[PentaxPoke]

I am curious. Why?

If I could get a digital rangefinder (any brand, I am not a Leica snob) with 1-2 decent lenses for under $1k, I'd get one in a heartbeat and probably never look back at an SLR again. But then that is just me, I imagine people would prefer SLRs for telephotos/macros etc.

Well I guess this is as close as it gets now:
DCRP Review: Panasonic Lumix DMC-L1

I'll still take 2 k10d's any day of the week.

[falconeye]

Well I guess this is as close as it gets now:
DCRP Review: Panasonic Lumix DMC-L1

Saw this. Looks rangefinder, but actually is an SLR in FourThirds format w/o the pentaprism. Got Leica lenses, though...

[mattdm]

Saw this. Looks rangefinder, but actually is an SLR in FourThirds format w/o the pentaprism. Got Leica lenses, though...

I think it's a beautiful design, and might have been swayed to go with it over Pentax if it weren't for the tunnel-vision viewfinder, the poor high ISO, and the price of good 4/3rds lenses.

The thing I really love about the design, though, isn't just the looks, but the way the built-in flash can tilt up to bounce. It's a really cool design and I'd really love if Pentax would borrow the idea, or license it, or whatever it takes.

[nosnoop]

However, with sensor technology improving more and more, an electronic viewfinder (with some sort of live view) may soon be superior to a purely optical viewfinder (ok, not today, but some day...). For instance, it could be brighter, sharper, etc.
Once this has happened, a digital rangefinder may be a more intelligent digital camera -- it has a large sensor and removable lens support and a "through-the-lens" viewfinder but without the burden of the mirror which makes stellar wide angle lenses impossible.
So, the opposite may be true: I wished Pentax would offer a 35mm digital rangefinder plus a fully functional converter for SLR lenses.

What you have described is EVIL (electronic viewfinder with interchangeable lens). And yes, this would be the next Big thing after Live View. This will be huge as well in a few years time, dominating / replacing current DSLR lower consumer market segment. And it will be a merged media capture device with high definition video.

[falconeye]

What you have described is EVIL (electronic viewfinder with interchangeable lens).

Thank You for pointing me to this amazing project. This seems to be its home: » EVIL Camera Project

Seems like physicists come up with this automatically

I would, however, not say that an electronic viewfinder matching an optical VF of a FF 35mm SLR is already possible. Will be soon, but isn't here yet. Also, what I didn't like with EVIL, is that its creator does not foresee that such cameras could be made a lot smaller than DSLRs today (the corresponding bayonet standard should take the possibility of credit card size cameras into account(*) (w/o lens, of course...) -- as may be required by small, slow lenses with 8mm focal length or so anyway).

(*) If this sounds funny ... think of it the other way round: you mount a "camera back cap" onto your lens, the lens is what is the value, not the camera. Easily foreseen as how photography will look like in 25 years or so. Physicists should think this far, at least

(*) If this still sounds funny ... Schneider-Kreuznach build lenses (their Digitar lenses) which work like this: they have an embedded electronic shutter and a sensor back seems to be directly mounted to the lens...

[Bnack]

I don't post here much... but felt the need to add a few words. I would simply say that I think we've had the technology to make fantastic photographs for quite a few years now. RFs may have quite a few technological drawbacks when compared to a modern SLR, but I would argue that the simplicity can help free up your mind when your shooting. I think it depends on what you like to shoot, and how you like to shoot. But for me, artistically I think I get better photographs with a RF. I personally can't justify the expense of a leica M system, so I bought a Zeiss Ikon. I hope that someday they make a digital RF at a "resonable price." That being said though if you spend a few thousand on a quality RF camera and keep it for 30 years, I bet you spent a lot less money than most dSLR shooters over that same 30 year period. The question is whether or not anyone can make a digital camera right now of any kind that will hold up for long enough to justify that expense. I'd gladly pay 5k for a dRF if I knew I'd still be shooting it a few decades down the road.

[ennoia]

But how about replacing your "luxurious V8" with a BMW twin turbo 6 cylinder ? I won't mind that one bit

Twin turbo? Pfft, E34M5 Inline 6, and you don't need no turbo

[Jonson PL]

What you have described is EVIL (electronic viewfinder with interchangeable lens). And yes, this would be the next Big thing after Live View. This will be huge as well in a few years time, dominating / replacing current DSLR lower consumer market segment. And it will be a merged media capture device with high definition video.

The professional shooter and reviewer Sean Reid, was not too impressed with the EVF idea, as he evaluated the Leica Digilux 2 :

"Panasonic, reportedly, manufactured the sensor used in the Canon 1D and of course has extensive electronics expertise and capability, both of which Leica lack.

When news of the Leica Digilux 2 first trickled out to the press and Internet discussion groups, some expressed the hope that this camera would be the digital rangefinder that many have been looking forward to. As its specifications were released, it became clear that the new camera, while styled much like a traditional Leica rangefinder, would in fact use an EVF instead of an optical finder to complement it’s LCD screen and would use a fixed zoom lens instead of interchangeable lenses.”

