Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
03-14-2019, 05:19 PM   #1
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Tokyo
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,025
Speculation of FF DSLR the size of KP body, is it possible?

If you read the interview by Pentaxforums at CP+2019. Look closely at Q9. I am highly speculated (or fantasizing it, you decide!) that they are trying something like that somewhere in the basement of Ricoh building in Tokyo, miniature FF DSLR to the size of SLR. !!!

And on another point, I recently found this image online. Left a crop mirrorless body Vs Right 1972 SLR with mirror box in it + pentaprism on the head. The overall thickness doesn’t look that much difference. It is a crop vs ff body we are seeing here.

https://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/omd-em5/ZCOMPOM1TOP.JPG

1. Is it possible concerning the technology at hand today to have FF DSLR built in the size of the KP body? (and still can do everything KP or K3II does.) I remember reading something similar and back then one of the speculations was the SR system, but now as we see from Sony A7III. It has a built-in 5-Axis image stabilization. Sony proves that it possible now.

2. what needs to be sacificed to achieve such a small size?
I am just thinking out loud here. Let me know your thoughts.

I am more focus on physical size and weight of the Digital FF body today because that will make or break me with the brand. Hope it won't be turned to Mirrorless vs DSLR things. Focus on what possible, not possible to make it physically as small/light as a good old-time SLR body.


Last edited by pakinjapan; 03-14-2019 at 05:34 PM.
03-14-2019, 05:35 PM   #2
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
UncleVanya's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2014
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 14,951
Sony A7 seems pretty small. Granted it would be thicker and perhaps a little taller for the pentaprism but if they use the special swing retract method of the k1 they might pull off something not much larger than the kp.
03-14-2019, 05:40 PM   #3
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
jimr-pdx's Avatar

Join Date: May 2010
Location: 1hr north of PDX
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,693
SR mechanism +screen +flange distance would give you a feel for minimum thickness. I don't known those values but I doubt the K-1 has a load of wasted space within..
03-14-2019, 05:49 PM   #4
Otis Memorial Pentaxian
Loyal Site Supporter
stevebrot's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Vancouver (USA)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 31,790
QuoteOriginally posted by pakinjapan Quote
And on another point, I recently found this image online. Left a crop mirrorless body Vs Right 1972 SLR with mirror box in it + pentaprism on the head. The overall thickness doesn’t look that much difference. It is a crop vs ff body we are seeing here.
Yes, that is a true comparison and those of us who own similar film cameras can attest to the similarities of size. A more telling comparison might be a Sony A7III which presents with much large package than the OM1 despite its short register distance. The depth is due to the sensor, SR mechanism, shutter, rear LCD, and multiple layers of electronics. The 'Φ' symbol on the K-1 and other Pentax models should give some indication how much of that camera's depth is digital "stuff" not found in film cameras.

As for Q9 and its answer...I see nothing there to indicate any plans for a super compact FF camera. Most of the mirrorless competition is APS-C and smaller.


Steve


Last edited by stevebrot; 03-14-2019 at 06:14 PM.
03-14-2019, 05:56 PM - 1 Like   #5
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
THoog's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: North Carolina
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,593
QuoteOriginally posted by pakinjapan Quote
1. Is it possible concerning the technology at hand today to have FF DSLR built in the size of the KP body?
Possibly, if you give up Shake Reduction.
QuoteOriginally posted by pakinjapan Quote
(and still can do everything KP or K3II does.)
Probably not, because of Shake Reduction. And the KP's smaller battery, already a point of criticism, probably won't last long with a FF sensor.
QuoteOriginally posted by pakinjapan Quote
I remember reading something similar and back then one of the speculations was the SR system, but now as we see from Sony A7III. It has a built-in 5-Axis image stabilization. Sony proves that it possible now.
The Sony proves it is possible in a body with twice as much usable volume, thanks to the MUCH shorter registration distance (18mm versus 46.45mm). If you look at this comparison, you can see how much room the A7III has behind the sensor plane, compared to the KP (the film plane mark on the KP is next to the C1 on the right mode knob).
Compare camera dimensions side by side

