Originally posted by sjwaldron When it comes down to it, we are debating with our opinions as evidence. So I don't think we can come to any type of agreement here, but I'll try to prove my point again.
Quote: I don't understand what you mean by "The K-5 and K-r are pretty much as small as one can go."... Than what?
For an APS-C DSLR.
The tech is reaching its limits in terms of form factor:
1) AF phase is bulky and cannot be reduced in size without taking away points etc. You can go all the way and get rid of it and be Leica. Phase detect AF systems have, in fact, been getting larger to accommodate more information because the software can do more with more data. That's why Nikon's AF is so much better than Pentax's.
2) SR is very bulky and for mechanical reasons cannot be shrunk much. Sony and Olympus have the exact same problem. Canikon saw that coming and put VR/IS in the lens. if you want to move your sensor around, you need room to move. Film 135 cameras did not need that space on the film plane. You've just made the sensor's space demands larger than 135 film's ever was.
3) FPS is necessary for high-end DSLR's and the extra bulk necessary to withstand extreme shutter activations cannot be made smaller (unless you move to an all-plastic shutter which Minolta did in one of their models and had warranty issues). Not to mention some serious circuitry which has to be on separate channels to prevent data loss due to circuit noise. This was never a concern with film where most electronics were for meter, shutter, and AF only. They did not have to power and download discrete data from every frame on a separate channel to prevent contamination. This is why current FF DSLR's resemble a Nikon F6 in size and weight.
4) Power and cooling and video and rear LCD all take up space. Lots. Add in video and you need some serious cooling.
The FF DSLR can never approach the size of a legacy M series Pentax film body.
To get smaller than a K-5/K-r, you need to take stuff away and substitute with disruptive tech. This is the M43/NEX approach. They take away the mirror and box, shrink the shutter to a smaller sensor's needs, reduce power overall so smaller batteries, no VF, contrast not phase AF, and so on.
They had to get rid of the DSLR product and change their mount to do so.
If you want a Pentax FF k-mount you will be looking at a camera physically as big as something like the D300/D700 for comparison. I should also mention that the big glass will require a balanced, full hand body with strengthened mount. Or you can abandon k-mount (or have a costly, bulk-adding adapter) and start from scratch. But all that legacy glass designed for film and prism manual focus will not have that optical system anymore. It's like designing a Porsche for driving up and down a back alley.
It's pretty obvious when you look at the way the DSLR industry has arranged itself APS-C came to dominate over FF because they needed space inside the body for supporting systems, and there are real, unavoidable technical limitations to how small those systems can get. The original MZ-D was never going to be small:
So APS-C made sense from a sensor cost perspective, and it allowed for roughly the same form factor as 135 bodies (MZ-5n for example) which was successful in the market.
Quote: - Pentax APS-C SLRs are smaller than the competition, yet have more internal features such as SR.
Not true. My Nikon D40x was a touch smaller than the K-r and the D3100 is about the same size.
The Sony A33/A55 are thicker because of the EVF extension and rotating LCD, but they weigh less than the K-r and in the hand feel about the same size.
They are all in the same category and roughly equivalent. If they were cars they would all be classed the same.
The old mindset where the Olympus OM series and Pentax M series of cameras were the small prosumer/enthusiast kit while Canon, Nikon and Minolta made big stuff (plus RF's) is gone. There is far less difference now and clinging to an ancient standard when the numbers say otherwise is unwise. The schism now is between mirrorless and DSLR.
Quote: - The K-5 has many similarities to a 7D for example, yet is smaller and has internal SR.
Yes. So what? The Canon sells about 8x as many. Marginal size differences have little to do with sales. People buy the bigger cameras more than the smaller ones, so the sales data says.
Quote: - Pentax will soon be releasing the Q camera/system. This is the smallest interchangeable lens system ever released from one of the major companies. The extending flash in the Q is a Pentax feat of engineering that disproves a general "it can't be done" mindset.
Nonsense. Extending flash units have been around since the 1980's (Canon had a model or 2, as did Konica) and one of the recent Olympus models has a scissor one prior to the Q. The reason for not having extended flash is durability and warranty servicing. It has nothing to do with a"feat of engineering" save as marketing hype.
Quote: While from your point of view you might feel they need a stable of f2.8 zooms, I don't. If I wanted 35mm full-frame for the sake of it, I'd buy into one of the other systems. I currently own many more prime lenses than zooms. Just look at the president of Pentax USA's blog posts to see a similar style of photographer. I think there is a shift back to primes lenses in all camps. Look at how successful and popular the Fuji x100 is with a fixed prime lens, it's major selling point is that optical viewfinder. Let's even talk about the 645D and it being released successfully with a single 55mm prime lens, where most of the initial sales came from 645 film users.
You're arguing at cross-pusposes. The Fuji is a high-end, single style camera and the 645D is extremely high-end.
There's no value brand at those price points.
And the Fuji VF is a hybrid; it has to be for AF. It's a great ida, but a dumb ma's Leica.
Pentax FF would need to be as all encompassing as any other brand to make a dent in market share and pay back the investment. That means it must have the big zooms as well as the primes. They did the same for APS-C, didn't they? Where would Pentax be now if there was no DA* 16-50, 50-135, 60-250. Nowhere. Probably 25% of the base would be gone and 40% of the margins.
In other words, no Pentax.
There seems to be a flawed logic in that Pentax can make a smaller FF system without giving up something like SR or an OVF, by which point you're not longer making a k-mount. Or that Pentax engineers can make things smaller with fairy dust. Ironically, it was Nikon, Canon ,and Minolta that had trouble in the 1970's and 80's making smaller systems precisely because they wanted to retain backwards compatibility. It was Olympus from scratch and Pentax abandoning screwmount that allowed for smaller systems. Now many Pentaxians want to repeat that history and have Pentax make a brand new FF digital system so they can play with 30 year-old lenses designed for film!