[Laurentiu Cristofor]

But... but that would mean implementing a EVF?! I, like most other established Pentax customers, chose Pentax for the DSLRs, their size & ergonomics, for the K-mount, and backwards compatibility. Why slap customers in the face like that? It's not slapping anymore, more like backstabbing.

What makes you think that you are representative for the majority of Pentax customers or that you are representative for the market segment that Ricoh will be targeting? You are listing a number of features all of which would be maintained except the OVF - that is no backstabbing.

- Both OVF & EVF! Keeping the mirror and mirrorbox. But locking the mirror up and shifting the sensor towards the lens for the appropriate lenses. (The K5 knows if and when a DA is mounted, so the next model could expand that.)

An even more complex design than an SLR has! Definitely the stuff that bad dreams are made of for an engineer.

Pentax could be the ONLY brand with both inbody SR and AF!

You mean, if Sony, Samsung, and Olympus all decide to go out of the camera business?

We have OVF and liveview now too.

Not quite, because the liveview implementation in Pentax DSLRs is inferior in all respects to the implementation in MFT cameras, for example. Most people that think MILCs are a fad are imagining MILCs as flattened DSLRs without an OVF and then they argue that such cameras are undesirable. Of course a DSLR without a mirror is undesirable - its technology is good for nothing without the OVF. LiveView is a pain - laggy, flickering - it's no wonder that people used to it don't understand how a proper implementation can replace a viewfinder.

In time, you'll see and understand.

[Clavius]

What makes you think that you are representative for the majority of Pentax customers

Pentax only has a few pluspoints. It's not hard to figure why people buy their products. So yes, I did buy my Pentax for the same reasons most people buy theirs.

or that you are representative for the market segment that Ricoh will be targeting?

You think Ricoh buys a brand, with existing userbase, just to rid that userbase of a future of the equipment they bought? Yeah, lets buy a brand, but discard their customers. Sounds logical... ?

An even more complex design than an SLR has! Definitely the stuff that bad dreams are made of for an engineer.

So, it's ok to be complex if it's down your street? An EVF is also many MANY times more complex then OVF. If you want simple, proven and robust we would stick with SLR. Which would be fine with me.

Moreover, it's not THAT complex. Mirror lockup is already there. Moving sensor, is already there. (SR, only need to add another axis.) Lens recognition is already there.

You mean, if Sony, Samsung, and Olympus all decide to go out of the camera business?

You're saying that those other brands already feature a moving sensor that gives MANUAL LENSES autofocus? Weird, I haven't heard of those... (Do you hear the undertone? Hope so.) Please re-read my previous post.

LiveView is a pain - laggy, flickering - it's no wonder that people used to it don't understand how a proper implementation can replace a viewfinder.

I owned a NEX5N and hated it. I've handled a NEX7 and there was no improvement. I've seen various other models with EVF's. An EVF is liveview, but smaller, nothing more. It sucks. It lags, the resolution is lower then OVF and it feels cheap and plasticcy.

[jasonwarth]

...liked that the shake reduction was in the camera and not in the lens
...liked the fact that I could mix purchases old and new lenses as I learned.
...they seemed to focus on their equipment and lenses rather than massive marketing.

Those are always the first three reasons I give to friends who are prospective Pentaxians… followed by weather resistance, and the fact that I've owned 5 Pentax cameras in my life and loved every one of them.

...for a company that seems to have an identity based on a history of quality … they should support their product in a different way. ...people that buy Pentax products should get access to a wide array … on how to make the best use of your camera. If you want to access all the new people entering the market, then the biggest sale point will be price point, quality, name recognition, but also having someone in the store saying well if you are completely new to cameras here is a company that will not only sell you the product but teach you step by step how to use it!

Well said… Pentax's marketing practically writes itself—legitimately, and without need for BS marketing ploys. It's the superior system (in my view) for the vast majority of people in the "enthusiast" market—but Pentax loses tons of sales because few people who are looking to buy in to their first DSLR even know about Pentax. (I must laugh at myself here too—because when I was in that position, I was looking at C and N only… until my friend mentioned that a sales-person had mentioned Pentax to her as an alternative… and then the lightbulb went off, "Oh yeah… I've owned two Pentax's before, and loved them both… maybe I should look at their DSLRs.")

