Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
06-13-2016, 08:30 AM   #16
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2015
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,802
QuoteOriginally posted by THoog Quote
I don't understand why it always has to be PENTAX that will design and build these dream cameras,
Because it's Pentax, not Ricoh or Cosina or anyone else, which made the camera bodies that give us this desire. But still, we can dream about what we want and how to get it, even if we know we probably never will.

Your point about the development process required to get there, however, is well taken.

06-13-2016, 08:55 AM   #17
Veteran Member




Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Austin, Texas
Photos: Albums
Posts: 302
Compare...Fuji/Pentax

Interesting that I just saw an article in a current magazine with brief reviews of the new Fuji X-Pro2 and the Pentax K-1. Interesting to get a sense of the goals for these cameras and the markets they are directed to. I am an old Leica rangefinder user and find the Fuji is an "attempt" to attract such as me. I do understand the small camera/two lenses in your pocket style, very much, but the Fuji "retro" cameras just don't really do it for me. Every time I have picked up a Fuji my first reaction is how light weight it is and how it does not have the quality feel of Leica. No matter how much praise is heaped upon them, I just can't bring myself to buy one. The Pentax is a different matter. It feels like quality to me, even compared to Canikon. The weight and balance is just right. I'll stick with my K-3 (and my MX for that matter) and maybe get a K-1 at some point. I do have a nice set of vintage lenses waiting for it.

Also review was the Leica Monochrome...which I find very attractive. Leica's digital menu is very simple next to anyone else...one screen only. Not sure why our cameras need to have so many options. I just customize and pick one of the user settings that matches what I am photographing. Simple is good.
06-13-2016, 09:12 AM   #18
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: NJ
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 4,880
Ah, a variation of the "Why can't Pentax build the digital equivalent of a K1000" threads, of which there have been several.
06-13-2016, 09:20 AM   #19
Pentaxian




Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Hamilton, Texas
Photos: Albums
Posts: 647
QuoteOriginally posted by pathdoc Quote
Because it's Pentax, not Ricoh or Cosina or anyone else, which made the camera bodies that give us this desire.
Well... In my case it was, in fact, Ricoh who made the camera body that I bonded with back when I was learning my basic photographic skills. My Sears KS-2 was actually a re-branded Ricoh XR7, which was their top-of-the-line SLR in those days and has a bit of cult following. I find it still very pleasing to use.

So, maybe you can imagine how I rolled my eyes when certain folks were crying about the Ricoh name appearing on a Pentax camera.

06-13-2016, 10:06 AM   #20
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: South Bend, IN, USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,982
QuoteOriginally posted by jeverettfine Quote
Leica's digital menu is very simple next to anyone else...one screen only. Not sure why our cameras need to have so many options. I just customize and pick one of the user settings that matches what I am photographing. Simple is good.
I've had my K-30 for just about a year now. Other than periodically checking to make sure the time / date are OK, I haven't used the menu system in 11+ months. Every regular change I make happens via a few dial twists or button clicks.
06-13-2016, 10:51 AM - 1 Like   #21
Loyal Site Supporter
THoog's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: North Carolina
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,486
QuoteOriginally posted by pathdoc Quote
Because it's Pentax, not Ricoh or Cosina or anyone else, which made the camera bodies that give us this desire.
But that's the point - the Pentax that made those cameras wasn't making retro designs to cater to nostalgia - they made modern cameras that they considered to be the best designs for the market at that time. We're so loyal to Pentax, we don't want them to be Pentax.
06-13-2016, 11:37 AM   #22
Pentaxian
chickentender's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Seattle, WA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,993
QuoteOriginally posted by THoog Quote
I don't understand why it always has to be PENTAX that will design and build these dream cameras....
It doesn't. It's mostly about r&d money. Likely it would Fuji or Sony with the funds to do so. I think most here would *want* it to be Pentax because we have Pentax glass obviously. I'd love this too, quite honestly. It may come, though in many respects the smaller bodies of X system is pretty close - but I just don't like them that much. Haha. A minimalist and classic, fullframe, lightweight and small design in the lineage of the MX would be something I would buy. (Though cue the arguments about what does and does not constitute "minimalist".) At any rate... It's just a dream. But.........

