Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
01-07-2009, 10:07 AM   #31
Banned




Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Savannah, U.S./Baguio City, P.H.
Posts: 5,979
QuoteOriginally posted by Blue Quote
I think a digital slr 110 would be uber cool!
you and me both, seeing as how 110 film is all but impossible to come by in a lot of places. that's why I sold my auto110. however Pentax would have to work hard to outdo what Olympus is currently doing.

01-07-2009, 11:27 AM   #32
Veteran Member
Finn's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Phoenix
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,056
QuoteOriginally posted by ddhytz Quote
I got this recently and it will be my camera of 2009.
Love that Rollei 35, but my distance estimation has never been good enough for zone focusing. Mine sadly ended up being a $200 paperweight!
01-07-2009, 12:02 PM   #33
Pentaxian
Ratmagiclady's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: GA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 13,464
I took an amusing size-comparison shot of my Lumix FZ-7 next to the ME Super to show a Nikonian friend just how small the latter is. I suppose everyone knows how small those are, though.

Actually makes me think I'll be wanting the winder soonish, when I try putting this 135 on the ME Super, though.


Actually, though, as for anything like a 'digital 110'.. . I think what I'm holding out for here in that regard, is actually for the tech that goes into my little FZ-7 to really come of age. Namely, a non-laggy EVF. And a few physical controls. That's the only real deal-killer about the formula for me. I love this little guy, it's just that when things are moving, you can't hit so well.

Last edited by Ratmagiclady; 01-07-2009 at 12:11 PM.
01-07-2009, 01:00 PM   #34
Veteran Member




Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Zagreb, Croatia
Posts: 369
interesing thing - fout-thirds sensor size is almost identical to 110 film frame size..

01-07-2009, 02:35 PM   #35
Veteran Member
Mike Cash's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Japan
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,952
QuoteOriginally posted by elkarrde Quote
interesing thing - fout-thirds sensor size is almost identical to 110 film frame size..
Perhaps Pentax could make one and market it as 110 Full Frame.
01-07-2009, 02:44 PM   #36
Banned




Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Savannah, U.S./Baguio City, P.H.
Posts: 5,979
QuoteOriginally posted by Mike Cash Quote
Perhaps Pentax could make one and market it as 110 Full Frame.
honestly I would purchase a Pentax 110 digital if it had a proper viewfinder, without hesitation. if it would have an EVF then forget it.
01-07-2009, 03:34 PM   #37
Moderator
Site Supporter
Blue's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Florida Hill Country
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 17,166
QuoteOriginally posted by Mike Cash Quote
Perhaps Pentax could make one and market it as 110 Full Frame.
In 1962, Asahi would be all over this idea and run a marketing campaign to promote it.
01-07-2009, 04:01 PM   #38
Banned




Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Savannah, U.S./Baguio City, P.H.
Posts: 5,979
QuoteOriginally posted by Blue Quote
In 1962, Asahi would be all over this idea and run a marketing campaign to promote it.
they were also a top tier Japanese manufacturer then, with a very good and very quickly becoming well known reputation for quality. two years later the Spotmatic hit the streets and the rest was history... suffice to say, despite taking a loss on all Takumar lenses manufactured, they were a bit better off in many ways then compared to now.

also its a lot harder to engineer a digital 110 than it is to engineer a film one. =)

01-08-2009, 07:17 AM   #39
Site Supporter
Douglas_of_Sweden's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Stockholm
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,347
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by elkarrde Quote
interesing thing - fout-thirds sensor size is almost identical to 110 film frame size..
I've also thought about that. With the right adapter the 110 lenses might work, but I bet you will have to make that adapter yourself.
01-08-2009, 07:19 AM   #40
Site Supporter
Douglas_of_Sweden's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Stockholm
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,347
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by drewdlephone Quote
Cool information, Douglas. I noticed this distinctly when I went out shooting snow-scenes recently. One day, I took my K200D with kit lens, and the next I took the SP-F with the 55 on it. I shoved both under the front of my winter jacket, and with the K200D, I looked pregnant (which I have to say, being a guy, is not good). The SP-F was much easier to manage.

The Spottie was heavier than the K200D, but to be honest I don't mind lugging two pounds of chrome around with me when I take pictures. Never have. One of the reasons I picked the new Pentax over other bands was it's heft. My camera bag (a leather hardcase about the size of a trumpet case) weighs 10 pounds, and that's without the camera.
Well, the way to do it is to balance it with a 135mm lens in the oposite pocket. The wide angle fits in my jeans of nowhere else.
01-08-2009, 07:28 AM   #41
Site Supporter
Douglas_of_Sweden's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Stockholm
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,347
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by creampuff Quote
I think it makes little sense to compare body dimensions between film cameras and digital cameras. They may adopt the same form factor but the internals are inherently different. Even with microprocessor miniaturization, internal space in a DSLR is very limited, not even counting the space for batteries and internal motors.

Here's some images of a stripped K10D.

