Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
07-11-2014, 06:02 PM   #571
Inactive Account




Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 440
That's a good point about lenses and handling. I'm just thinking in a very broad sense about the future. The main problem with mirrorless up to now has been low-res EVF. I wonder at what point does an EVF become superior in every way to a good old optical SLR? Right now we have about 2.4 mpixels, which is getting pretty close. Now if we double that, or quadruple it, I think that the SLR style optical penta-finder will be obsolete. Of course the proper form factor needs to be there, as you mention with tele lenses for instance. I would find such a high-res EVF extremely handy, esp for tripod/monopod telephoto work, where you can really zoom in for optimal focus for instance.
There's no need to orphan any mount(s). With proper adapters all kinds of things are possible. It just becomes a question of how much money people would be willing to spend on a fancy adapter. With all-electronic mounts, adapters in theory should be even easier to reverse-engineer, mostly a matter of software then. It just seems to me that in general, a company that relies on any kind of legacy mechanical appendages and linkages might become seriously handicapped moving forward with what future customers will demand of their product(s).
Mind you I have nothing against mechanics, in fact I love all mechanical cameras, started out with an ancient 6x6 TLR with no automation of any kind. I do like my K mount and appreciate that I can use a lens I bought when I was a kid (for an ME Super!) on the latest from Pentax today. I just think that if I was Ricoh looking to sell lots of product in the future (their stated intention), I would not put all my eggs into the K mount system. I would bet on developing a system geared to the future and the desires of future customers, 'cause that's where the money is gonna come from. Of course I will expect and have no doubt that Ricoh/Pentax will continue the long tradition of backwards compatibilty!

07-12-2014, 12:43 AM   #572
Pentaxian




Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 2,652
I'd like it if a mirrorless lets me use my K mount lenses. I'd like it even more if it also takes all other lenses. Whatever is there it should accept.

My suggestion stands. Make a K mount mirrorless (when they make one) that exactly replicates the K mount. But with a shorter flange distance, as short as they can make it. Then make a mechanical adapter that transmits everything, including the screw drive. You just need a shaft that connects body and lens. Or put the screw drive motor in the mount and make the MK mount so that lenses directly meant for it have a motor. I don't mind having to use an adapter when it works flawless and without hindering the capabilities. Adapters that make other brands fully functional would be possible too, though Pentax may not be interested.

As for ergonomics the camera should be as thin as possible from the display to the lens mount, with a big pronounced grip (maybe even on both sides, as if it were a DSLR). No one in reality cares how slim the camera is without lens. But the less the lens protrudes out of the center of gravity the better (I find it much easier to hold my 50 1.8 steady than my 18-55 at 50, and I can get longer exposure times).

One more thing. It would be great if the EVF has the dynamic range of the sensor, and the histogram can show it.

I wish I was one of the Pentax employees who comes up with cameras This is fun.
07-12-2014, 03:05 AM   #573
Pentaxian
RonHendriks1966's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2009
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,714
QuoteOriginally posted by Cee Cee Quote
me! .... just purchased one last week $65- a Samsung, its a beautiful thing, it makes phone calls
I have a Nokia that calls en makes textmessages. For 35 euro.
07-12-2014, 03:45 AM   #574
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 16,434
QuoteOriginally posted by northcoastgreg Quote
Then why have companies specializing in mirrorless cameras lost so much money?

The trouble with this sort of analysis is that it ignores one very important factor. Cameras are pretty useless without lenses, and lenses don't fit neatly into the no moving parts/simplicity/economic paradigm. The evolution of lenses has been toward more, rather than less complexity. There was a time not so long ago when most lenses were fairly simple primes. Then manufacturers started making zoom lenses. Then they added AF, and then AF motors; and then SR. Advances in digital sensor technology have necessitated a greater emphasis on improving the optical performance of lenses, which, alas, can only be accomplished by greatly increasing their cost. Although lenses have become more complex and heavier, they have enjoyed only modest savings benefit compared to cameras. We have seen dramatic, even revolutionary changes in cameras over the last 30 years; relatively speaking, changes in lenses have been considerably more evolutionary and modest.

