Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
09-10-2012, 01:26 PM   #91
Site Supporter




Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 95
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Anvh Quote
Here you go your Mono K30
PENTAX RICOH Imaging Company
Good pickup. Without even looking at the link, I was sure you're pointing to the industrial and scientific imaging stuff (yep...I was right).

Not quite the same, and definitely not the same market (they sell them in single unit quantities).

09-10-2012, 01:29 PM   #92
Site Supporter




Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 95
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Anvh Quote
Look up what DSLR means

The parts your taking out makes it stop being a DSLR.
Ok...we could make the body out of transparent polycarbonate and you'd still be able to stick your eye up to it and see a viewfinder image. DSLR enough? Yep.

You are way out in the weeds on this one. Not really much in the way of constructive dialogue now...your objections run low (unless you really don't want it).
09-10-2012, 05:28 PM   #93
Senior Member
Mattco26's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 118
QuoteOriginally posted by dmytty Quote
Ok...we could make the body out of transparent polycarbonate and you'd still be able to stick your eye up to it and see a viewfinder image. DSLR enough? Yep.

You are way out in the weeds on this one. Not really much in the way of constructive dialogue now...your objections run low (unless you really don't want it).
I really think it is you sir, who are way out in the weeds. You've gone from a DSLR with gps, wifi and BT to some screenless sensor box and lens mount. What the heck are you even arguing for at this point?

People don't want to pay extra for any of this stuff, either with extra cash on purchase or at the expense of battery life and processing power. When you can integrate all of these other processes into my camera and not steal battery life or image processing performance let me know. I don't think you can, that's why you keep ignoring this when myself and others have brought it up.
09-10-2012, 07:06 PM   #94
Inactive Account




Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: North Carolina
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,720
QuoteOriginally posted by dmytty Quote
Your 1 line of text certainly reads more like a casual opinion rather than a well-supported analysis.

Tell you what, I'll build this thing if Pentax won't...and I'll offer you the first one for $500.
I said everything I needed to in the post you quoted earlier, I was just reconfirming that you really don't understand how scale works.

Unless you think the cost of an anti-aliasing filter is really negative $300, which is why the Nikon D800 costs less than a D800E. The only difference between them is the AA filter, the D800 has one, the D800E does not. They sell more D800s, so the cost is lower than the special production D800E.

09-11-2012, 02:47 AM   #95
Veteran Member
Anvh's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 4,616
QuoteOriginally posted by dmytty Quote
Ok...we could make the body out of transparent polycarbonate and you'd still be able to stick your eye up to it and see a viewfinder image. DSLR enough? Yep.

You are way out in the weeds on this one. Not really much in the way of constructive dialogue now...your objections run low (unless you really don't want it).
DSLR is Digital Single Lens Reflect, so you're using a single lens and the light gets reflected so you need a miror, that's what makes a SLR a SLR there is also TLR twin lens reflect that one uses two of the same lenses, one for the viewfinder and one for the photo.
So a box with a mount and a sensor and some form of viewfinder is not a DSLR if it doesn't have a mirror in it.
So if you want a DSLR you need to have this.


What you want is a CCTV right, a box with a sensor in it that takes pictures controlled externally, you can get those of good quality for not a lot of money.
09-12-2012, 04:11 PM   #96
Site Supporter




Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 95
Original Poster
x
QuoteOriginally posted by Anvh Quote
What you want is a CCTV right, a box with a sensor in it that takes pictures controlled externally, you can get those of good quality for not a lot of money.
Yes and No. I want to retain the SLR phase focusing. Without creating an entirely new upper body design, the simple thing is to simply re-use the K30 design and ignore the 'eyepiece'. The reason I say this is because the exposure metering requires the pentaprism...although that could likely be designed for with cheaper mirrors and a bit more compactness.

If phase focusing was not a necessity, then the K01 'guts' would suffice.
09-13-2012, 10:16 AM   #97
Veteran Member
Anvh's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 4,616
QuoteOriginally posted by dmytty Quote
x

Yes and No. I want to retain the SLR phase focusing. Without creating an entirely new upper body design, the simple thing is to simply re-use the K30 design and ignore the 'eyepiece'. The reason I say this is because the exposure metering requires the pentaprism...although that could likely be designed for with cheaper mirrors and a bit more compactness.

