Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
03-14-2013, 10:03 AM   #1
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Bangalore
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,447
Manual Focus only DSLR

Just wondering, how much size and cost reduction is possible if AF functionality is removed from DSLR?

Would you buy such DSLR (similar to MZ-M)?

03-14-2013, 10:12 AM   #2
Site Supporter
boriscleto's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Liverpool, NY
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 12,757
Not very much size reduction. The K-5 is barely bigger than an LX or ME. You don't save very much size by removing the AF screw drive either. Just look at the low end Nikons, the D5200 is 6.5mm narrower and 8.5mm shorter than the D7100. The difference in weight is battery size and all plastic construction of the D5200.
03-14-2013, 10:56 AM   #3
Moderator PEG Judges
Kerrowdown's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Highlands of Scotland.
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 32,165
I wouldn't think there would be much difference, the bulk of the camera size is down to the viewfinder, mirror and sensor rather than the AF mech.
03-14-2013, 11:08 AM   #4
Pentaxian




Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: SW Washington
Posts: 814
The PDAF assembly at the bottom of the camera is actually quite large. However, removing it wouldn't really gain any space savings, due to the dimensions of the K-mount (the bottom edge of the mount is nearly at the bottom of the camera).

The AF system takes advantage of the smaller APS-C image circle, and actually sits inside the mirror box itself, a space that would have otherwise been empty to accomodate a FF image circle/mirror.

03-15-2013, 04:20 AM   #5
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Bangalore
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,447
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by boriscleto Quote
Not very much size reduction. The K-5 is barely bigger than an LX or ME. .
My k-x or k-01 definitely feels bulkier than ME despite of small viewfinder, so I am sure K-5 too, would love DSLR of ME size.

Last edited by yusuf; 03-15-2013 at 04:25 AM.
03-15-2013, 04:35 AM   #6
Moderator PEG Judges
Kerrowdown's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Highlands of Scotland.
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 32,165
QuoteOriginally posted by yusuf Quote
would love DSLR of ME size
I think a lot of this has to do with shooting style and size of hands.

Me I really like the bulker feel of the larger cameras and always add a grip if one is not integral. I just find it easer to balance heavier faster or longer glass, if there's more to grab hold of.
03-15-2013, 01:26 PM   #7
Veteran Member
scratchpaddy's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Phoenix
Posts: 2,360
QuoteOriginally posted by kerrowdown Quote
I just find it easer [...] if there's more to grab hold of.
Man, you just threw my mind into the gutter...

No, but seriously, I agree about the handling part. However, the small size is really beneficial for carrying it around, which is actually what you spend most of the time doing. I wouldn't mind having a DSLR sans autofocus.

Last edited by scratchpaddy; 03-15-2013 at 01:35 PM.
03-15-2013, 01:55 PM   #8
Pentaxian
RonHendriks1966's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2009
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,714
QuoteOriginally posted by Cannikin Quote
The PDAF assembly at the bottom of the camera is actually quite large. However, removing it wouldn't really gain any space savings, due to the dimensions of the K-mount (the bottom edge of the mount is nearly at the bottom of the camera).
I think that removing this would make it smaller like the K-01 that laks the PDAF. Otherwise the K-mount and backscreen are making the camera big. And also all the electronics (including SR) to make it fast and snappy.

03-16-2013, 05:04 PM   #9
Pentaxian




Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: North
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,894
The answer is called Canon 5Dc.
Its cheap and available now.
Big and chunky and lousy interface (to me).
But its a real camera and not airware or made of paper.
A lower resolution FF sensor that seems to remind me of film.
Oddly, I still like it for the very manual way it needs to be used just like a film camera.
Weight won't kill too if coupled with some small primes.


However, I'd still rely on my K30 (better in every way except for FOV/DOF )

As for the question on a hypothetical MF camera, probably the size between a LX and K-5 if its w/o SR.
The K5 is already a very small DSLR if you compare it next to a film camera like LX or MZ-5n

I'd buy one if its under $1K, about LX sized, looks like a LX/Spotmatic/ME/KX, proper f2.8 catered focusing screen like the EE-G/EE-S from Canon.
Its all about looks, preference and the feeling of manual operation for such a camera.
That said, I actually think a MILC with EVF (+focus peaking) is better for MF lenses and such a camera.
03-21-2013, 08:58 PM   #10
Veteran Member




Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 818
Hmm.... I'm wondering if anyone ever notice the dark engraving, hidden inconspicuously near the left strap eyelet?
It looks something of a symbol like an "O" with a horizontal line through it.

Do you know that it basically means that there is where the sensor plane is?
Now, notice the width space between the symbol and the rear screen?

Yes.. That rear screen is pretty much taking up a lot of space. You can imagine that one can literally HALF the camera body in thickness just by removing the rear screen.
And that, my friend, IMHO, is why film SLRs could be made small..



