Richard Schumer: It appears to me that Mr. Maeda identifies the intended buyers of this line of cameras to be photojournalists , not advanced amateurs. For PJs to require similar pixel-level quality to APS sized sensors indicates to me PJs want to be able to crop severely and that is more important than dynamic range.
To an artist, the opposite might be true, but artists are not their intended target.
@Lassoni: Canon makes several FF DSLRs. I'm not intimate with their lines, but the 1Dx seems for studio photogs, and 5DMk3 for advanced amateurs....
Perhaps we're seeing fragmentation of a mature market?
It appears to me that Mr. Maeda identifies the intended buyers of this line of cameras to be photojournalists , not advanced amateurs. For PJs to require similar pixel-level quality to APS sized sensors indicates to me PJs want to be able to crop severely and that is more important than dynamic range.
Suave: "The elements are held in place initially by friction, inside their TSC trays, before the TSC is heated at the edges and sealed to lock the elements into place. This type of construction replaces the much more involved traditional method where glass elements were held in place by metal bezels screwed tightly into the barrel."
So replacing front or rear element now requires replacent of the entire assembly at god knows how much the cost.
IIRC this construction was first used circa 1975 by Canon and nearly all major high-volume lensmakers have adapted it to their lines by now.
No news here, except that the most expensive Sigma line is so constructed.
justmeMN: AF is for wimps. :-) My Pentax film camera didn't have no newfangled AF, and it worked just fine. :-)
Memories are vague. I used a second body I borrowed from my dad, an Asahi H1, perhaps, or s3v? with a 135mm F;3.5, too. It was good for panning as action went by or to catch a quick passing maneuver. I got my own Pentax in 1966 at the factory.
Barry: I had to reach back to remember how I dealt with motorsport. This was pre-Pentax and microprism days; I used a Contax-D (actually one rebranded as "Hexacon") and a 400mm f:6.3 lens with a 2x extender, all mounted on a hacked wooden crutch with a long cable release through to the handgrip so I could hold/shoot with my right hand and focus with the left. There was only one choice in film -- Tri-X pushed to 1600.
I used to pick my shots (tops of hills, long straightaways, at the apex of curves) and focus on a spot and wait for the car to hit it.
I dunno how pros do it today. I quit freelancing when I realized it would mean little profit and lots of work. Being lazy, I became a disk jockey.
Prairie Pal: I believe my *ist DS and K10D both beep when focus is manually achieved in addition to visual peaking.
I turn focus peaking off most of the time, but sometimes it's a Godsend.
Aur: "The other thing is heat. Because the sensor is always on, it generates heat. So with current technology we believe the time is not right for us to make a large sensor mirrorless camera. "
I wonder what this means for the longevity of a full frame mirrorless. They hint they ran into heat problems obviously, I know a Sony mirrorless can actually physically shut down in a hot climate when you've been shooting for a long time, especially with video, and Nikon has some patents to try to cool down the sensor. The camera will simply shut down to try to protect the sensor from the heat.
Not good for longevity, but I doubt that's the issue for Pentax. It's probably that more heat = more noise.
I need to beat on a dead horse here: I spent a couple of weeks training myself to focus quickly using a microprism spot on my first Pentax, a Spotmatic. I got good enough to sell quite a lot of racing pictures to magazines like Road & Track and Autosport back in the '60s.
The other day, I was shooting performers at a street festival with a medium tele while standing next to a young person with a DSLR, who spent his time diddling with focus-points or whatever, not getting any shots at all, as the action was quick and diverse and he couldn't keep up.
While only about half of my dozens of shots were in tack-sharp focus, he missed it all!
I believe, even today, a well-trained focus hand and eye is far superior to any autofocus scheme, though I have not tried (or needed) tracking AF on Canon or Nikon.
I hope this new FF Pentax allows changeable focus screens like my K10D so I can have a nice microprism spot. And an off switch for the AF, of course.
Having been a Pentax user since 1966, I have found their sales division to be weak In the USA (and probably everywhere) during those early years. Pentax (then Asahi) used Honeywell to import and market their cameras, as they had an existing widespread network of camera dealers.
When Pentax decided to market using their own divisions, their lack of wholesale experience nearly did them in in the US. It was reported (and I believe) Pentax's distributors and salespeople were hard to deal with from the POV of camera stores. Perhaps they didn't match the Big Two's promotional outreach or didn't provide as much national or co-op advertising allowances; perhaps their financing or other requirements were out of line with the competition, but for whatever reason, camera stores abandoned the brand while it was still a good seller.
Now, perhaps Ricoh will have the distribution infrastructure to get Pentax back into sellers' hands. But given Ricoh's poor record in that regard, perhaps not.
The lead has been buried: This is NOT a 36 x 24 mm FF sensor, but 32.8 x 24.6 mm, with the same 43 mm image circle. This is in a 4:3 format.
Also, the FF chip has an electronic shutter which can sample twice per frame and use the data to reduce noise, according to the chipmaker's website http://www.imveurope.com/press-releases/product_details.php?product_id=1880
Zvonimir Tosic: Make is simple, yes, but not simpler than that. Where is ISO control? At least film Leica camera had a simple ISO wheel on the back. If sensitivity control is not simple and intuitive as shutter speed selection, all this brushed aluminium is a waste.
Of course, on that film Leica, the wheel on the back was a reminder, not a control.
It might be nice to have ISO control readily at hand, but if a decent auto-sensitivity function is used, I can live without it.