If phase focusing was not a necessity, then the K01 'guts' would suffice.
you don't need a sperate light meter you can use the sensor, just look at what sony is doing with their SLT cameras
09-13-2012, 12:21 PM   #98
Site Supporter




Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 95
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by elliott Quote
I said everything I needed to in the post you quoted earlier, I was just reconfirming that you really don't understand how scale works.

Unless you think the cost of an anti-aliasing filter is really negative $300, which is why the Nikon D800 costs less than a D800E. The only difference between them is the AA filter, the D800 has one, the D800E does not. They sell more D800s, so the cost is lower than the special production D800E.
And here I thought you might be a production engineer or something.

The price that Nikon sets for the D800E is based on what people will pay - not their production cost.

I stand by my line item analysis.

09-13-2012, 12:45 PM   #99
Senior Member
Mattco26's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 118
QuoteOriginally posted by dmytty Quote
And here I thought you might be a production engineer or something.

The price that Nikon sets for the D800E is based on what people will pay - not their production cost.

I stand by my line item analysis.
You and the crickets buddy, you and the crickets.

Nikon thinks most of their customers don't want to pay extra for wifi and live view remote control via cell phone. That's why their brand new D600 only supports these features with an additional cost adapter. So those that want it can pay for it, the rest of us don't have too.

Last edited by Mattco26; 09-13-2012 at 12:52 PM.
09-13-2012, 02:32 PM   #100
Site Supporter




Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 95
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Mattco26 Quote
You and the crickets buddy, you and the crickets.

Nikon thinks most of their customers don't want to pay extra for wifi and live view remote control via cell phone. That's why their brand new D600 only supports these features with an additional cost adapter. So those that want it can pay for it, the rest of us don't have too.
Pentax doesn't even have wifi available as a add-on, which proves my point about them losing out on the innovation front.

It's not either or. Pentax now has 3 separate camera models, all having the same imaging sensor. There's obviously room for segmentation.

As previously mentioned, it's relatively simple to create 2 separate products: 1 wireless and 1 non-wireless. The non-wireless model would simply not have antennas and wireless chips on board. Pentax would sell the non-wireless model for $50-100 less.

IMO, the wifi modules are all very lame...especially on a weather sealed body.

Someone will go the route of maximum integration, and reap the benefits. My guess is that it will be either:
  • Sony, they already have onboard GPS, the camera app store, and some wifi models. They are also a consumer electronics company and could 'integrate' remote viewfinder/playback with the PS3, their laptops, their connected TV's, etc.
  • Canon needs to fight back against Nikon, and for pro shooters the wireless benefits are numerous (especially LTE with the instant news cycles). Canon was the first to bring strong video capability to full frame DSLR's (and how the purists bemoaned this) and they sold tens of thousands of units to videographers. They're probably less afraid to change now.
  • Nikon might do it on their D400, but probably in a weakened form (ie deliberately limiting features so as to not eclipse big brother). I think that the next release of their D4x 'pro body' - or even a refresh - will include these features. Ditto for a D800 refresh.

You naysayers might note something: Since this thread started, Sony has released a full frame with integrated GPS and Nikon has released a full frame with wifi support. I haven't noted that either model is a battery sucking beast nor overly expensive. In fact, both are noted for being great values - with no mention of anything other than good battery life.

So, who's looking more right as to the technical feasibility and desirability? I'll keep arguing this as long as it takes...because it's not often that I can proved to be so convincingly right.

Last edited by dmytty; 09-13-2012 at 02:41 PM.
09-13-2012, 04:32 PM   #101
Senior Member
Mattco26's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 118
QuoteOriginally posted by dmytty Quote
You naysayers might note something: Since this thread started, Sony has released a full frame with integrated GPS and Nikon has released a full frame with wifi support. I haven't noted that either model is a battery sucking beast nor overly expensive. In fact, both are noted for being great values - with no mention of anything other than good battery life.

So, who's looking more right as to the technical feasibility and desirability? I'll keep arguing this as long as it takes...because it's not often that I can proved to be so convincingly right.
I'm not sure you can really determine what the battery life in use is going to be on an unreleased model but whatever. Lets get to the meat and potatoes of you being so convincingly right.

