Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
07-12-2016, 06:45 AM   #16
JPT
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Tokyo
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,212
It isn't necessarily about being small. I wouldn't mind something like this in K-mount.

??? SIGMA sd Quattro ??????? ? ?? ??????? - ????

At 80,000 yen I'm almost tempted to give it a try. Of course being a Sigma, it will have a load of operational quirks, and terrible battery life. Sigma makes you suffer for your art.

07-12-2016, 06:51 AM   #17
Pentaxian
D1N0's Avatar

Join Date: May 2012
Location: ---
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 4,088
QuoteOriginally posted by JPT Quote
wouldn't mind something like this in K-mount.
If it had K-mount you couldn't use all that Sigma glass on it except for the few that come in K-mount
07-12-2016, 06:59 AM   #18
Site Supporter




Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: South Bend, IN, USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,878
QuoteOriginally posted by RobA_Oz Quote
The main advantage of a mirrorless ILC is the potential for reduced weight, compared with an equivalent DSLR. Overall size may be a secondary advantage ....
Unfortunately, the person who would correct you in this is currently on "time out" right now.

Your opinion was my opinion also, until I got my Q-7 and started using it with a Hoodman. A good EVF is essential to a good MILC, because the greatest advantage to MILC is what you see through the viewfinder {and I approximate with the Q-7}. You actually see DOF and bokeh effects, and more importantly {to me} you see the light and dark as they will be recorded.
07-12-2016, 07:00 AM - 1 Like   #19
A Proud PENTAXER !!!
fwcetus's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: New England
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,137
QuoteOriginally posted by Adam Quote
They already did, and it didn't do too well.
Well, not in sales, that's for sure. But, all things considered, the K-01 (IMHO, and YMMV) is a neat sort-of-little APS-C camera body (and the best one ever for simple, inexpensive IR conversion).

QuoteOriginally posted by shaolen Quote
I full heartedly think they need a k-02 with pretty much the same body but with phase detect AF
That would be interesting . . . [But not in yellow (LOL) . . . ]

07-12-2016, 07:13 AM   #20
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 24,840
QuoteOriginally posted by JPT Quote
It isn't necessarily about being small. I wouldn't mind something like this in K-mount.

??? SIGMA sd Quattro ??????? ? ?? ??????? - ????

At 80,000 yen I'm almost tempted to give it a try. Of course being a Sigma, it will have a load of operational quirks, and terrible battery life. Sigma makes you suffer for your art.
Many of us have had our little Sigma experiment.... I loved the images, I hated the camera, in the end I just couldn't talk myself into taking it out the door, no matter how much I wanted to. Basically, I'm a zoom guy except when birding. The camera was just way too limiting.
07-12-2016, 01:23 PM   #21
Pentaxian
RobA_Oz's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Tasmania, Australia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 4,294
QuoteOriginally posted by reh321 Quote
Unfortunately, the person who would correct you in this is currently on "time out" right now.

Your opinion was my opinion also, until I got my Q-7 and started using it with a Hoodman. A good EVF is essential to a good MILC, because the greatest advantage to MILC is what you see through the viewfinder {and I approximate with the Q-7}. You actually see DOF and bokeh effects, and more importantly {to me} you see the light and dark as they will be recorded.
I don't quite follow where the difference in our views lies. We agree that an EVF should be included with a MILC (I have an original Q) which obviously adds a little to the bulk and the weight of the device, whereas a Hoodman adds considerably to the bulk as well as adding to the weight. Hoodman additions aside, comparisons of the weights of EVF-bearing MILCs with the equivalent DSLRs surely makes the point.

On further reflection, though, I'd have to concede that the relative importance of lower weight versus smaller bulk is a matter of personal preference or perhaps style, depending on which set of lenses you carry with the body.
07-12-2016, 02:24 PM   #22
Site Supporter




Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: South Bend, IN, USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,878
QuoteOriginally posted by RobA_Oz Quote
I don't quite follow where the difference in our views lies. We agree that an EVF should be included with a MILC (I have an original Q) which obviously adds a little to the bulk and the weight of the device, whereas a Hoodman adds considerably to the bulk as well as adding to the weight. Hoodman additions aside, comparisons of the weights of EVF-bearing MILCs with the equivalent DSLRs surely makes the point.

On further reflection, though, I'd have to concede that the relative importance of lower weight versus smaller bulk is a matter of personal preference or perhaps style, depending on which set of lenses you carry with the body.
We do not differ on these matters.

I was adding to your list of benefits a benefit which MILC supporters say is the greatest benefit, and which I have seen in a limited way on my Q-7, namely a really accurate rendition of the image in the viewfinder before the picture has been taken, so someone who is a perfectionist can tweak it in pre-processing rather than waiting for post-processing.
07-12-2016, 05:53 PM   #23
Pentaxian
RobA_Oz's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Tasmania, Australia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 4,294
QuoteOriginally posted by reh321 Quote
We do not differ on these matters.