Mirrorbox and pentaprism assembly (notice how tiny the pentaprism is now)


Shutter assembly (made by Copal naturally)


Anti-shake mechanism. The CCD is face down
It's funny how this thread became a range finder thread. There is too much talk about range finders already on this forum. Thanks creampuff for bringing us back to the actual topic.

Though I dissagree with you that it does not make sense to compare. Despite all technical development on the camera side, there has not been much development on the pocket side, my coats from the 80's are long gone but the pockets of my new coat is about the same size.

Very interresting pictures. So you are the new industrial spy at Pentax?
But seriously, before we had the registration distance which anyway made room for the mirror, then the shutter and finally the film with the film plate. The two first are about the same I would think. What about the APS-C sensor? How thick is it? If you add it's thickness + shutter + registration distance, what do you get? Probably pretty close to the 66mm of the *istDS which is so far the thinnest DSLR from Pentax? Would be good if anyone has these numbers so I know if I should hope for something thinner or if the solution is to go for the DA-pancakes on the *istDS and have a sewer modify my pockets a little bit...
01-12-2009, 09:47 PM   #42
Senior Member




Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Boston
Posts: 142
I'm looking at a digital body that has a focal plane mark, and there's quite a bit of thickness back there. It's easily 1CM. I've advocated dropping the LCD in order to get to most compact digital body possible. With a high-resolution EVF that can serve double duty as a way to review shots, I don't think it would be so bad. Such a body could be made extremely rugged too.

When I'm heading out with the family unit, I look longingly at my MX but I hardly ever grab it. I'd pay $1000 for a compact fully manual (I mean fully manual) DSLR -- an MX with a digital back would be killer. I'd even settle for APS-C or even slightly smaller sensor -- too bad the "digital film" vapor ware people never got their act together.
01-12-2009, 11:40 PM   #43
Site Supporter
ChrisPlatt's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Queens NYC
Posts: 4,425
QuoteOriginally posted by twinda1 Quote
I've advocated dropping the LCD in order to get to most compact digital body possible. With a high-resolution EVF that can serve double duty as a way to review shots, I don't think it would be so bad.
Getting rid of the LCD is a good idea. And an optical VF would be fine - who needs to review shots?
That can be done at home on a PC. How many tiny buttons will that alone eliminate?
Give me large, simple controls too, just like a film camera. Now you're really talking...

Chris
01-12-2009, 11:54 PM   #44
Veteran Member
KungPOW's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,702
Here are some photo's of a D3 sectioned.

A DSLR cut into half (OT): Sony Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review

To me it looks like the thickness from the sensor to the back face is about 19mm (3/4").

Comparing my K10D to a film camera, it looks to be about 25mm (1") from where I would estimate the film plan to be to the back face. Pentax would need a little more depth due to the SR module compared to the D3.

A film camera looks like the back is 6mm (1/4") away from the film plan. So the circuit board, the sensor assembly, and the LCD add about 19mm to the depth of the camera body. The buttons and switches on the back of the body would also add some depth. Not sure what could really be done to slim thing up. I would expect there is some technology from the compact point and shoot cameras that could be used to slim up the DSLR body.

As much as I understand the appeal of an MX-D or an LX-D, It just won't happen. The marketing teams get in the way of that type of thinking with their "features lists". It would take a VERY motivated team of designers, with the single directive to "make a minimalist DSLR". They would acheve their task of the LX-D, and it would be a very highly aclaimed camera that no one would buy. If it made a run of 2 years, eventually it would gather a strong cult following of people that love the camera. There will be web forums dedicated to it allone. The entire Canikon nation would be at the same time intriged, and repulsed. Some will jump ship and become a group known as "the converted". The camera would command extrordinary prices on ebay and KEH. People would buy bodies for spare parts. Pentaxians would petition Hoya to bring it back.

In a way this has already happened if you compair the EOS-1n to the LX. Both were on the market at the same time (1994 to 2000), both have all the features you need to take a photo. One is manual, the other is the same as every DSLR today.
01-13-2009, 02:00 AM   #45
Veteran Member




Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Zagreb, Croatia
Posts: 369
K-mount register depth is 45.46 mm, sensor and shake reduction adds another 19 mm, so it's nearly impossible to make k-mount dslr thinner than ~66 mm.
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!
bodies, body, camera, introduction, k-m, pentax, pocket, serie, size, weight
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
My dream for Pentax: Matched (new) film and FF digital bodies bkpix Pentax DSLR Discussion 1 02-22-2010 10:27 PM
Poll: Pentax Digital Bodies Blue Pentax DSLR Discussion 37 11-17-2009 01:43 PM
Which Pentax K-mount Lenses Fit Which Bodies Ole Pentax Lens Articles 1 03-04-2009 03:29 AM
For Sale - Sold: FS: 2 Digital bodies, 2 film bodies, 4 nice lenses, 1 p-ttl flash kafreddy Sold Items 11 03-28-2008 02:36 PM
Difference in warmth between different Pentax digital bodies sandpiper6 Pentax DSLR Discussion 4 01-22-2007 07:21 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:45 PM. | See also: NikonForums.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