PS: That symbol i'm referring to can also be found in any SLRs and DSLRs. Hyperfocal distance measurement starts from that symbol to your subject, contrary to what i usually hear from; "front of lens", "from the lens mount", and even "somewhere in the middle of the camera lens".. ;P
03-21-2013, 09:15 PM   #11
Veteran Member
scratchpaddy's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Phoenix
Posts: 2,360
QuoteOriginally posted by SyncGuy Quote
Hmm.... I'm wondering if anyone ever notice the dark engraving, hidden inconspicuously near the left strap eyelet?
It looks something of a symbol like an "O" with a horizontal line through it.

Do you know that it basically means that there is where the sensor plane is?
Now, notice the width space between the symbol and the rear screen?

Yes.. That rear screen is pretty much taking up a lot of space. You can imagine that one can literally HALF the camera body in thickness just by removing the rear screen.
And that, my friend, IMHO, is why film SLRs could be made small..



PS: That symbol i'm referring to can also be found in any SLRs and DSLRs. Hyperfocal distance measurement starts from that symbol to your subject, contrary to what i usually hear from; "front of lens", "from the lens mount", and even "somewhere in the middle of the camera lens".. ;P
Hey, cool beans! I love learning stuff like this. I'm not sure which camera you're talking about, though. On my K-5 IIs, the symbol is bright silver, right beside the right eyelet, not the left. I'm amazed I've never noticed that before. I don't think all that space is occupied by the screen, though. I've taken apart a P&S before, and the screen accounted for maybe 2 or 3 mm of thickness, tops. I bet DSLRs have a lot more electronic guts than that P&S, too.

Edit: I looked on my K-r, and the symbol is exactly as you described.
03-21-2013, 09:21 PM   #12
Veteran Member




Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 818
QuoteOriginally posted by scratchpaddy Quote
Hey, cool beans! I love learning stuff like this. I'm not sure which camera you're talking about, though. On my K-5 IIs, the symbol is bright silver, right beside the right eyelet, not the left. I'm amazed I've never noticed that before. I don't think all that space is occupied by the screen, though. I've taken apart a P&S before, and the screen accounted for maybe 2 or 3 mm of thickness, tops. I bet DSLRs have a lot more electronic guts than that P&S, too.

Edit: I looked on my K-r, and the symbol is exactly as you described.
Oooh... Maybe i was too quick to generalise on the symbol appearance, but yea.. I was inferring from my Kr.. ;P

Nevertheless, i see.. But i'm thinking that the screen might take 2-3mm in thickness but the other components and cables required to power up and render the screen useable would take more of those precious "millimeters"..
03-21-2013, 09:57 PM   #13
Veteran Member
scratchpaddy's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Phoenix
Posts: 2,360
QuoteOriginally posted by SyncGuy Quote
But i'm thinking that the screen might take 2-3mm in thickness but the other components and cables required to power up and render the screen useable would take more of those precious "millimeters"..
Are you mocking me for using the metric system?

Let's see. Being a photographer, of course, I use a camera to take pictures while taking apart another camera. It would be cool if someone had used a camera to take a picture of me using a camera to take pictures of a taken-apart camera... but I digress. Here is said picture.



I'd say that looks like about 1/8", if you insist. The screen, backlight and everything, is encased inside that metal border. All the components to drive the screen are integrated into the camera's mainboard, so it's not really adding to the camera's thickness. The lens unit on the top of the picture contains the sensor, power zoom, and autofocus, which really does add a lot of thickness to the camera.

Now I'm wondering: how would you adjust all of your settings without any screen? There's a lot of settings on a DSLR.
03-22-2013, 12:10 AM   #14
Veteran Member




Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 818
QuoteOriginally posted by scratchpaddy Quote
Are you mocking me for using the metric system?

I'd say that looks like about 1/8", if you insist. The screen, backlight and everything, is encased inside that metal border. All the components to drive the screen are integrated into the camera's mainboard, so it's not really adding to the camera's thickness. The lens unit on the top of the picture contains the sensor, power zoom, and autofocus, which really does add a lot of thickness to the camera.

Now I'm wondering: how would you adjust all of your settings without any screen? There's a lot of settings on a DSLR.
Woah! Now that's even neater than taking a lens out of production. :P

Mocking you? Nah! Just forming my own opinion. Haha! Nevertheless, every mm and gram counts for those who seems to always be wanting their DSLR to be smaller and lighter. Heh...

Settings? Well..... i suppose these group of people actually never seem to think about it when they request for such stuffs, don't you think so?
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!
camera, dslr, photography
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
DSLR to go with manual focus lenses ManUtd Pentax DSLR Discussion 17 09-03-2012 08:52 AM
Does KAF2 mean that SDM only lens will focus by manual? JerryLime Pentax K-01 3 02-02-2012 01:11 PM
New Lensline: Pentax DM-WR, manual focus only! RonHendriks1966 Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 81 06-22-2011 08:05 PM
Do you use only manual focus lenses?Do a lot of folks use only manual lenses? heralu Pentax DSLR Discussion 12 01-05-2011 04:06 PM
Manual focus on DSLR leaton Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 5 11-14-2006 12:22 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:15 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