Close to what the OP seems to want would an SLR-type digital Konost - which coincidentally looks like it's happening. I'm not a huge RF fan, but color me curious.
Digital Rangefinder | Konost

---------- Post added 06-13-16 at 11:39 AM ----------

but mostly I think y'all should just go shoot some 35mm. It's already there and already (mostly) what you want - at least it is for me. In the digi realm, my Ricoh GR is the closest thing to tiny perfection in my hand and mind.

---------- Post added 06-13-16 at 11:46 AM ----------

Here's a little promo video they put out a year ago for the Konost. My personal favorite part of it is when one of the girl models holds up the camera to face forward whilst covering the RF sensor with her finger...

Last edited by chickentender; 06-13-2016 at 11:47 AM.
06-13-2016, 11:57 AM   #23
Pentaxian
Not a Number's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Venice, CA
Posts: 4,258
Why not retrostyle to the MZ series? When I pick up the MZ-50 it feels so much more comfortable in my hand then my K10D and oh so much smaller..

Looking at the cutaway models and peek-a-boo drawings the Shake Reduction mechanism takes up a lot of space. Get rid of mechanical SR and the bodies could probably be significantly smaller and lighter.


Last edited by Not a Number; 06-13-2016 at 12:03 PM.
06-13-2016, 12:31 PM   #24
Pentaxian




Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Hamilton, Texas
Photos: Albums
Posts: 647
QuoteOriginally posted by THoog Quote
But that's the point - the Pentax that made those cameras wasn't making retro designs to cater to nostalgia - they made modern cameras that they considered to be the best designs for the market at that time. We're so loyal to Pentax, we don't want them to be Pentax.
I agree with that thought, of not seeking retro designs just for the sake of nostalgia. I do have a feeling, though, that some decisions that were made in the early development of DSLRs, or even in the late development of 35mm film SLRs, were ill-considered, and yet somehow they became entrenched conventions. The PASM dial. . . the chunky, hand-filling grip. . . the shrunken viewfinder and lack of focusing aids. . . All standard now, but I'm not sure they were good ideas, and I never entirely got used to them.
06-13-2016, 01:41 PM   #25
Pentaxian
chickentender's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Seattle, WA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,993
QuoteOriginally posted by Not a Number Quote
Why not retrostyle to the MZ series? When I pick up the MZ-50 it feels so much more comfortable in my hand then my K10D and oh so much smaller..
True story.
06-13-2016, 01:47 PM - 1 Like   #26
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2015
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,802
I think you'll find that the chunky handgrip evolved as a good place to put the batteries that an auto-winding, autofocus camera demands - look at the Super Program, which will give you program, shutter priority and push button manual, all on a pair of LR44 batteries, because the power for the shutter and film advance/rewind is manual even if the control is electronic.

Likewise, I suspect the disappearance of the split prism with AF is because (a) manual focus was a fallback feature only and (b) including it would probably have caused insoluble problems with central metering back in the day.

I agree there is little justification for the shrunken viewfinders. But all the rest can be based on technical necessity. It's why the ME-F's autofocus lens was such a dog - the thing's power had to come from somewhere, and the bulkiness brought on by the motor and power requirements both being in the lens were a consequence of them NOT being able to be squeezed into the body as it was. Pentax F and FA lenses are as small as they are because the cameras are bigger, and contain both the power and the motors to drive them.
06-13-2016, 02:27 PM   #27
Pentaxian
chickentender's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Seattle, WA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,993
QuoteOriginally posted by pathdoc Quote
I think you'll find that the chunky handgrip evolved as a good place to put the batteries that an auto-winding, autofocus camera demands - look at the Super Program, which will give you program, shutter priority and push button manual, all on a pair of LR44 batteries, because the power for the shutter and film advance/rewind is manual even if the control is electronic.

Likewise, I suspect the disappearance of the split prism with AF is because (a) manual focus was a fallback feature only and (b) including it would probably have caused insoluble problems with central metering back in the day.