QuoteOriginally posted by pakinjapan Quote
Hope it won't be turned it to Mirrorless vs DSLR things.
But YOU started by bringing the A7III into it!!!
03-14-2019, 06:11 PM - 1 Like   #6
Otis Memorial Pentaxian
Loyal Site Supporter
stevebrot's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Vancouver (USA)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 31,790
As for what might be sacrificed to make for a truly compact FF dSLR, the answers might run something like this:
  • Make the rear LCD an add-on accessory with menu changes done when tethered only by default
  • Trim the bottom down by making the PDAF system an add-on accessory. That's right, AF as option only with any in-body motors being part of the AF module...a grip perhaps
  • No IBIS
  • Trim battery size to the absolute minimum to reduce size and weight, should be possible with LCD and AF gone
Such a camera might be close in size to the original *ist D, though a little more svelte overall. Additional bulk might be trimmed by removing the motorized shutter cocking mechanism in favor of manual cock ala Epson RD1. Perhaps Cosina/Voigtlander might be interested in taking on the project since they made the Epson and based it broadly on the general CT-1 Super platform.


Steve
03-14-2019, 06:16 PM   #7
Pentaxian
D1N0's Avatar

Join Date: May 2012
Location: ---
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 5,432
Easy to do if you make it mirrorless
03-14-2019, 06:20 PM   #8
retired sw engineer
Loyal Site Supporter
reh321's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: South Bend, IN, USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 12,043
QuoteOriginally posted by stevebrot Quote
Additional bulk might be trimmed by removing the motorized shutter cocking mechanism in favor of manual cock ala Epson RD1. Perhaps Cosina/Voigtlander might be interested in taking on the project since they made the Epson and based it broadly on the general CT-1 Super platform.

Steve
Is that meaningful? On a film camera, they found a way to use the energy used to advance film to also cock the shutter; on a digital camera, is cocking done by anything larger than a solenoid? I would expect a manual mechanism to take more space than the automatic mechanism does.

03-14-2019, 06:43 PM   #9
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Tokyo
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,025
Original Poster
A piece of more information since some mentioned about Flange distance which I agree, it is very important on this topic.

[Flange distance / total thickness - all in mm]
A7III 18 / 74
KP 45.46 / 76
K1 45.46 / 85.5
K1000 film 45.46 / 48. * Edit

Sony uses up to 56mm after subtraction of its Flange distance.
KP uses 30.54mm
K1 uses 39.5mm
.

There is no way K-mount body will get to the same thickness as of 7AIII but KP/76mm is pretty close to 74mm of A7III. And my main point is, Can K1 go down to a similar size as of KP?

Last edited by pakinjapan; 03-14-2019 at 07:26 PM.
03-14-2019, 06:52 PM   #10
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
pschlute's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Surrey, UK
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,694
The K-1 has has a larger mirror due to it being a FF sensor camera. Extra engineering was needed so that when it lifts up it articulates so to avoid hitting the back of the lens. Any attempt to make a new FF DSLR smaller will have the same problem to overcome.
03-14-2019, 10:40 PM   #11
Veteran Member
jackassp's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Adelaide, South Australia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 803
What if it is a mirrorless FF camera, something like the Nikon Z7 or Z6, this is much smaller.
03-15-2019, 05:44 AM   #12
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
WPRESTO's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Massachusetts
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 36,478
Several have noted that mirrorless is the viable option for a smaller/lighter FF. Consider the recently introduced Canon RP FF mirrorless. Compared to the Pentax K1 II the Canon is a slightly less wide, half an inch flatter, a full inch shorter, but critically LESS THAN HALF THE WEIGHT. Canon has a big advantage = all of it's EF lenses are 100% electronic, so an electronic adapter allows all those lenses to be used with full retention of all features on their new mirrorless bodies. The majority of legacy Pentax lenses have mechanical aperture levers and many Pentax AF lenses have only mechanical AF actuation. Devising an adapter that would operate those might be impractical if not impossible. Considering the huge selection of older K-mount lenses and the very limited number of modern K-mount lenses from after-market manufacturers. the loss of back-compatibility of a mirrorless Pentax body with a different lens registration distance would be unacceptable, and that places some restrictions on the size of a FF Pentax mirrorless body = Canon can/did introduce a new lens mount with a shorter lens registration but Pentax cannot.
03-15-2019, 12:10 PM   #13
Pentaxian
tvdtvdtvd's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 1,122
QuoteOriginally posted by WPRESTO Quote
the loss of back-compatibility of a mirrorless Pentax body with a different lens registration distance would be unacceptable, and that places some restrictions on the size of a FF Pentax mirrorless body = Canon can/did introduce a new lens mount with a shorter lens registration but Pentax cannot.
Without question, Ricoh is in a position of damned if you do, damned if you don't in regards to the K-mount when considering
mirrorless options. Sony mirrorless, et al, shooters already have access to Pentax glass via glassless adapters. A K-mount
mirrorless body would not likely sell to anyone but current Pentax owners. More and more, I think Ricoh would be best served
by adopting a new mount if/when they decide to release a FF mirrorless. Yes, it would be hard on current Pentax shooters but
I do think it would be much more appealing to potential new Pentax customers and much more viable long term.