[Fogel70]

So, it's ok to be complex if it's down your street? An EVF is also many MANY times more complex then OVF. If you want simple, proven and robust we would stick with SLR. Which would be fine with me.

Moreover, it's not THAT complex. Mirror lockup is already there. Moving sensor, is already there. (SR, only need to add another axis.) Lens recognition is already there.

Do you have any idea what would be required of a mechanism like this?
Moving the whole steel frame with SR-mechanism would require lots of space inside the camera, so the camera would probably end up the size of 645D. The precision needed for backward/forward movement has to be be very high, and would be difficult to calibrate. The market for this type of camera is very small so the price would probably end up close to 645D too.

You might be willing to pay 645D price for a 645D sized camera with APS-C sensor and K-mount, but I doubt many other would. Most would choose a higher specified camera with a big set of high quality AF lenses for that price.

What you need to understand is that mechanical parts might not be complex by themselves, but when they need to be calibrated with other parts in the camera, the manufacturing of the camera will be complex and these parts add alot to the price of the camera.
In a DSLR the OVF need to be calibrated with the image sensor so what you see is what you get, and the AF-sensor in the DSLR need to be calibrated with the image sensor and focusing screen in the OVF. To calibrate these parts withing a few hundreds of a millimeter is difficult, and by adding a forth calibrating parameter in the AF system would make it a nightmare.
Adding a EVF to the OVF in a DSLR is probably not an easy task either, and would be another thing that would need calibration and would probably need some extra space in the camera and would need a more complex design of the OVF prism. And the OVF will be darker too.

IMO it's the simplified design and manufacturing of mirrorless that will be the major advantage in the future, and it will probably be the biggest selling large sensor cameras. Anyone wanting to get higher image quality than the smartphone they use will probably choose some type of mirrorless camera, and in within 5-10 years they will probably be much lower in price than cheapest DSLR today.
Pentax just can't live on users they already have, so they need products that attract new users too. I really doubt that DSLR alone will be the best startegy for Pentax in the future.

Trying to mix DSLR with mirrorless just makes a mess and it will end up a camera that has most disadvantages from both, but lack most advantages from both.

[Clavius]

Do you have any idea what would be required of a mechanism like this?
Moving the whole steel frame with SR-mechanism would require lots of space inside the camera, so the camera would probably end up the size of 645D. The precision needed for backward/forward movement has to be be very high, and would be difficult to calibrate. The market for this type of camera is very small so the price would probably end up close to 645D too.

Relax... Take a deep breath... You assume to many things. The mechanism to shift the sensor is already there, in the K5. No size increase at all. You'll agree with me that the mirrorbox is a whole lot of room for the sensor to shift.

Trying to mix DSLR with mirrorless just makes a mess and it will end up a camera that has most disadvantages from both, but lack most advantages from both.

Again, a DSLR using liveview has it's mirror up and out of the way. It's not using it. So the technologies are already mixed and happily working together. No mess at all.

If OVF and liveview can be mixed, then OVF and EVF can be mixed. Because an EVF is nothing more then a smaller liveviewscreen.

[Clavius]

Anyone wanting to get higher image quality than the smartphone they use will probably choose some type of mirrorless camera, and in within 5-10 years they will probably be much lower in price than cheapest DSLR today.

...No within 5-10 yeards, the image quality of smartphones will probably outperform the mirrorless camera's you're so desperate for. Their advantage over DSLR will only last a few years, if they can ever reach that advantage before becomming obsolete.

[Fogel70]

Relax... Take a deep breath... You assume to many things. The mechanism to shift the sensor is already there, in the K5. No size increase at all. You'll agree with me that the mirrorbox is a whole lot of room for the sensor to shift.



Again, a DSLR using liveview has it's mirror up and out of the way. It's not using it. So the technologies are already mixed and happily working together. No mess at all.

If OVF and liveview can be mixed, then OVF and EVF can be mixed. Because an EVF is nothing more then a smaller liveviewscreen.

The parts in the camera is only enough for moving sensor up/down or left/right. You will need a much bigger mirrorbox if to move the whole SR frame back and forth. This frame is about the same size as the 3" LCD on the back. Flipping the mirror up will not leave enough space for this so the mirror has also to move further up in the camera to leave space for SR frame to move forward (or the mirror has to be much bigger).

These are parts that has to be moved back and forth in the camera.



How are you supposed to get the EVF-image superimposed in the OVF without the OVF getting darker?

