[IchabodCrane]

Maybe Ricoh is working on something totally different when it comes to FF (or maybe not). Here's one set of ideas for something much different than what the world has seen to date:

Core features that Ricoh would keep:

1) WR -- they built a name around it and it's too easy to keep
2) SR -- far too hard and complex to migrate to in-lens stabilization plus they couldn't risk obsoleting every existing lens
3) K-mount


My musings:

1) EVF -- smaller and lighter than a FF pentaprism subsystem (compactness has always been touted by Pentax) plus additional flexibility (more on this later)
2) No mirror -- integrated on-sensor PDAF/CDAF (AF system uses both simultaneously which is where I think the technology will end up)
3) Multiple and selectable cropping
a) True FF -- SR is disabled
b) ~1.05 crop mode -- near FF with SR active (in body SR supposedly incompatible with full FF using K-mount)
c) APS-C crop mode
d) Camera-selected crop mode based on mounted lens (camera chooses least cropping possible for each non-FF lens)

Where the EVF comes in -- in addition to size and weight savings, the EVF displays the actual image based on the crop factor selected for each lens/shot. No more guessing what's in the frame and not plus you don't need to superimpose variable lines on an OVF.


Flame away!

[Clavius]

Maybe Ricoh is working on something totally different when it comes to FF (or maybe not). Here's one set of ideas for something much different than what the world has seen to date:

Core features that Ricoh would keep:

1) WR -- they built a name around it and it's too easy to keep
2) SR -- far too hard and complex to migrate to in-lens stabilization plus they couldn't risk obsoleting every existing lens
3) K-mount


My musings:

1) EVF -- smaller and lighter than a FF pentaprism subsystem (compactness has always been touted by Pentax) plus additional flexibility (more on this later)
2) No mirror -- integrated on-sensor PDAF/CDAF (AF system uses both simultaneously which is where I think the technology will end up)
3) Multiple and selectable cropping
a) True FF -- SR is disabled
b) ~1.05 crop mode -- near FF with SR active (in body SR supposedly incompatible with full FF using K-mount)
c) APS-C crop mode
d) Camera-selected crop mode based on mounted lens (camera chooses least cropping possible for each non-FF lens)

Where the EVF comes in -- in addition to size and weight savings, the EVF displays the actual image based on the crop factor selected for each lens/shot. No more guessing what's in the frame and not plus you don't need to superimpose variable lines on an OVF.


Flame away!

...Give this man a job at Ricoh R&D...

[Aristophanes]

b) ~1.05 crop mode -- near FF with SR active (in body SR supposedly incompatible with full FF using K-mount)

The Sony A99 has in-body stabilization, a tech dating back to Minolta, and it is FF.

The K-mount is about 1mm different than the Sony/Minolta a-mount in register difference.

[Apapukas]

Maybe Ricoh is working on something totally different when it comes to FF (or maybe not). Here's one set of ideas for something much different than what the world has seen to date:

Core features that Ricoh would keep:

1) WR -- they built a name around it and it's too easy to keep
2) SR -- far too hard and complex to migrate to in-lens stabilization plus they couldn't risk obsoleting every existing lens
3) K-mount


My musings:

1) EVF -- smaller and lighter than a FF pentaprism subsystem (compactness has always been touted by Pentax) plus additional flexibility (more on this later)
2) No mirror -- integrated on-sensor PDAF/CDAF (AF system uses both simultaneously which is where I think the technology will end up)
3) Multiple and selectable cropping
a) True FF -- SR is disabled
b) ~1.05 crop mode -- near FF with SR active (in body SR supposedly incompatible with full FF using K-mount)
c) APS-C crop mode
d) Camera-selected crop mode based on mounted lens (camera chooses least cropping possible for each non-FF lens)

Where the EVF comes in -- in addition to size and weight savings, the EVF displays the actual image based on the crop factor selected for each lens/shot. No more guessing what's in the frame and not plus you don't need to superimpose variable lines on an OVF.


Flame away!

I believe that in future EVF will change OVF. Even though, at the moment OVF doesn't leave any chances to EVF.

In one of interviews Pentax/Ricoh mentioned that at the moment EVF makes sense only in medium format, because of the giant mirror.

So, I am pretty sure that K-3 (or whatever the name will be) will have OVF.

[Clavius]

I would opt for an AF K-mount adapter for using the legacy glass. So that the Chinese can produce adapters for each and every lens to be able to fit this camera.

[IchabodCrane]

The Sony A99 has in-body stabilization, a tech dating back to Minolta, and it is FF.

The K-mount is about 1mm different than the Sony/Minolta a-mount in register difference.

If a 1.05 crop is not needed then great. I only threw that out there in response to the mountains of speculation around K-mount / FF / IBIS not being mutually achievable, at least not in a high quality way.

[Aristophanes]

If a 1.05 crop is not needed then great. I only threw that out there in response to the mountains of speculation around K-mount / FF / IBIS not being mutually achievable, at least not in a high quality way.