Why didn't Nikon integrate the wifi in the camera body itself? Why is it a separate adapter? According to you there is no reason for this but they just did it anyway.

WHY?
09-13-2012, 05:08 PM   #102
Site Supporter




Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 95
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Mattco26 Quote
I'm not sure you can really determine what the battery life in use is going to be on an unreleased model but whatever. Lets get to the meat and potatoes of you being so convincingly right.

Why didn't Nikon integrate the wifi in the camera body itself? Why is it a separate adapter? According to you there is no reason for this but they just did it anyway.

WHY?
Because Nikon wasn't being very aggressive about this. It's the type of move you make when you don't want to be out front, but also don't want to be left behind. More so, I feel Nikon did not want to eclipse the D800 and D4x with 'premium' features. Note that I don't credit Nikon for being out front with new technologies, although they've certainly done well following an evolutionary design path which focuses on low cost packaging (D800/D600) of their established and upgraded bodies, while not ceding any overt feature space to competitors. Sony with the SLT technology, embedded GPS, camera apps, and the like is definitely trying out new things - indeed, Sony's Minolta acquisition shows what Hoya could have done with Pentax.

To recap, let's revisit the 'why for' scenarios briefly. For nature photographers, Wifi wireless brings whole new avenues of shooting via the remote viewer. Likewise, for live event photographers, the LTE feature will be absolutely awesome; they can start shooting photos knowing that they are instantly being relayed to their editor. These portions of the industry are always looking for an edge and their budget reflects that...time matters for the event photographer, and nature needs new photography perspectives. Photographers sometimes literally 'die for a shot' - and technology can help.

The 'why for integrated and not a dongle' argument has not been comprehensively evaluated. However, if wireless is integrated, there are numerous benefits:
  1. Physically, it's better packaging. With body integration and board level chipsets, there are no protrusions (which invite a snag and broken dongle). Overall, the package also takes up less space.
  2. Related to #1, integration means a closed door, and that means a retained weather seal - no small thing for Pentax's emphasis on WR throughout the product line.
  3. Integrated antennas can be much better than dongle antennas as the camera body is bigger and allows more tuning.
  4. With an integrated board level device, there's no need to worry about whether the phone is charged, bluetooth is linked, etc. For the event photographer with LTE, they just compose and shoot, shoot, shoot (upload/sideload happens in the background and doesn't intrude on the photography process).
  5. It can be easier to create product derivatives, like the aforementioned RemoteK30 (less troubleshooting and testing).
  6. Compared to dongles, integrated features are actually less burdensome to develop (hardware and software wise), have better performance, are more reliable (easier troubleshooting), consume less energy (usb is not a low power link), are cheaper for the consumer, and more profitable for the company.
  7. People like integration. They could have a non-cellular PDA with larger screen and a small phone linked via bluetooth (and a gps dongle plugged in), but they seem to like the single package of the smartphone (for all the reasons mentioned above...especially #6).
Why hasn't wireless on a DSLR happened?

The DSLR companies have not been the most innovative camera companies. IMO, the Go Pro HD Hero and Red Camera type companies are the ones that have pushed the industry envelope. However, sooner or later one of the 'Big Imaging' companies will decide to stop being defensive with wireless features and go on the offense. I'm confident that this will happen within the next year, and even Pentax has the resources to be the first. This is a relatively easy feature win for whoever is most aggressive.

Last edited by dmytty; 09-13-2012 at 05:56 PM.
09-13-2012, 05:25 PM   #103
Pentaxian
redrockcoulee's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Medicine Hat
Posts: 2,135
QuoteOriginally posted by dmytty Quote
Wifi and Bluetooth doesn't just mean connecting to the internets.

Bluetooth 4.0 can be used to create a wifi 'ad-hoc' connection, or device to device connection with no wireless lan base station. Over wifi, it is certainly possible to transmit the Liveview feed - and even the 1080p HD video stream. This would allow a 'remote viewfinder' function.