---

Last edited by Fogel70; 01-13-2012 at 06:48 AM.

[mattdm]

How are you supposed to get the EVF-image superimposed in the OVF without the OVF getting darker?

Like this.

[Fogel70]

...No within 5-10 yeards, the image quality of smartphones will probably outperform the mirrorless camera's you're so desperate for. Their advantage over DSLR will only last a few years, if they can ever reach that advantage before becomming obsolete.

I doubt that a much smaller sensor will ever outperform a bigger one. And BTW aren't the camera in smartphone mirrorless?

Why would mirrorless loose its advantage after a few years?
Most likely when technology advance mirrorless will keep improving and prices will keep getting lower.

[Fogel70]

Like this.

No, you will get a darker image in OVF with that solution.
Fuji use a reflecting film sandwiched between two prism to reflect the light from EVF into OVF, and with that some light going into OVF will be lost.

[Frogfish]

Many believe that Pentax cannot simultaneously support the Q mount, the K mount, the 645 D mount, and another mount. Many will believe that would signal the end of the K mount. Certainly, many will not be interested in buying the same lens twice for two different systems. I say, if you want support for something else and the K mount, vote for both.

The recent comments from Pentax execs would seem to point to continued support of the K-mount and longer lenses on the way.

[Laurentiu Cristofor]

The recent comments from Pentax execs would seem to point to continued support of the K-mount and longer lenses on the way.

Links?

[UPDATE 3:54pm]

I assume you were referring to the interview with John Carlson. There is nothing concrete in there other than an acknowledgement that users would like longer lenses. As for continued support of K-mount, that can always mean continued production of adapters for K-mount lenses. Given that the plans for the future were still going on at Ricoh-Pentax, there is really not much he can guarantee about the future.

I found more interesting this passage translated by v5planet:

Kitazawa: Well, regarding the 645, sooner or later we will want to make it into a mirrorless. The reason is the mirror shock inherent to SLRs. Those very tiny vibrations do have an effect on the final image. I think in the future I would like to pursue mirrorless full-frame and 645 cameras.

Comments like the above show an interest in mirrorless designs for high end equipment. Combined with his earlier comments about mirrorless cameras replacing entry-level SLRs, I am not sure what segment exactly could still be filled by SLR cameras in the future.

[cadmus]

I didn't comment or vote originally because the options did not address my hopes for Pentax. But with this many diverse posts I guess I can whine.
in order of importance:

1st- AA battery use without a grip. please always have at least one body available with AA. It is the ONLY way I can travel as I can not charge if i have no electricity for 2 months at a time (thanks in advance but please don't link me to the solar panels, they have limited usefulness). AAs are the ONLY way i can do my job because I work in wilderness setting and have to shoot a lot of photos and even when doing experiments in a lab if i run out of juice i loose data and i can not weight to charge batteries. Grips are not usable when climbing, skiing or sailing and adds mass. AAs are sold everywhere and can be recharged and are just as efficent as the proprietary batteries at a fraction of the cost.

2nd- keeping K-mount. Many normal people have invested too much money and time in lenses (and microscopes). If people are itching to switch mounts i am inspired to vote for more progressive income tax brackets and a repeal of deductions. (my apologies to non-USA forum users for this americentric comment)

3rd- weather proofing on entry level models.

4th- maintaining a sturdy build (metal frame) on the entry level models. but keeping the cost affordable

5th- micro prisms standard so their is none of these metering problems.

...yeah fullframe would be nice so My manual wide angle fish eyes would once again be that.

People who would want "Electrical viewfinder and removal of the mirror" clearly are indoor studio people. Those things are useless outside. Unless it is dusk or nighttime you can not see the image in the screen unless you are the perfect angle. Totally useless. Especially in snow and on water or other bright places. And they suck batteries and some of us, those that shoot outside, can not always charge batteries. Also, LCDs don't work at -30F, even if it is dark enough to see the screen. (but if you mean prism instead of mirror than that is fine, i am referring to those lcd screen only cameras)

And they should really get a better marketing team.

[cadmus]

Hey? why are colored bodies not on that list?
(ha ha that was a joke, i don't care what color it is, but to each their own, and i bet it helps prevent theft)

[SpecialK]

Rotating LCD. Makes shooting overhead or underfoot so much easier and...viewable.