I was adding to your list of benefits a benefit which MILC supporters say is the greatest benefit, and which I have seen in a limited way on my Q-7, namely a really accurate rendition of the image in the viewfinder before the picture has been taken, so someone who is a perfectionist can tweak it in pre-processing rather than waiting for post-processing.
OK, thanks. The comment about the "time-out" corrector made me think I was missing something. I see now that you were being ironic. On the weight issue, I must say that I haven't noticed that much difference moving from the K-3 to the K-1, but then I'm recuperating from a bout of "golfer's elbow" and thinking a few arm weight exercises would probably see me good for a few more years with the current kit, when I'm ready for it.

Still, I probably should be taking the Q and/or my Fuji X30 out and around in the meantime, to give my elbow time to recover, but the IQ from the K-1 is something else. Perhaps the suggestion earlier, that a K-01 successor should rely on the K-1 imaging hardware, rather than an APS-C model, has some additional merit for me!

07-13-2016, 03:52 PM   #24
New Member




Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 8
I think a Mirrorless K1000 with a incredible evf would be a big hit actually.
07-14-2016, 08:32 PM   #25
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Marina CA
Posts: 331
Sony mirrorless (E-mount) cameras can use Sony/Minolta lenses with an adapter.
07-17-2016, 01:52 PM   #26
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,614
QuoteOriginally posted by Adam Quote
They already did, and it didn't do too well. Not sure anything can be changed to make a K-mount mirrorless make sense. The mirror doesn't really make things any bulkier due to the way the mount is designed. The only option would be to make mirrorless-only lenses along with an adapter for existing lenses, an idea that was floated around at CP+ 2012 but subsequently abandoned (see the photo below).
I have different opinion on this. To me there several reason why the K01 failed:

- The design while different was in oposition with Pentax tradition. It looked cheap and not serious at all. It could only target the entry level market.
- There was no viewfinder so you could not get as solid hold as DSLR and were quite handicaped in strong daylight.
- The focussing with LV was very slow. K-mount lenses are designed for PDAF, not constrast AF, so you'd need a sensor with PDAF sensor bundled like the K70 or A6000.
- Focussing on APSC, K-mount is annoying. The registration distance is too long and it make the body big for no reason. For FF this is different A7-II is as big/heavy as a DSLR now and the lenses are bigger than many small Pentax design (FA ltds for example).

I see strong points in a K-mount mirrorless design:
- it would make Pentax the brand with arguably one of the strongest mirorless echosystem. Lot of cheap, high quality tamron/sigma lenses, real high end pro lenses solution with the DFA line. Small FF lenses unavailable in Sony FE mount due to short registration distance and design decision (FA31, FA43, FA77).
- It can allow to get an FF that is 600g or less and with a size between K01 and KS1.
- it can provide a viewfinder that finally comfortable digital zoom, APSC crop, full time real apperture dof, display of additionnals info like focus peaking, histogram etc directly in the viewfinder.
- The K-mount is just the right registration distance for an FF sensor.
- It would allow to spread AF points on the whole frame, even on FF bodies.

As for Q-line, while a nice system, until know it didn't really took. Not bad, but not a great success. It signifcantly small sensor and relatively expensive lens make it a proposition that is expensive for the quality.

Last edited by Nicolas06; 07-17-2016 at 01:58 PM.
07-17-2016, 02:47 PM   #27
Pentaxian
RonHendriks1966's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2009
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,700
On sensor pdaf has been improve a lot since K-01. So technically it is a good time to bring a new k-mount mirrorless. If this second run could be a sales succes is something the future could answer.
07-17-2016, 03:12 PM   #28
Site Supporter
Clinton's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,824
"As you can see, the total lengths (mirrorless vs mirrorbox) are the same. Sony have failed to overcome the laws of physics. If you take something from the camera body, you have to give it back to the lens, and by the same amount."

Why Sony's Full Frame Pro Mirrorless Was a Fatal Mistake

You may be able to argue with the points in the article, but the images of the different cameras with lenses attached resemble facts that are hard to debate.
07-17-2016, 06:35 PM   #29
JPT
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Tokyo
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,212
Looking at the three main criticisms of the K-01, I believe Pentax seems to have fixed them in subsequent models, or at least got half way there.

The camera is too big for a mirrorless
For a start, it is in fact smaller and easier to stow than a DSLR because it had fewer protrusions. But point taken, it is quite big.
- Pentax chose to put a large battery in it, so if the priority was smallness/lightness, the smaller battery from the K-70 could be used.
- The K-S1 is around the same weight a the K-01, even with its prism mirror and so in. It stands to reason that “K-02” could be a lot lighter than the K-01 if Ricoh wanted to do that.
- Ricoh now has the 18-50 RE lens to market with the camera, which would be the obvious kit lens to keep the overall package small.
- There seems to be more of an understanding that cameras can employ mirrorless technology without necessarily being small these days.