When a firmware update provided auto-ISO setting on my Pentax *ist DS, I learned to love it. On more modern cameras like my Oly PM2 I set the acceptable range and forget sensitivities therefrom in most cases.
One recent example: I was shooting an active teen at dusk. I wanted to use f:2.8 to isolate her from the background while having enough depth-of-field to have her whole face sharp, not just her eyes. As she was active, I needed 1/120 sec. to freeze her quick expressions.
As the light faded, the camera automatically adjusted sensitivity to provide the exposure pair I chose between a range of ISO 200-1600, which I cannot distinguish among in 11x14 prints or the web.
I could not have done this as well manually.
JhvaElohimMeth: I know, it's not important, but it's SO ugly!
Granted, it doesn't look as bling as a gold-plated Nikon Df. http://www.dpreview.com/articles/8641626030/price-released-for-brikk-s-24k-gold-nikon-df
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I will buy it when it comes out if the price is, as guessed, ~$2200.
neo_nights: Is it me or does it have more of a Medium Format look?
It'd be nice to see if Pentax could make a small camera (for fullframe standards of course) like they did with the K5.
If you assume a 3-inch LCD screen and then compare the rear view shot with that of the K-3 in DPR's review, you will find, like me, that the overall sizes of the cameras are very similar.
I think ppl are letting the truly tiny lens fool their eyes into thinking the body is genormous.
ianp5a: The other 2 companies are lens manufacturers. It will be interesting to see what new lenses might come out of this.
When I followed the links in the article, Flovel turns out not to show any optics of any kind under their Products tab; they seem to concentrate on special-purpose industrial cameras, mostly CCD-equipped, some with sensor-shift resolution enhancement.
JDC Optical, on the other hand, seems to be a startup.
SKPhoto12: It is simple; FF lenses can not be small unless they are MF. Then Leica size lenses are possible, but otherwise, the present FF lense size is what you will get for the Sony A7 line. That is why there is no F1.4 lenses available so far. The faster, the bigger. The option is to use MF lenses like the Nikon or Minolta AI lenses or the Canon FE. If you want really small lenses on a small body, then go MFT. I did and I print 40x60 cm quality prints no problem.
While housing a motor is space-consuming, its volume is trivial compared to the assembled lens. The main benefit of the small backfocus distance of a mirrorless design is in wideangle lenses, which need not be retrofocus designs and, thus, can be quite small.
Mitigating that somewhat, except on Leicas, is the exit path of the photons strikes the edges of the sensor at an inefficient angle; retrofocus designs make a straighter exit angle, and now seem to be preferred for lenses even of normal focal lengths, as in the new Zeiss 50mm f1.4 FF.
The bottom line: Wideangles can be smaller or faster on a ml, but not necessarily, and many lenses longer than 40mm or so are not affected at all except for the longer barrel needed to reach the flange. In most cases, a 200mm lens has a focal point exactly 200mm from the sensor, whatever the flange-to-sensor distance.
To some extent, size of lenses is also a matter of fashion.
LBJ2: "which offers a fast maximum aperture of F2.8 throughout its zoom range"
Applying the crop factor, is this new lens really an equivalent f2.8 "throughout its zoom range" or is it really equivalent to 24-83mm f4.2 ?
@Naveed wrote "Otherwise Everyone will start counting advantage of their favorite system format and put it on Aperture definition."
That's what trolls do, spread misinformation. Ignore them.
Frank C.: dumbed down piece of photographic equipment for 2k$+... I don't think so! 1/8000 and 1/250 x-sync was around decades ago, srry today it's fuel injectors, not webers! LOL
@abolit -- I doubt they "deliberately cripple cameras". The truth is more mundane: they, like almost every other Japanese-based maker, buy shutters from OEM makers like Seiko and Copal. It is of no doubt Nikon chose a lower-cost shutter than the best that could be had, but they did not "cripple" a camera. They simply used cost control.
N.B. I own no Nikons nor any stock in the company.
Richard Schumer: Didn't the chairman of Olympus say several years ago that 12MP was enough for the rest of time?
@Olymore: Perhaps I misspoke when I called the person "chairman"; if so, I apologize to DPR readers and to him. Although I am not sure of his title, I believe his name was Mr. Kobayashi. And yes, I exaggerated for comic effect, which, apparently failed.
NB: I used a 12-MP Oly PM-1 and I must truly say that I have never needed more resolution than that as I have never printed larger than 9x12 inches anyway. He might be right.
Nevertheless, I upgraded to a 16MP Oly PM2 but for its features and noise control, not its resolution.
I hope there is a setting somewhere in the menus that use this technique for noise reduction instead of increasing the image size; I believe this is possible with little bother.
Didn't the chairman of Olympus say several years ago that 12MP was enough for the rest of time?
Beckler8: Like all the haters here, I too think this is pretty stupid. It's a luxury image camera. But then admit that Rolls Royce and Rolex are ridiculous as well. At least this camera is a rebadge of a great model, whereas those two examples are badges of nothing.
@ surelythisnameisfree: Rolexes are very good rebadges indeed. They use a common, outside-sourced movement nowadays, and have not come up with a decent new design since the Oyster itself (~1920s).
I wore a Rolex for decades until digital watches became cheaper while being much, much more accurate and durable. My "officially certified" Rolex chronometer usually lost seven seconds per day, even after expensive "regulation". My ten dollar digital watch loses less than that *per month.*