder difficult, depending on the focal length. I can't concentrate on both inputs. Just being able to see more through the sensor would help me.

[Kayaker-J]

Seems like an awful lot of extra costs and developement to have a feature that can already be done with your other eye. You know, the one that's not peering through the VF.

Mirrorless + Electronic View Finder is the answer. 100% on-sensor focus detection is the answer. Low labor costs in manufacturing is the answer. No improved "buggywhips", please: no one is going to go back to making optical viewfinders that actually permit you to focus properly with manual focusing lenses.

If we must be stuck in the mud and accommodate all conventional specialist needs in the conventional way, then AT LEAST provide the EVF option on our new obsolescent DSLRs. Click, clack... click, clack -- yes, let's keep everybody happy. 😂

[Kunzite]

The point was to reduce costs. Develop one viewfinder for FF, use it for APS-C too.

The APS-C is already developed, I'm not sure where the cost reduction is?

Mirrorless + Electronic View Finder is the answer.

Sony has a product for you! (quite a few, actually). Please, allow us (the 79% of the ILC market) to continue liking DSLRs for a while. Pretty please, with a cherry on top?