“I’m not happy with the EVF on the Leica just as I haven’t been happy with the EVF of any camera I’ve tried. It does seem to show 100% of the frame and it does allow exposure and other information to be visible when the camera is held to the eye but it doesn’t have enough resolution to allow me to accurately see the picture I’m making. Interestingly enough, it’s not as bad when working with existing light indoors (except for having a certain amount of lag) but in bright sunlight outdoors I found it to be almost unusable (as I’ve found to be the case with every EVF camera I’ve tried). One’s eyes, of course, adjust to bright sunlight and when I put the EVF finder to my eye outdoors I found the view to be dark and generalized. It could only show me where the edges of the picture were and give me a rough sense of where objects were within those edges. There was no way that I could see the subtle expression and gesture that I need to watch when I make pictures of people. Adjusting the EVF brightness level didn’t help much. Each time I use an EVF camera I start to adjust to it and think, “well this isn’t so bad”…until I look again through a good optical finder and am reminded of the dramatic difference between the two. As EVFs go, this 235,000 pixel unit is reasonably sharp and bright but in my mind it’s really no substitute for the glass finder in an SLR or a rangefinder.”

“Anticipating the EVF concern, I requested the loan of two accessory Voigtlander optical finders from CameraQuest, a small California based company that specializes in rangefinders and unusual (and useful) camera adapters, accessories, etc. If, like me, you enjoy traditional methods of photography, you may want to consider this option.”

Digilux 2 Review - Part 1


I doubt it will find its way into high-end DSLRs

[Jonson PL]

But how about replacing your "luxurious V8" with a BMW twin turbo 6 cylinder ? I won't mind that one bit

I like this part . I would prefer a D300 or Eos 1D Mark III; to a Eos 5D FF.

But I do understand those that are interested in FF. I take it Rob that you don't expect a K-mount FF announcement at Photokina ;-?

[monochrome]

I really don't understand this obsession people seem to have with FF sensors.

I'm just an old rock drummer from the Midwest.

I couldn't care less whether the sensor is FF, APS-C, 4:3 or Wide Screen.

I just want my SMC 24mm f/2.8 to have a 10.5 meter horizontal Field of View when the subject is 7 meters away.

[*isteve]

I've come across a few humorous posts (which could conceivably be insulting to some) with various derogatory descriptions of FF fanatics. If we are patient, we may be blessed with just such a post on this thread.

As originally posted on DPReview. Anyone who takes offense easily is likely to be, er, easily offended!

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Just sneaked a peek at a Pentax executive's marketing brief when he went for a pee in Starbucks. Interesting reading. Apparently they have identified all the key proponents of FF on the various forums to help them set up customer focus groups. Here are the various types of people who they are looking to find...

puFFers: These are people who will seize every and any opportunity to start a new thread, or hijack an existing thread, to bring up the subject of FF. They are not interested in any debate or any other subject. They have many reasons for believing in the holy grail, most of which are based on well rehearsed mantras which they repeat over and over again. The sight of other manufacturers bringing out FF cameras sends them into a state of irrational panic and they are convinced Pentax will collapse if they dont follow suit. Marketing value - zero. Would never actually BUY one as they are too expensive!!! In fact do they even own a camera?

huFFers: These are people who actually have some technical knowledge who will frequently join in threads started by puFFers when APSC exponents point out some of the problems with their reasoning. They will use very cogent arguments and a raft of links to apparently authoritative blogs to prove that in every possible instance, FF has no downside (except the cost). Marketing value - moderate. Can generate a sense of missionary zeal amongst puFFers and deep desires in other susceptible subjects (see stuFFers and fluFFers). However they are unlikely to actually BUY a FF camera as most of them are engineering students. Good for sales material though.

huFF'n'puFFers: Huffers who get bored when there are too many photo threads about and start a FF debate for a laugh.

duFFers: Eeeeee. When I were a lad, cameras were 35mm and you knew what was what. A 50mm lens was a 50mm lens but now they have these ** little sensors its a ** telephoto. None of me lenses work right any more. And the viewfinders are too ** small to see a ** thing through. And you cant get a decent wide angle lens at all. And blah blah blah.....Marketing value: Moderate to good. Includes plenty of baby boomers with collections of A* and FA* Pentax lenses and real spending potential but will tend to drift off in focus groups looking for the free buffet and a pint of Old Peculiar.

stuFFers: A marketing mans dream. The engines of capitalism. These are the souls who will remortgage their house and sell their children to get the latest and best gadget available. They understand very little about the technology and even less about photography, but if everyone says its the best and its suitably expensive they HAVE to have one to show to their friends. Marketing value: Usually very high but caution is advised as many are currently having their houses repossessed.

fluFFers: These wan and pasty souls buy all the latest copies of Popular Photography for pornographic reasons. They would love an FF camera but they cant afford one so they are stuck with their rotten, useless APSC rubbish which takes cr*ppy pictures and its all Pentax's fault!!!! Marketing value: Negligable as generally skint and rather embarassing to be seen with at focus groups.

bluFFers: People who never post any photographs but who claim to need the extra creative and expressive freedom that FF provides such as shooting in near darkness. Marketing value is potentially good as they are often well heeled and likely to buy, but many are asleep during daylight hours and are unlikely to attend focus groups.

and lastly....


enuFFers: These are not strictly FF supporters. In fact with every new camera that comes out they reckon that what they have is perfectly adequate and they dont need any more. Eventually they will be ground down and will consider upgrading. Strangely however, when they upgrade, they will tend to buy the best top of the range camera available (well it will last them a long time) just before it goes out of stock and is replaced by the new model. A real marketing wildcard: Have real buying power and once converted will become almost missionary in their support - until the next model appears which is usually a week later.