I suspect it is the old bugaboos about:

1) IBIS requires a physical and electronic framework perhaps eating some space in the box. The A99 is large body, but then again, that EVF module is HUGE, as are a lot of the EVF modules on the a-mount cameras. Still, the 645D has in-lens stabilization.

2) IBIS is excellent at wide to medium ranges on par or better than in-lens, but at longer FL's (70mm+) in-lens has a measurable edge (which itself appears to make for some beefy Canon and Nikon IS/VR equipment). IBIS deals with legacy glass.

It is difficult to tell if IBIS is the FF roadblock. IMO I doubt it is a roadblock so much as being less effective on larger sensors and longer FL's. There may be form factor issues as well.

[Clavius]

If a 1.05 crop is not needed then great. I only threw that out there in response to the mountains of speculation around K-mount / FF / IBIS not being mutually achievable, at least not in a high quality way.

FF PK lenses on Canon FF often show vignetting. So on a sensor that is standing completely still. Which sounds logical, film never used to move around too, and all Pentax FF lenses are developed for film. So that's why a lot of people are convinced the vignetting will increase as soon as that sensor starts moving around.

I don't care. If I see vignetting I just crop it off, unless I decide that I like it.

[6BQ5]

Sounds kind of like a beefed up Sony A3000.

[Fogel70]

FF PK lenses on Canon FF often show vignetting. So on a sensor that is standing completely still. Which sounds logical, film never used to move around too, and all Pentax FF lenses are developed for film. So that's why a lot of people are convinced the vignetting will increase as soon as that sensor starts moving around.

I don't care. If I see vignetting I just crop it off, unless I decide that I like it.

When using SR the sensor in centered when the images is captured, so using SR will not add much vignetting. It will be difficult to see difference in vignetting with or without SR.

[IchabodCrane]

Sounds kind of like a beefed up Sony A3000.

True but I was thinking more like a larger OM-D E-M1 or something like that.

What crossed my mind about the concept is you could end up with a FF camera that's nearly the same size as the K-5 series, which is a significant selling point, IMHO. The EVF housing size is independent of the sensor size (unlike with an OVF) so it doesn't need to be like the one on the A99. Heck, most MILCs (which is essentially what this is) don't even have a pentaprism-like housing for the EVF.

Personally, I like OVFs better, at least at the moment, but the EVF solves a number of problems that aren't really solvable in a practical way with an OVF such as desired physical size and automatic crop adjustment of the display.

[Clavius]

True but I was thinking more like a larger OM-D E-M1 or something like that.

What crossed my mind about the concept is you could end up with a FF camera that's nearly the same size as the K-5 series, which is a significant selling point, IMHO. The EVF housing size is independent of the sensor size (unlike with an OVF) so it doesn't need to be like the one on the A99. Heck, most MILCs (which is essentially what this is) don't even have a pentaprism-like housing for the EVF.

Personally, I like OVFs better, at least at the moment, but the EVF solves a number of problems that aren't really solvable in a practical way with an OVF such as desired physical size and automatic crop adjustment of the display.

A major advantage would be the affordability of such a beast. If you see how extremely "cheap" the Sony A3000 is compared to DSLRs with the same sensor/feature-set, then imagine what it would do in the FF market. It would truly bring FF to the common people. Like the K1000 did once. That's why it would be so cool if Pentax would be the one to make such a breakthrough.

[Fogel70]

True but I was thinking more like a larger OM-D E-M1 or something like that.

What crossed my mind about the concept is you could end up with a FF camera that's nearly the same size as the K-5 series, which is a significant selling point, IMHO. The EVF housing size is independent of the sensor size (unlike with an OVF) so it doesn't need to be like the one on the A99. Heck, most MILCs (which is essentially what this is) don't even have a pentaprism-like housing for the EVF.

Personally, I like OVFs better, at least at the moment, but the EVF solves a number of problems that aren't really solvable in a practical way with an OVF such as desired physical size and automatic crop adjustment of the display.

If you want to use SR it will be difficult to make a FF as small as K-5, the APS-C sized SR mechanism just fit in a K-5, but if you up-scale SR for FF it might need a body 20-30 mm higher than K-5.

[VisualDarkness]

Well, Sony don't even need FF or SR for extreme vignetting. I bet even some Pentax aps-c lenses will perform to this level both with SR and FF: Sony E 16-50mm f/3.5-5.6 OSS PZ (SEL-1650) - Review / Test Report - Analysis

[Aristophanes]

Well, Sony don't even need FF or SR for extreme vignetting. I bet even some Pentax aps-c lenses will perform to this level both with SR and FF: Sony E 16-50mm f/3.5-5.6 OSS PZ (SEL-1650) - Review / Test Report - Analysis

Falk Lumo's White Paper does indicate that vignetting is an issue for lenses on larger sensors:

http://www.falklumo.com/lumolabs/articles/equivalence/CameraEquivalence.pdf