|
Forum: Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands
01-21-2015, 03:35 PM
|
| |
rawr, thanks, that looks like a very thorough investigation of a current translucent mirror design (SLT). And yes, it has lasers! :) (too late to read it now, though... it will have to wait).
kadajawi: with a dedicated PDAF system (located behind and below the main mirror), indeed, they will have to fold the mirrors away (because they're two, and the secondary is smaller and fully reflecting). With such an arrangement they could tune the transparency of the main mirror and that would be all. Perhaps increasing the amount of light sent to the PDAF system in low light? A brighter OVF for manual focusing?
If they get rid of the dedicated PDAF system, using an on-the-sensor one (assumed good enough) there would be no need for a secondary mirror. Thus, a simpler design with a translucent mirror splitting the light between an optical viewfinder and the sensor - similar to the Canon Pellix. The mirror could be fixed in this case.
|
|
Forum: Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands
01-21-2015, 10:54 AM
|
| |
They don't have the capacity to become a fabless sensor manufacturer now. They might build them, but I don't think it's worth the effort, nor that it could be beneficial (e.g. cost effective).
If not Sony and Samsung, Toshiba or Aptina would be happy to fill the gap.
About the translucent mirror, I wonder... perhaps just to replace the movable mirror, thus easily achieving faster frame rates (the high-end MILCs already started to push that as a feature). Perhaps to help the dedicated PDAF system. Hopefully they'll be able to make something nice out of it (I know, there's no guarantee they'll even use the patent)
|
|
Forum: Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands
01-21-2015, 09:28 AM
|
| |
Perhaps not everything, but an electronic giant which among other thing is making sensors, memory modules etc. is naturally able to use more in-house components. In theory Ricoh could become a fabless sensor manufacturer, but I don't see it happening.
The NX1 didn't won me over, but it was by far the best Samsung I tried - the complete opposite from that Galaxy-Android-phone-is-disabled thing. I even almost sort of liked the EVF ;) Well done, Samsung!
Perhaps not a coincidence, it feels almost like a SLR. But it's not cheap... it's a halo product.
Yep, I agree - not now (but perhaps later). I'd like to see more innovation in the DSLR arena, perhaps that translucent mirror...
|
|
Forum: Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands
01-21-2015, 06:22 AM
|
| |
A simple quote from the patent - the exact place where they talk about pricing - would suffice. But you can't do that, can you?
Yet you claimed that Sony has the rumor patented. :rolleyes:
What I'm saying is that patent appears to be about the generic idea of a FF mirrorless E-mount camera.
You have a very wild imagination. I never mocked Sony for not marketing an MF MILC six months after the rumor. I would never mock a company for not making whatever anonymous individuals imagined. I'm merely proving with an example that rumors should not be believed so easily.
P.S. From now on, I will be unwilling unable to see your posts. Respond how you wish, if you wish; consider you "won" some dispute if that makes you happy; even brag about it... I don't care. Bye!
Boriscleto'd™
|
|
Forum: Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands
01-21-2015, 05:29 AM
|
| |
3 years, on a stable company, and maybe they had previous research leading onto that. Ricoh Imaging had to struggle with the merger of Pentax Imaging Systems and Ricoh's own camera division, and with fixing the sorry state they were left in by Hoya. Only 3 years and 3 months passed since Ricoh took control... we should keep that in mind. Yet we had the K-3 and the 645z.
"IMHO mirrorless is going to win over DSLRs" - perhaps, eventually. Perhaps photography and cameras will be banned altogether, before that.
Right now I'm glad I can still choose a superior solution :p
They patented a FF camera under $1000? Are you sure, I mean, really sure about that? As in: can you point it out? ;)
The patent predates the first FF "NEX" cameras, so it might simply refer to that.
I was talking about the 645Z, and in a completely different context.
You mean, making it harder for Ricoh Imaging to make a profit on that market? Sure.
I disagree with the "exactly as claimed by the rumors".
|
|
Forum: Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands
01-21-2015, 01:15 AM
|
| |
Developing a camera would take a few years (e.g. Samsung recently stated 3, for the NX1); is that quick enough? :p
Anyway, the MILC market is crowded enough so that competing on it is not easier than on the DSLR market. On the contrary, I'd say it's harder - without the support of a loyal user base.
Spodeworld, you agree with Sholtzma that "Pentax should develop a mirrorless FF camera", but Sholtzma said" "Personally, I'd rather Ricoh not put FF in a mirrorless camera.". It's a bit confusing...
|
|
Forum: Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands
01-20-2015, 03:31 PM
|
| |
Sony. Canon. Olympus. Nikon. Fuji. Samsung.
|
|
Forum: Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands
01-20-2015, 01:25 PM
|
| |
The sky is falling! Run to the caves!
SAR (which probably made it up, together with most of their rumors :p) is calling it an "SR2", pretty much every rumor can get at least that ranking unless it's outrageously ridiculous. Yet Pentax should "stand against this". :lol:
Let's not forget, the 645z was also declared beaten by a rumored Sony medium format which is still MIA, and that was an "SR3".
|