I agree there is little justification for the shrunken viewfinders. But all the rest can be based on technical necessity. It's why the ME-F's autofocus lens was such a dog - the thing's power had to come from somewhere, and the bulkiness brought on by the motor and power requirements both being in the lens were a consequence of them NOT being able to be squeezed into the body as it was. Pentax F and FA lenses are as small as they are because the cameras are bigger, and contain both the power and the motors to drive them.
I like where you're going with this.
06-13-2016, 04:09 PM   #28
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: South Bend, IN, USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,982
QuoteOriginally posted by pathdoc Quote
I think you'll find that the chunky handgrip evolved as a good place to put the batteries that an auto-winding, autofocus camera demands - look at the Super Program, which will give you program, shutter priority and push button manual, all on a pair of LR44 batteries, because the power for the shutter and film advance/rewind is manual even if the control is electronic.
Yeah, but it ate batteries like they were candy {and I went through a small fortune of them}. I still remember my first outing with my wife after I got mine. Our second stop {after the camera was out-of-power at our first stop} was a camera store to buy a bunch of batteries {and the excursion to locate batteries probably ate up 20% of the time we had allocated for this "adventure"}
06-13-2016, 04:14 PM   #29
Pentaxian
chickentender's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Seattle, WA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,993
QuoteOriginally posted by reh321 Quote
Yeah, but it ate batteries like they were candy {and I went through a small fortune of them}. I still remember my first outing with my wife after I got mine. Our second stop {after the camera was out-of-power at our first stop} was a camera store to buy a bunch of batteries {and the excursion to locate batteries probably ate up 20% of the time we had allocated for this "adventure"}
Kind of a moot point - battery tech has come quite a ways since then. Doing away with the many systems mentioned before frees up both design space as well juice needs. I don't think anyone would suggest this hypothetical dream beast be powered by LR44s (though I admit... in a way that'd be sort of cool).
06-14-2016, 12:18 PM - 1 Like   #30
Pentaxian




Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Frankfurt am Main
Posts: 1,092
I have often thought how interesting it would be to use a very basic, but still capable DSLR.
In fact a kind of digital Super A. I skip the often heard desire for a digital K1000 or MX, as batteries are still needed, and some kind of Auto mode would be nice to have in case of a sudden occasion - you don't need to use it all of the time.

Of course, such a camera will never be offered. Keep in mind, that even in an enthusiast forum like this the potential buyers would be a minority, and sales would be so low that would cost a premium price.

But, what would I like to find in such a body?
  1. It should be SMALL
  2. It should be LIGHT
  3. Sensor in the range of 12-16MP (no matter whether APS-C or FF)
The first two are somehow related: removing all not absolutely needed energy consuming features could lead to a smaller and lighter battery.

There could be 2 models, the second (Super) would offer some additional things.
Both cameras would be WITHOUT
  1. AF (no motor)
  2. Shake reduction (thinner body)
  3. Live View and movie (energy)
  4. Flash
  5. Motors for mirror, aperture, and shutter. Instead, an electronic controlled mechanic shutter like in the Super A would be used. There would be a small lever to cock shutter/aperture lever. With the Super version a battery grip could automise cocking (smaller motor than with the winder of film bodies, as no film transport needed).
  6. WiFi
  7. GPS

Added features for both models:
  1. Pentamirror (Pentaprism for the Super model) with SPLIT SCREEN
  2. Small top LCD with only basic information
  3. Small (like *istD models) back LCD OLED display for using a minimum of energy
  4. Uncrippled (!) KAF2 mount; of the enhanced features of KAF2 vs. KA only the lens data for EXIF would be used (data pin). I am not sure whether to allow full usage of lenses without aperture ring, as it would probably mean one more wheel on the body. Without it, you could still use such lenses in Tv and A.
Mods/enhancements for the Super version:
  1. Prepared for usage of a battery grip, which also could provide a motor drive to auto cock shutter/aperture lever
  2. Pentaprism instead of Pentamirror
  3. WR
  4. Eventually (?) TTL; pTTL may not be possible if split screen makes matrix measurement too difficult, but I am not sure.
Because of WR and prism, it would likely be a bit heavier (and bigger?)
Of course, everything that can be integrated just by firmware could still be there - if it doesn't mean additional buttons, wheels and/or higher energy consumption.

As prices for FF bodies are generally higher compared with APS-C, a FF model may even sell better. And it would be extremely small for a FF!
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, design, dream, dslr, lenses, pentax, photography, post, rf
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
i think i have a pentax K-x with K-m firmware, uttam.hathi Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 10 04-26-2016 08:54 AM
I need to shoot a video and I have no idea what I'm doing Outis Troubleshooting and Beginner Help 19 11-13-2014 05:42 PM
Abstract I have a dream... SpecialK Post Your Photos! 2 10-20-2010 08:53 PM
People We have a Dream daacon Post Your Photos! 11 01-15-2010 11:56 PM
I have a dream Luciferase General Talk 0 02-13-2009 05:41 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:54 PM. | 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