The AF doesn’t work well
Well, I think this criticism has been overstated. Looking at the Pentax Forums review with firmware 1.00, the verdict on the AF is not so bad. Following that there were a number of firmware updates that improved the AF with certain lenses, notable the five DA limited lenses. But again there are reasons to believe Ricoh has already solved this issue in other cameras.
- The K-3 and subsequent cameras had a faster screw drive motor and improved CDAF over the K-01.
- The K-70 now has PDAF sensors on the sensor, so this would be the obvious sensor to use in a “K-02”.
- There are more DC and PLM lenses now. These should perform better with CDAF than the SDM or screw drive zooms (screw drive primes don’t cause the K-01 much problem anyway)

The screen is impossible to view in sunlight
- A built-in or optional EVF is possible
- The K-1 has a short cut to brighten the screen in bright sunlight, that would be useful
- Ricoh has since released three different styles of tilt screen, on the MX-1/645z, the K-S2 and the K-1. One of these could be used to make the “K-02” screen more versatile.

That’s why I think a “K-02” made in 2016 would be quite a big improvement over the K-01, and that would be good for me, because I like having a small camera to complement my DSLR.

---------- Post added 07-18-16 at 11:13 AM ----------

Actually, this post prompted me to take a look at the Pentax Forum review of the K-01 again, and it is really quite complimentary about many aspect of the camera. You might wonder of we were talking about the same camera from the first sentences of the conclusion.

"The Pentax K-01 represents the first of a new series of Pentax cameras which we hope will continue to expand and thrive in the near future. It's also the only mirrorless interchangeable lens camera to support a full DSLR lens lineup; an industry first. With this in mind, we believe that Pentax has done a good job with the K-01 and has delivered a high-quality product which will be appealing to current Pentax users and general consumers alike."

Pentax K-01 Review - Review Introduction | PentaxForums.com Reviews

---------- Post added 07-18-16 at 11:23 AM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
Many of us have had our little Sigma experiment.... I loved the images, I hated the camera, in the end I just couldn't talk myself into taking it out the door, no matter how much I wanted to. Basically, I'm a zoom guy except when birding. The camera was just way too limiting.
I had a chance to play with the SD Quattro yesterday, and it still has many the problems of other Sigmas cameras as far as I can see. The write speed of the camera means you have to wait about 20 seconds before you can review an image. The AF seems slow too. The positioning of the controls really had me scratching my head. I mean the on/off switch in on the "barrel" part of the camera, and the viewfinder is positioned in a very strange location. The grip isn't very comfortable either.

On the plus side, the image quality is really good. It was attached to a 4K screen and the quality was immediately obvious. Of course other cameras are good too, but I always feel Sigma has an edge for ultimate image quality when conditions are right. The camera is very serious and solid, and it feels like you get a lot for the money. The separated screens on the back are nice.

It's a camera that shows compactness isn't the only reason for mirrorless, but since it comes with the usual Sigma compromises, I think it will only appeal to Sigma faithful.

Last edited by JPT; 07-17-2016 at 07:48 PM.
08-01-2016, 03:27 AM   #30
Site Supporter




Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Miskolc
Photos: Albums
Posts: 94
It is funny that all mirrorless advocates are mentioning weight and compact design regardless of when you put a lens on the damn thing it pretty much weighs as much as a DSLR and the size difference becomes negligible. The advantage of the mirrorless design is not having to deal with all the optically empty space of the mirrorbox and the lens can pretty much extend back to the shutter plane for better aberration control and other optical voodoo. It makes lens design even more complicated, lenses are getting bigger and heavier with more glass inside but the end result becomes much more crisp than it was possible with a mirrorbox design. Although with anything below 50 pickles a "cheap" Limited prime is what we Pentax users will ever need. Actually from the price of a new Zeiss I can get most of the DA Limited line.
Also on the compact thing, when I put the 35/2.4 plastic fantastic on the K-3 and go around town nobody minds me or take any second looks. And for those pocket carry duties I have my iPhoney.
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!
advantage, af, camera, cameras, design, drive, dslr, k-01, k-mount mirrorless, kit, lens, lenses, milc, mirror, mirrorless, pentax, phone, photography, pocket, review, ricoh, screen, screw, sigma, support, video, view
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Will my Pentax-F K mount lens work on the Pentax K-S1 camera? Marianne Pentax DSLR Discussion 7 05-07-2016 11:36 AM
For Sale - Sold: Pentax K-01 Mirrorless Camera Fat Albert Sold Items 3 07-03-2015 06:45 PM
Could Pentax/Ricoh create a fake FF camera? drei3 Pentax Full Frame 16 07-08-2014 09:13 AM
Mirrorless K-Mount Camera Joshua A Photographic Industry and Professionals 12 08-22-2013 04:28 AM
Ricoh mirrorless APS-C camera in K mount this year? emr Non-Pentax Cameras: Canon, Nikon, etc. 18 11-09-2009 05:50 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:46 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