Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
02-23-2014, 09:08 PM   #31
Pentaxian
jimr-pdx's Avatar

Join Date: May 2010
Location: now 1 hour north of PDX
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,897
It's a nasty web of compromises, in any case. Focus peaking really helps me, so without a focus screen an EVF would be in order - that's not my favorite view though, plus it's another battery drain (though less than LV on the large screen). For sanity's sake I'll take what we have now and just turn AF off, at least that way I still have AF confirmation in challenging light.

I really should power down and go all-manual more often, I've rather lost the knack of it some day soon I hope to go to my local goodwill superstore with $60 and come back with some prize PK primes!

02-23-2014, 09:09 PM   #32
Veteran Member
jtkratzer's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Lancaster County, Pa
Posts: 963
QuoteOriginally posted by Na Horuk Quote
But then you wouldn't have CiF either?

Wouldn't need it as I'd expect a micro prism or split image focusing screen.

QuoteOriginally posted by Adam Quote
Seeing that people are complaining about the fact that the Nikon Df doesn't have video, think about what would happen if Pentax were to launch a similar camera without AF. It would be fine to see a DSLR designed for manual focusing (preferably a FF with a nice big focusing screen), but omitting AF completely would be a mistake.

Did you see this review of the Df from DigitalRev TV?


I kind of agree with you, but kind of not...I pretty much agree with everything in the above link about the Df, it's a pretty piss poor attempt at recreating a classic look in digital. I love the simplicity of running an old 35mm camera. If I could get that experience with digital, I'd likely buy one. It would be a fantastic option for landscape, still life, etc. I like the idea of just a histogram to further minimize battery consumption.

QuoteOriginally posted by Mareket Quote
Buy a Leica? It'd be cool having a Mf DSLR yeah but then really it seems to make more sense to me to just use film instead if you're going to go down that route. You could buy and process hundreds of rolls of film for the cost of a DSLR. And get a nice big viewfinder with an MX or something, whilst still being smaller and having better battery life.

Get the new slide copier and you've got basically got a digital full frame that'll slow you down good and proper.

But film doesn't allow the flexibility of ISO and "white balance changes" from shot to shot without using filters on the lenses. Film photography experience with the flexibility of digital.
02-23-2014, 09:49 PM   #33
Moderator
Man With A Camera
Loyal Site Supporter
Racer X 69's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: The Great Pacific Northwet, in the Land Between Canada and Mexico
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 28,028
QuoteOriginally posted by BrianR Quote
I wouldn't count on it costing much less, or even less at all. The demand would possibly be low enough that the added cost of a small production stream could outweigh any parts savings. But who knows.
I think I would agree here.

When buying a car, if you want it without a radio, and with vinyl on the floor instead of carpet, it costs extra. The assembly line is configured for the base model which generally has those items, and added optional stuff gets included based on the assembly code for each car.

To get a car with what would seem like a simple change from production requires a major interruption of the assembly process.

And the added expense will be passed to the customer.
02-23-2014, 10:10 PM - 1 Like   #34
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Nevada, USA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,348
Taking out an already developed autofocus system would essentially mean removing the in-body motor, removing the AF/MF selection switch, and disabling some firmware code. The cost in parts and labor to assemble them is fractional compared to big pieces like the sensor. Taking them out would engage some product development and sustaining costs. As Racer X 69 said the assembly line has already been developed and optimized for AF being in the body. There would be a lot of changes that we wouldn't see directly that need to happen which could cost a lot.

There's also the market question. People on the forum here may be attracted to the idea because we're a fairly technical bunch. However, we also have to assume that any Pentax DSLR could be one of the first, if not the first, camera upscale bodies that a newcomer from the P&S world picks up. Every product has to be magical from that perspective. Removing AF could cause some of that magic disappear. Their first thought would be, "Why would anyone not want AF?". Then they put down the camera (and in a sense, they put down the whole product line up) and head over to the competition.

Modern cameras will have AF like modern automobiles have power steering, power brakes, and floor mats.

02-24-2014, 12:01 AM   #35
Veteran Member




Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: California
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,356
QuoteOriginally posted by 6BQ5 Quote
Taking out an already developed autofocus system would essentially mean removing the in-body motor, removing the AF/MF selection switch, and disabling some firmware code. The cost in parts and labor to assemble them is fractional compared to big pieces like the sensor. Taking them out would engage some product development and sustaining costs. As Racer X 69 said the assembly line has already been developed and optimized for AF being in te body. There would be a lot of changes that we wouldn't see directly that need to happen which could cost a lot.

