Why my digital pentax bodies does not fit in my winter coat pocket

séamuis · 01-07-2009, 10:07 AM

Originally posted by Blue

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.

Finn · 01-07-2009, 11:27 AM

Originally posted by ddhytz

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!

Ratmagiclady · 01-07-2009, 12:02 PM

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.

elkarrde · 01-07-2009, 01:00 PM

interesing thing - fout-thirds sensor size is almost identical to 110 film frame size..

Mike Cash · 01-07-2009, 02:35 PM

Originally posted by elkarrde

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.

séamuis · 01-07-2009, 02:44 PM

Originally posted by Mike Cash

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.

Blue · 01-07-2009, 03:34 PM

Originally posted by Mike Cash

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.

séamuis · 01-07-2009, 04:01 PM

Originally posted by Blue

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. =)

**Douglas_of_Sweden** · 01-08-2009, 07:17 AM

Originally posted by elkarrde

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.

**Douglas_of_Sweden** · 01-08-2009, 07:19 AM

Originally posted by drewdlephone

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.

**Douglas_of_Sweden** · 01-08-2009, 07:28 AM

Originally posted by creampuff

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...

twinda1 · 01-12-2009, 09:47 PM

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.

**ChrisPlatt** · 01-12-2009, 11:40 PM

Originally posted by twinda1

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

KungPOW · 01-12-2009, 11:54 PM

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.

elkarrde · 01-13-2009, 02:00 AM

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.

01-07-2009, 12:02 PM	#33
Ratmagiclady Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: GA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 13,563	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.

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

01-07-2009, 10:07 AM	#31
séamuis Banned Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Savannah, U.S./Baguio City, P.H. Posts: 5,979	Originally posted by Blue 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
Finn Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Phoenix Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,056	Originally posted by ddhytz 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, 01:00 PM	#34
elkarrde Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Zagreb, Croatia Posts: 387	interesing thing - fout-thirds sensor size is almost identical to 110 film frame size..

01-07-2009, 02:35 PM	#35
Mike Cash Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Japan Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,950	Originally posted by elkarrde 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
séamuis Banned Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Savannah, U.S./Baguio City, P.H. Posts: 5,979	Originally posted by Mike Cash 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
Blue Moderator Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Florida Hill Country Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,377	Originally posted by Mike Cash 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
séamuis Banned Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Savannah, U.S./Baguio City, P.H. Posts: 5,979	Originally posted by Blue 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
Douglas_of_Sweden Site Supporter Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: Stockholm Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,374 Original Poster	Originally posted by elkarrde 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
Douglas_of_Sweden Site Supporter Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: Stockholm Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,374 Original Poster	Originally posted by drewdlephone 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
Douglas_of_Sweden Site Supporter Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: Stockholm Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,374 Original Poster	Originally posted by creampuff 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
twinda1 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
ChrisPlatt Site Supporter Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Rockaway Beach NYC Posts: 7,694	Originally posted by twinda1 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
KungPOW Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Vancouver, Canada Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,699	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
elkarrde Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Zagreb, Croatia Posts: 387	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.