Imagine going up to Alaska during the salmon run and setting up a camera on a concealed tripod mount. Now you move a safe distance away and open up your tablet. Viola, you're getting a Liveview from 200 yards away. A bear approaches the camera...you wait a second more, and then trigger the shutter. On the off chance that you're within range of a celltower, your camera could start backing up the pictures to your Fort Knox-like private server (with tinfoil shroud to keep the CIA away). Then, when the bear mauls your camera (because the iK30 shutter is loud), and you drop the tablet in despair (losing that copy), you can still sell the stunning backed up picture for enough money to replace your equipment and buy some yummy bear-captured Pacific Salmon steaks (that's what Wild Caught means right?).

Remember, this remote viewfinder scenario could easily be accomplished with an $810 K30 body and a $500 Ipad.

Instead of a story about another photographer being eaten, you have a great picture.

So remember photographers, wireless could save your life!
My cousin has made part of her living photographing bears in Alaska since the film days. Part of being a nature photographer is being able to capture the scene how you want it not just having the camera set up to be fired. Less likely to be near cell coverage on a salmon stream. I personally do not see your scenario as rewarding to a nature photographer, you just as well could set up a remote camera and fly back to town and sit in a cafe or bar taking your images. I have shot from blinds and even they are less restrictive then what you purpose. By past job was running a close circuit video of people in hot zones and even in a controlled situation one did not have the same flexibility that one would when in there deciding from more than the view from the lens.I suppose the tour companies can set up a camera tent and then take their clients to a lounge where in total comfort they can photograph the bears. Sounds like technology getting in the way of being a photographer more than aiding but that is my view.

In one post you mentioned Luddite; who were people being replaced by machines and angry about it not people just against machines. But in some ways I suppose I am a Luddite as I do not use new technology just because it is there or is new, I wish to choose which technologies work for me. Not sure if GPS is some thing I would use and at work I do use a sub foot GPS unit so it is not like I am against it but I do not need others knowing where my image was shot. Unfortunately there is already way too much stuff on a digital camera I do not want.Some of your other arguments I can see but the bear one is just making nature photography less of a skill and more of an easy way for everyone to get a shot of a bear without even having to know the nature of the animal.
09-13-2012, 06:07 PM   #104
Site Supporter




Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 95
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by redrockcoulee Quote
My cousin has made part of her living photographing bears in Alaska since the film days. Part of being a nature photographer is being able to capture the scene how you want it not just having the camera set up to be fired. I personally do not see your scenario as rewarding to a nature photographer, you just as well could set up a remote camera and fly back to town and sit in a cafe or bar taking your images. I have shot from blinds and even they are less restrictive then what you purpose. .
I can respect your position and would appreciate if you could post your cousin's thoughts here after you described the 'Remote Viewfinder' technology to him/her. As to making it less restrictive, I think it offers much more freedom. The photographer can be more aware of the surroundings, and can move at a distance to observe the scene from different perspectives.

QuoteOriginally posted by redrockcoulee Quote
Some of your other arguments I can see but the bear one is just making nature photography less of a skill and more of an easy way for everyone to get a shot of a bear without even having to know the nature of the animal.
As to 'making it easier to get a shot of an animal' I'm all in favor. Firstly, if people are able to stay away from the animals, I think it's safer for photographer and animal. Secondly, if people take pictures of an animal, I think they're very likely to see the value of preserving our natural places and the animals that live there.

Instead of a bear rug in front of the fireplace, let's see more 'personally shot' photos of the bear on the mantle.
09-13-2012, 06:12 PM   #105
Inactive Account




Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: North Carolina
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,720
QuoteOriginally posted by dmytty Quote
As to 'making it easier to get a shot of an animal' I'm all in favor. Firstly, if people are able to stay away from the animals, I think it's safer for photographer and animal.
So does the camera walk itself over into position on its tripod legs?
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!
bluetooth, board, camera, data, dslr, gps, pentax, photography, rf, wifi
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Pentax O-GPS1 GPS - Faulty k-5 or GPS Unit? KansasHorizons.com Pentax Camera and Field Accessories 6 01-04-2014 02:34 PM
Any news on Built-in GPS on any of Pentax's Cameras nstocke Pentax News and Rumors 13 04-25-2010 03:41 AM
GPS data in K7 pictures? Ivo_Spohr Pentax DSLR Discussion 9 04-23-2010 02:10 PM
Saving GPS data in K20dD files at time of capture: possible? WMBP Pentax DSLR Discussion 11 11-13-2009 04:54 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:40 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