There's also the market question. People on the forum here may be attracted to the idea because we're a fairly technical bunch. However, we also have to assume that any Pentax DSLR could be one of the first, if not the first, camera upscale bodies that a newcomer from the P&S world picks up. Every product has to be magical from that perspective. Removing AF could cause some of that magic disappear. Their first thought would be, "Why would anyone not want AF?". Then they put down the camera (and in a sense, they put down the whole product line up) and head over to the competitipm.

Modern cameras will have AF like modern automobiles have power steering, power brakes, and floor mats.
We can always make excuses not to offer products. Acting out of fear is not how companies typically get ahead. We have examples of digital cameras being successful without autofocus.
02-24-2014, 05:54 AM   #36
Veteran Member
jtkratzer's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Lancaster County, Pa
Posts: 963
The concept of added cost to not put something in the camera because of assembly automation would apply if we were talking about selling a K-3 without AF. I think most here advocating for a fully manual digital SLR, perhaps with an aperture priority mode, are talking about an entirely new camera, except maybe the sensor, especially those asking for a histogram-only screen. Instead of modding asebly procedures, the costs would be a new assembly and th R&D for the new camera.
02-24-2014, 07:11 AM   #37
Veteran Member




Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Ontario
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,332
QuoteOriginally posted by jtkratzer Quote
The concept of added cost to not put something in the camera because of assembly automation would apply if we were talking about selling a K-3 without AF. I think most here advocating for a fully manual digital SLR, perhaps with an aperture priority mode, are talking about an entirely new camera, except maybe the sensor, especially those asking for a histogram-only screen. Instead of modding asebly procedures, the costs would be a new assembly and th R&D for the new camera.
The problem seems essentially the same to me- the demand will likely be so low that they may have a hard time paying for the overhead of a whole new production line. Who knows though, this is really just speculation on my part

I'd love to see Pentax buck the trend of packing every whiz-bang new feature into a camera and go back to basics*, I just doubt the market success. A stripped to the bone camera with just the bare essentials needed to take pictures- I'd be happy to pay what I think this would be worth (especially if it's FF). I'd be unlikely to pay what it would probably cost.



*I'd wager finding a group of 3 or more people who can agree on what the basics are would be a difficult task

02-24-2014, 07:39 AM   #38
Moderator
Man With A Camera
Loyal Site Supporter
Racer X 69's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: The Great Pacific Northwet, in the Land Between Canada and Mexico
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 28,028
When I don't need or want auto focus I simply turn it off.

Easy Squeezy

No Pain

No Stain
02-24-2014, 07:54 AM   #39
Inactive Account




Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: New Orleans
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,053
There would be zero cost savings on the software and integrated circuit because it would cost more to take that out and the cost of development gets amortized over the generation's production costs. The only savings would be in omitting a screwdrive motor and phase detect array. Leave out the PD array and you could still have CDAF with a screw drive motor.

The question would be whether the cost of those items exceeds the marketing costs of adding a new product with limited appeal, my guess is they do not.
02-24-2014, 09:54 AM   #40
Veteran Member




Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 733
QuoteOriginally posted by jtkratzer Quote
Wouldn't need it as I'd expect a micro prism or split image focusing screen.
...
I don't quite understand how a microprism screen could be a replacement for CiF, unless it is something entirely different from what I understand it to be (namely what is described in the manual).

How is the microprism screen going to trigger the camera to shoot at the opportune moment?
02-24-2014, 10:21 AM   #41
Senior Member




Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 156
I did a year where all I used was manual focus lenses on my K10.....Any DSLR can be turned into one by using a different focusing screen. They can be had for a range of prices, based on quality.
02-24-2014, 10:38 AM   #42
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
fretlessdavis's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Port Angeles, WA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 505
I think a lot of you are missing the point. It's not about *just* MF, it's about creating the perfect field camera. Something smaller, lighter, with better battery life, and good IQ. That's what a lot of us are after. If they could strip away all the unnecessary BS, and just make a camera, and let it be a camera. Something that'll never break, and be used in the field for weeks at a time without worrying about it, and without having to carry several extra batteries.

Also, as a response to CiF. I'd prefer to focus my shot, and click it when I want it, not when my camera wants to. Have you ever used on old SLR? You don't need any kind of CiF with a nice viewfinder and microprism or split prism screen.
02-24-2014, 11:25 AM   #43
Otis Memorial Pentaxian
stevebrot's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Vancouver (USA)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 42,007
QuoteOriginally posted by fretlessdavis Quote
I wonder if older cameras could be modified, too.
Not feasible due to the issues with coupling the shutter cycle with the digital capture. There is not a good way to signal end of exposure and shutter cock to the sensor.

