Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
02-22-2015, 07:46 AM   #31
Loyal Site Supporter
THoog's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: North Carolina
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,486
QuoteOriginally posted by ruggiex Quote
My guess is the components in DSLR are probably manufactured with older process compared to cell phones.
Not really. Cameras use the same SMC (surface-mount-component) technology that phones use. EDIT: Cameras do have to interface with physical devices like motors, which may require larger components to handle the current. Phones probably have thinner LCDs; the 8mm of PCB and LCD in a camera could probably be shrunk to the ~5mm of a phone.

QuoteOriginally posted by ruggiex Quote
So sizes are going to be larger and heat dissipation won't be as good. Sure they can probably throw in cell phone quality components in there but we'd have to pay more for it. This is probably an area where a traditional camera maker like Pentax have a bit of disadvantage compared to electronics/camera maker like Samsung/Sony.
The APS-C sensor has several times the area of the largest phone sensor; heat dissipation may not scale up linearly. A phone doesn't have a mechanical SR system, so any comparison falls apart there. It doesn't appear to me that the stuff behind the focal plane in an A7II is significantly thinner than a Pentax DSLR (actually, looking at the focal plane marks on the tops of the cameras, the A7II has MORE body thickness behind the focal plane than the K-3).

http://camerasize.com/compare/#579,485


Last edited by THoog; 02-22-2015 at 08:13 AM. Reason: Added comparison link.
02-22-2015, 08:58 AM   #32
Pentaxian




Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: East Bay Area
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 786
QuoteOriginally posted by THoog Quote
Not really. Cameras use the same SMC (surface-mount-component) technology that phones use. EDIT: Cameras do have to interface with physical devices like motors, which may require larger components to handle the current. Phones probably have thinner LCDs; the 8mm of PCB and LCD in a camera could probably be shrunk to the ~5mm of a phone.
I seriously doubt the processors use the smallest gate currently available to the market nor do the cmos, memory, etc. But that's just me guessing.
02-22-2015, 09:07 AM   #33
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 25,855
IN short, Pentax makes an effort to make their cameras small. It would be extremely unlike that someone on the forum knows something they don't. That being said, by using a shorter registration distance (ditching k-mount) and doing some custom miniature circuitry, I'm sure you can make it smaller. But would it be so expensive no one would buy it. What k-mount needs you can see by looking at an ME or any other K-mount film camera. The rest is all circuitry, motors etc. that the ME didn't have.
02-22-2015, 12:21 PM   #34
Senior Member




Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 152
If you look at the disassembly of the kx and k01, you'll see that they've been making improvements to the internal boards. Even still, there are lots of soldered wires and makes me wonder if the electronics can be shrunken even more.

would you buy a dslr with no shake reduction, no live view, no preview, no auto focus, and ~91% view finder coverage? I'm not sure it would sell... it'd be a very niche market.

02-22-2015, 12:38 PM   #35
Site Supporter
stevebrot's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Vancouver (USA)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 27,445
QuoteOriginally posted by THoog Quote
actually, looking at the focal plane marks on the tops of the cameras, the A7II has MORE body thickness behind the focal plane than the K-3
You are correct. The A7II is not particularly svelt as ILMC go.


Steve
02-22-2015, 12:42 PM   #36
Site Supporter
stevebrot's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Vancouver (USA)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 27,445
QuoteOriginally posted by ppppsssstttt Quote
would you buy a dslr with no shake reduction, no live view, no preview, no auto focus, and ~91% view finder coverage? I'm not sure it would sell... it'd be a very niche market.
Though there are members on this site who would like to purchase just such a beast. The camera size and weight would be minimal. The battery could also be very small. Add a port out for a field monitor and it would be a winner in my book. Such a camera would be a Godsend for serious landscape, macro, and many video applications.


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!
camera, cameras, cell, cellphone, comparison, dslr, dslrs, film, internals, lens, phone, photography, size, slr, weight
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Do I really need to get a genuine Pentax M42 > K-Mount adaptor? watchingskyfallatm Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 23 11-12-2014 03:53 PM
Filters, do you really need them? peterjcb Pentax DSLR Discussion 17 01-16-2014 06:10 PM
You need to be a "decider" with so many to choose from mikemike General Talk 9 10-26-2010 06:35 AM
Do sanyo eneloops need to be completely discharged? ronald_durst Pentax Camera and Field Accessories 3 08-13-2008 06:48 AM
Auto Focus. How fast does it really need to be? Ed in GA Pentax DSLR Discussion 14 11-01-2006 10:12 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:45 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