[benplaut]

that's awesome, what thread did it come from?!

[Jonson PL]

As originally posted on DPReview. Anyone who takes offense easily is likely to be, er, easily offended!

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Just sneaked a peek at a Pentax executive's marketing brief when he went for a pee in Starbucks. Interesting reading. Apparently they have identified all the key proponents of FF on the various forums to help them set up customer focus groups. Here are the various types of people who they are looking to find...

puFFers: These are people who will seize every and any opportunity to start a new thread, or hijack an existing thread, to bring up the subject of FF. They are not interested in any debate or any other subject. They have many reasons for believing in the holy grail, most of which are based on well rehearsed mantras which they repeat over and over again. The sight of other manufacturers bringing out FF cameras sends them into a state of irrational panic and they are convinced Pentax will collapse if they dont follow suit. Marketing value - zero. Would never actually BUY one as they are too expensive!!! In fact do they even own a camera?

huFFers: These are people who actually have some technical knowledge who will frequently join in threads started by puFFers when APSC exponents point out some of the problems with their reasoning. They will use very cogent arguments and a raft of links to apparently authoritative blogs to prove that in every possible instance, FF has no downside (except the cost). Marketing value - moderate. Can generate a sense of missionary zeal amongst puFFers and deep desires in other susceptible subjects (see stuFFers and fluFFers). However they are unlikely to actually BUY a FF camera as most of them are engineering students. Good for sales material though.

huFF'n'puFFers: Huffers who get bored when there are too many photo threads about and start a FF debate for a laugh.

duFFers: Eeeeee. When I were a lad, cameras were 35mm and you knew what was what. A 50mm lens was a 50mm lens but now they have these ** little sensors its a ** telephoto. None of me lenses work right any more. And the viewfinders are too ** small to see a ** thing through. And you cant get a decent wide angle lens at all. And blah blah blah.....Marketing value: Moderate to good. Includes plenty of baby boomers with collections of A* and FA* Pentax lenses and real spending potential but will tend to drift off in focus groups looking for the free buffet and a pint of Old Peculiar.

stuFFers: A marketing mans dream. The engines of capitalism. These are the souls who will remortgage their house and sell their children to get the latest and best gadget available. They understand very little about the technology and even less about photography, but if everyone says its the best and its suitably expensive they HAVE to have one to show to their friends. Marketing value: Usually very high but caution is advised as many are currently having their houses repossessed.

fluFFers: These wan and pasty souls buy all the latest copies of Popular Photography for pornographic reasons. They would love an FF camera but they cant afford one so they are stuck with their rotten, useless APSC rubbish which takes cr*ppy pictures and its all Pentax's fault!!!! Marketing value: Negligable as generally skint and rather embarassing to be seen with at focus groups.

bluFFers: People who never post any photographs but who claim to need the extra creative and expressive freedom that FF provides such as shooting in near darkness. Marketing value is potentially good as they are often well heeled and likely to buy, but many are asleep during daylight hours and are unlikely to attend focus groups.

and lastly....


enuFFers: These are not strictly FF supporters. In fact with every new camera that comes out they reckon that what they have is perfectly adequate and they dont need any more. Eventually they will be ground down and will consider upgrading. Strangely however, when they upgrade, they will tend to buy the best top of the range camera available (well it will last them a long time) just before it goes out of stock and is replaced by the new model. A real marketing wildcard: Have real buying power and once converted will become almost missionary in their support - until the next model appears which is usually a week later.

You hit the “enuFFers” exactly on me.
I went for the Z1P after having read forever about different brands and models, but then the MZ-S was coming out, Z1P disappearing, and I had to make a move. Thought I would just stay in film land, but then I read about the original *Ist D, and that it was an older but praised model, which might disappear from shelves. As I had just set my mind on this, enter the K10.

Should Pentax just have stayed with the K10, and with all the bruhaha about future, I had simply thought to acquire a couple down the line, and I could do well for a long time.
Now the K20 is here, and I see that actually the K10 could be improved.

Still being a student, not too much buying power, but I always end up buying too good equipment for trips that I can’t afford the trip itself


Fun stuff

[OttawaPhotog]

I totally played that game with my brother when i was a kid... jumping all around the living room to the kitchen... I guess i didn't make it up... lol... too funny

[ftpaddict]

I think Pentax are waiting for Olympus to come up with a full frame sensor first