QuoteOriginally posted by gaweidert Quote
Quite frankly when I use manual focus lenses on my K5/K5Is and rely on "focus confirmation" I wind up with more failures than successes.
Yep, that is expected. The AF system is not very precise and often fails when coupled with manual focus lenses in the same way that it fails with AF glass.

QuoteOriginally posted by lister6520 Quote
It does bring some drawbacks - AF-C with focus tracking gets somewhat messed up (only on the K-3 though) and exposure metering can be affected - with spot metering becoming almost useless.
This is new to me. It was my understanding that the focus tracking technology was in the mirror box and independent of the viewfinder screen. Do you have a reference?*


Steve


* Honestly...I have been considering a K-3 purchase in the near future, based in part on its focus tracking performance, but if a split-image screen kills that feature, it would be a deal-breaker for me.

---------- Post added 02-24-14 at 10:29 AM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by BrianR Quote
The problem seems essentially the same to me- the demand will likely be so low that they may have a hard time paying for the overhead of a whole new production line. Who knows though, this is really just speculation on my part
Your speculation is spot on. That is why the cost of new film cameras is so high and continues to climb.


Steve

---------- Post added 02-24-14 at 10:31 AM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by lister6520 Quote
I don't quite understand how a microprism screen could be a replacement for CiF, unless it is something entirely different from what I understand it to be (namely what is described in the manual).

How is the microprism screen going to trigger the camera to shoot at the opportune moment?
I have never really understood the practicality of CIF. Basically you are asking the camera to determine both the point of focus and the time of capture. Never mind that CIF uses the AF system with all its failings and there is a real nice time lag between focus acquisition and shutter release.


Steve
02-24-2014, 11:35 AM   #44
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
fretlessdavis's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Port Angeles, WA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 505
QuoteOriginally posted by stevebrot Quote
Not feasible due to the issues with coupling the shutter cycle with the digital capture. There is not a good way to signal end of exposure and shutter cock to the sensor.
Not talking about old MF cameras. Talking about pulling apart an old K100d and stripping it out, possibly writing new firmware for it, and maybe 3d printing new body components, or possibly hand laying Carbon Fiber.

Again, not hoping it's cheaper, not hoping it gets made, but if someone could modify bodies like this, I'd be a customer.
02-24-2014, 11:36 AM   #45
Otis Memorial Pentaxian
stevebrot's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Vancouver (USA)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 42,007
QuoteOriginally posted by Na Horuk Quote
But then you wouldn't have CiF either?
Explain why this would be a loss?

I have photographed moving objects since the late 1960s and managed to do a pretty good job without CIF. Since 2007, I have owned a camera capable of CIF and have never used the feature for a serious shot. Why? Because it doesn't work that great except perhaps for insect macro and even then it tends to focus behind the actual area of interest.


Steve

---------- Post added 02-24-14 at 10:37 AM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by fretlessdavis Quote
Not talking about old MF cameras. Talking about pulling apart an old K100d and stripping it out, possibly writing new firmware for it, and maybe 3d printing new body components, or possibly hand laying Carbon Fiber.

Again, not hoping it's cheaper, not hoping it gets made, but if someone could modify bodies like this, I'd be a customer.
Oh! I get it! While you are doing it, replace the mirror with a real one


Steve
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!
af, auto, battery, bs, camera, cameras, cif, dslr, exposure, focus, image, k-3, lcd, lenses, life, lot, matter, photography, screen, sensor, shutter, speculation, spot, steve, time
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Newspaper photographer describes shooting snowy Eagles game without the benefit of AF interested_observer Photographic Technique 6 12-11-2013 05:41 AM
dslr lens not focusing on AF Grizbear Troubleshooting and Beginner Help 3 05-31-2013 07:08 AM
Nature It's impossible to shoot birds under without a 600mm L lens and Canon AF jaieger Post Your Photos! 6 12-01-2010 06:56 PM
Can I fire the Pentax AF-360 FGZ wirelessly without triggering on-camera flash? jacksonpritt Flashes, Lighting, and Studio 17 04-21-2009 09:52 AM
Is the AF-360FGZ without the swivel function severly limited in usage? raider Pentax Camera and Field Accessories 15 11-11-2007 02:02 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:54 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