|
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
05-30-2019, 01:09 AM
|
| |
It wouldn't be more complex to the customer and the increased cost of producing it (compared to a traditional one) should be amortised by reusing the same body across all camera variations.
MILCS are getting larger and in many cases the small mirrobox advantage they have is negated by the same space being transferred to the lens (cf. Sigma using the same optical designs for DSRLs and MILCs). Having the equivalent of a mirrorbox in the lens is worse when you start carrying multiple of these lenses around. In any event, most modern lenses are so big and heavy that the small reduction of depth by omitting a mirrorbox isn't really making much of a difference.
The GPS antenna could be placed elsewhere or could just be integrated in each viewfinder alternative (except perhaps in the most basic one).
Same for the metering system. Where is the problem in integrating the metering system in each viewfinder? On the contrary, this distribution of hardware components would mean that a basic viewfinder could come with a basic metering chip while the more capable ones (enabling eye-AF, etc.) would be reserved to the high-end and more expensive viewfinder models.
|
|
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
05-29-2019, 01:45 PM
|
| |
On another forum, member falconeyes (he used to be a Pentaxian) added a great idea:
Ricoh should offer a K-1 Pro body that supports exchanging the viewfinder. He suggested the following variants:- Traditional OVF as the affordable base model.
- A traditional EVF for video, macro, product shot work etc.
- A more expensive high eye-point hybrid VF.
- Maybe, a few more special VFs like a sports VF etc.
In my view this would both create an economic advantage for Ricoh to cost-effectively offer many camera variants and at the same time give customers the opportunity to spend only as much as they need.
Customers would even be able to upgrade their viewfinder depending on available funds and changing requirements.
To fully capitalize on the idea, however, Ricoh would have to up their video game as some of the viefinder concepts benefit from the body being a capable video performer.
|
|
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
05-28-2019, 02:50 AM
|
| |
I see, thanks.
This isn't encouraging with respect to Ricoh actually realizing the idea. However, in combination with the more recent switchable hybrid viewfinder patent, it may become so attractive as to warrant implementation after all.
With a tighter arrangement of more PDAF areas, the two focusing systems could inform each other regarding subject distance, subject tracking, etc. AF could become as convenient as it is with some MILCs already without implying the headache-inducing mini-TV experience.
|
|
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
05-28-2019, 12:30 AM
|
| |
A Ricoh-Patent on PDAF and/or CD AF describes technology that would enable a DSLR with an OVF (optical viewfinder) to alternatively support CD (contrast detect) AF without disabling the OVF.
This technology would hence support face- or eye-detect AF while simultaneously supporting framing with an OVF.
In combination with Ricoh's switchable hybrid viewfinder patent, the described innovation could be used to offer a camera that truly offers the best of both worlds: The perfect refresh rate and eye- and battery-friendliness of OVFs combined with the utility (focusing aids, advanced AF methods) of EVF/MILCs.
EDIT: If you find the links are not working, @Mistral75 has provided alternative sites (thanks!).
Will Ricoh find the initiative to provide a true alternative to MILCs?
AFAIC, I don't really need anything more than a classic DSLR but in order to stay relevant, i.e., competitive in the light of the MILC craze and the admittedly useful face- and eye-AF functionality of MILCs, it would be excellent if Ricoh could create a camera that doesn't force one to make a choice.
P.S: The "size"/"compactness" argument that once could be made in favour of MILCs has long evaporated due to the fact that most modern MILC lenses are behemoths and turn a small camera into an ergonomic liability and the consequence of multiple MILC models having become larger (and heavier) to a point where they become actually adequate for normal-sized hands and in combination with anything but the the smallest and lightest pancake lenses.
|