Next question is Pentax proprietary mount or something universal? I say Ricoh should go L-mount. Straight away the lack
of available lenses largely disappears, including all those Sigma lenses many lust for. To that, Ricoh could:

Make a really cracking good K-mount adapter. Why couldn't an adapter have a built in motor to handle the mechanical
aperture connection? Include that really cracking good K-mount adapter free of charge with new FF mirrorless sales as
an incentive to existing Pentax customers, at least initially.

A more radical approach might be to offer a body with interchangeable mounts modules, not unlike the GXR.
Expensive to design and produce but opens the potential to use almost any mount 'natively'. Pentax could offer
K-mount and L-mount modules, third parties could offer other mount modules.

Another radical option could be to release two identical bodies at the same time, the only difference being the
mount. One K-mount FF mirrorless and one L-mount, then let the buying public decide which way Ricoh should
move forward.

No easy way going forward but we need to ask, just as I'm sure Ricoh is asking itself: If a K-mount DSLR didn't
appeal to the general public before mirrorless, why would a K-mount mirrorless appeal now?
03-15-2019, 04:10 PM   #14
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
WPRESTO's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Massachusetts
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 36,478
QuoteOriginally posted by tvdtvdtvd Quote
Without question, Ricoh is in a position of damned if you do, damned if you don't in regards to the K-mount when considering
mirrorless options. Sony mirrorless, et al, shooters already have access to Pentax glass via glassless adapters. A K-mount
mirrorless body would not likely sell to anyone but current Pentax owners. More and more, I think Ricoh would be best served
by adopting a new mount if/when they decide to release a FF mirrorless. Yes, it would be hard on current Pentax shooters but
I do think it would be much more appealing to potential new Pentax customers and much more viable long term.

Next question is Pentax proprietary mount or something universal? I say Ricoh should go L-mount. Straight away the lack
of available lenses largely disappears, including all those Sigma lenses many lust for. To that, Ricoh could:

Make a really cracking good K-mount adapter. Why couldn't an adapter have a built in motor to handle the mechanical
aperture connection? Include that really cracking good K-mount adapter free of charge with new FF mirrorless sales as
an incentive to existing Pentax customers, at least initially.

A more radical approach might be to offer a body with interchangeable mounts modules, not unlike the GXR.
Expensive to design and produce but opens the potential to use almost any mount 'natively'. Pentax could offer
K-mount and L-mount modules, third parties could offer other mount modules.

Another radical option could be to release two identical bodies at the same time, the only difference being the
mount. One K-mount FF mirrorless and one L-mount, then let the buying public decide which way Ricoh should
move forward.

No easy way going forward but we need to ask, just as I'm sure Ricoh is asking itself: If a K-mount DSLR didn't
appeal to the general public before mirrorless, why would a K-mount mirrorless appeal now?

BUT:
1) Can Ricoh obtain a license to use the L-mount, and at what cost?
2) Can a mechanism for operating a mechanic aperture lever AND a screw-AF AND an electronic AF be fitted into an adapter? I'm skeptical.
03-15-2019, 04:31 PM   #15
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
RobA_Oz's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Tasmania, Australia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 5,228
QuoteOriginally posted by WPRESTO Quote
2) Can a mechanism for operating a mechanic aperture lever AND a screw-AF AND an electronic AF be fitted into an adapter? I'm skeptical.
The answer is undoubtedly “Yes”, but probably not within the size people would find acceptable.
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!
body, camera, dslr, dslr the size, ff, ff dslr, kp, photography, size, slr, speculation of ff, vs
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
KP vs K-70 - to KP or not to KP, that is the question OldChE Pentax DSLR Discussion 19 02-04-2018 09:43 AM
Not just speculation, the new 35 mm FF zapp Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 11 01-26-2017 08:09 PM
Pure speculation... FF to include GPS? Conqueror Pentax Full Frame 21 06-19-2015 11:42 AM
Speculation: What if Pentax did not go FF but rather a 1.3x? brecklundin Pentax DSLR Discussion 36 08-13-2013 10:36 PM
speculation about FA lenses on FF DSLR lpfonseca Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 19 11-05-2009 10:34 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:47 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