Now because of the cost of lenses and that fact that improvements in the technology of optics is much slower, lenses tend to be a long-term investments, cameras short-term investments. The dynamic that comes into play is that lenses end up having a greater significance than cameras. In other words, once a company has produced and released a certain number of high end lenses, the tendency will be to make cameras to fit the lenses, rather than the other way around. The problem with the NEX is that, despite the absence of moving parts, it does not work well with most of the mid-range or better lenses that serious photographers either already own or want to own. It's too damn small, and was designed to be the smallest APS-C ILC, rather than to work well with the sort of lenses that most enthusiasts and professionals wish to use. Small cameras are all fine and good -- provided they are matched by small lenses. If I'm shooting large lenses -- and sometimes I must -- I want that large lens matched and balanced by a large camera. Nor is it simply a matter of ergonomics or comfort. A larger camera may be necessary to combat shake problems. I do volunteer photography for the local zoo. This involves shooting my DA* 300 hand-held, sans tripod. In order to properly stabilize that lens with the camera, I had to buy a battery grip. My K-5 was too small to attain the balance necessary to get sharp shots out of that lens. I had to make the camara larger (and more complex!) to get the shots the zoo needed to raise funds for further development. Right now there is a five foot print of one of my shots hanging near the entrance of the zoo. That shot would not have been possible if I were shooting with a NEX. A much larger camera was absolutely necessary to attain the requisite resolution.

If larger cameras are required (to match with bigger lenses that sometimes must be used in serious photography), then there's no point in changing mounts. We have millions of SLR lenses, some of very good quality and quite expensive to produce, floating around. These lenses make the most sense when matched with cameras with SLR mounts. Whatever economic gains might be acquired by making a camera with "no moving parts" will be lost by orphaning all that fine and expensive SLR glass. Nor is it even necessary to change mounts in order to make the "no moving part" camera that the gearheads (but hardly anyone else) drool over. Just make a K-01 type camera, and you're done. No angst about new mounts; no orphaned lenses; no wasting of precious optics. The only issue is: the market is simply not ready for that type of camera; nor does anyone know when or if it ever will be.
I agree. Even fast primes like an 85mm f1.4 can get pretty unwieldy on a really small body. I just don't know how excited top end market would be to trade their SLRs for tiny mirrorless cameras. Of course, you can build mirrorless cameras that are the same size as SLRs, but if you do that, then you just get into an argument of EVF versus OVF. There are plenty of plenty of people who are fine with optical viewfinders, particularly on a full frame camera and don't see an EVF as providing a whole lot of benefit except that it shortens battery life.

I could see mirrorless pushing hard on entry level SLRs, but even there, price is really low. Canon sells older entry level SLRs (with a kit lens) for under 300 dollars. I would guess they take a loss on those cameras, but it still doesn't leave a whole lot of room for a cheaper mirrorless.

As to losing money, I think a lot of camera companies over time have focused on units shipped rather than on units sold. Overproduction and then deep discounts is a bad proposition for revenue.

07-12-2014, 04:58 AM   #575
Pentaxian




Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 2,652
QuoteOriginally posted by RonHendriks1966 Quote
I have a Nokia that calls en makes textmessages. For 35 euro.
I rarely make regular phone calls, and I can't remember when I have sent a text message. I'd rather use whatsapp or facebook messenger for texts, and phone calls go through viber, Skype or VoIP. Then there is navigation, the ability to translate things, to find out about things, I like to listen to podcasts, ... I'd be completely lost without a smartphone. Heck, my mother is often using her smartphone, and she is well into her retirement.

No wonder you guys want the most feature free, traditional camera there is.

Without a mirror you can reduce the overall size of the lens/body combo, without having an impact on the grip itself. (The A7 series for example.) You can make a more balanced camera IMHO. It would also be tougher, easier to clean the sensor, etc.
07-12-2014, 06:52 AM   #576
Pentaxian
RonHendriks1966's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2009
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,714
QuoteOriginally posted by kadajawi Quote
I rarely make regular phone calls, and I can't remember when I have sent a text message. I'd rather use whatsapp or facebook messenger for texts, and phone calls go through viber, Skype or VoIP. Then there is navigation, the ability to translate things, to find out about things, I like to listen to podcasts, ... I'd be completely lost without a smartphone. Heck, my mother is often using her smartphone, and she is well into her retirement.

No wonder you guys want the most feature free, traditional camera there is.


Without a mirror you can reduce the overall size of the lens/body combo, without having an impact on the grip itself. (The A7 series for example.) You can make a more balanced camera IMHO. It would also be tougher, easier to clean the sensor, etc.
Well some customers off mine are requesting to use whatsapp to communicate during the day, so I guess this will be the last year of not having that option.

That is funny, but I'm the one demanding more then others, just not to much complicated, just a K-3 with aps-h
07-12-2014, 07:57 AM   #577
Banned




Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Millstone,NJ
Posts: 6,491
QuoteQuote:
I'd like it if a mirrorless lets me use my K mount lenses. I'd like it even more if it also takes all other lenses. Whatever is there it should accept.
The current mirrorless cameras do that already.
07-12-2014, 08:59 AM   #578
Pentaxian




Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 2,652
Whatsapp is essentially free, no matter how much you use it, and much more flexible. Same with Viber (which adds voice functionality). So as long as you have a data flatrate you are covered.

QuoteOriginally posted by jogiba Quote
The current mirrorless cameras do that already.
Ah yes, more or less they can. But AF doesn't work for example. Full, 100% support would be good. And I want it to be a Pentax, because Pentax gets photography. They can make tools that aid my photography, that make sense. Other brands seem to make less sense to me, are designed by people who aren't into photography (which is how I see Pentax in terms of video. They don't do it, they don't get it, for them it is a list of items it needs to have written on the box in order to sell and in order to get a decent review (which are done by people who don't get videography either and go through a checklist)). I want a Pentax because I like how it can handle life. How I don't have to worry in the rain. I like how they feel in my hands. A Sony can't do that, despite being decent. In any case I am not in a hurry to upgrade. My K-5 serves me well. And I've used my *istDS from 2008 till 2012... had I bought it directly in 2004 it would have been used for 8 years.

That is btw. a problem for Pentax IMHO. As a photography tool the *istDS pretty much satisfied me. The K-5 is more than good enough for any photographic needs in the next 10 years I reckon, I only wish the AF was more accurate, even in broad daylight it can be all over the place at f1.8. All the areas where I see possible big improvements are outside of photography. I guess that is why I keep asking for video improvements, despite me mostly taking photos. And I think I'm not the only one who is perfectly fine with an older DSLR, they have been more than good enough for a long time now.

Btw. if I wanted a photography only tool, I'd get a Fuji. They are even better than Pentax, but completely suck at video. It's hard for Pentax to compete on the how it makes you feel side.


Last edited by kadajawi; 07-12-2014 at 09:07 AM.
07-12-2014, 09:49 AM   #579
Pentaxian
philbaum's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Port Townsend, Washington State, USA
Posts: 3,659
QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
I could see mirrorless pushing hard on entry level SLRs, but even there, price is really low. Canon sells older entry level SLRs (with a kit lens) for under 300 dollars. I would guess they take a loss on those cameras, but it still doesn't leave a whole lot of room for a cheaper mirrorless.

As to losing money, I think a lot of camera companies over time have focused on units shipped rather than on units sold. Overproduction and then deep discounts is a bad proposition for revenue.
As i understand it, the Japanese have like a social contract with their employees - like the US used to have, but has no more :-( To their credit, the Japanese companies are reluctant to layoff employees, hoping that things will turn around in the short term. Unfortunately, i think we're into not just a camera market correction but its combined with a more complicated technical change in the market regards products and customers.

I could have bought entry level dslrs but chose to buy mirrorless Nex type instead because to me they represent a higher value proposition.

In the camera world, we keep trying to understand the market changes based on the merit of camera technical features and Image quality. When in fact, the success of any photographic product will also depend on other social and cultural forces, like the dang smart phone. Large camera mfr keep trying to shape the camera demand to be consistent with their vision. Good luck with that, its a complex situation out there.
07-12-2014, 11:04 AM   #580
Pentaxian




Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 2,652
That reminds me of a chat I had with a Fujifilm marketing guy. Apparently there is an Casio camera which is pretty rubbish, but cool looking. Sales were poor. Then they ran an ad campaign in China with some famous pop star or so, and suddenly sales in that market exploded.

http://fashionaholic2013.wordpress.com/2013/12/03/how-could-casio-tr-series-camera-receive-such-a-big-success-in-the-chinese-market/
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, adapter, af, aps-c, bodies, body, cameras, ergonomics, film, frame, full frame camera, full-frame, k-01, lcd, lenses, market, micro four thirds, mirroless camera, mirrorless, pentax, people, ricoh, sensor, shutter, size, struggle, time
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The Full Frame NEX is going to be announced in October ! jogiba Non-Pentax Cameras: Canon, Nikon, etc. 30 09-15-2013 03:23 PM
Pentax does not care about Full Frame Watson Pentax Full Frame 88 08-19-2013 04:53 AM
Are Any of The 17-50 (or in that range) Lenses Full Frame? reivax Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 12 02-04-2013 07:38 PM
Do you think in the long run, DA lenses are a bad buy? Size of CCDs in the future Capslock118 Pentax DSLR Discussion 28 11-07-2010 06:46 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:56 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