Dr. Leonard

Dr. Leonard

Lives in United States United States
Works as a College Professor
Joined on Apr 15, 2004
About me:

Canon MkIV, 7D, 40D, 10-22, 17-55, 100 f2, 100-400 IS, 70-200 f2.8 IS, 70-300 f4-5.6 IS

Comments

Total: 7, showing: 1 – 7
On Hands on with the Pentax 645Z article (660 comments in total)
In reply to:

Dr. Leonard: In addition to a mirrorless design to save weight and complexity, how about doing away with the focal plane shutter and use lenses with leaf shutters. Ups x sync also. No mirror, no pentaprism, no shutter - how expensive could it be?

Perhaps the mirror itself is not so expensive but the damping mechanism surely is more involved than having no mirror. The pentaprism adds weight to a camera body already pretty heavy, over 4 pounds without lens. Don't know about the cost of a focal plane shutter but surely there would be less vibration compared to a leaf shutter in the lens. Overall, a lighter, simpler, less vibration camera body.
The cost of the sensor would be less for SONY because they own it. Pentax has to buy it so this adds to the price.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 5, 2014 at 15:03 UTC
On Hands on with the Pentax 645Z article (660 comments in total)
In reply to:

Dr. Leonard: In addition to a mirrorless design to save weight and complexity, how about doing away with the focal plane shutter and use lenses with leaf shutters. Ups x sync also. No mirror, no pentaprism, no shutter - how expensive could it be?

If the SONY would sell well by undercutting the price of the Pentax, perhaps lens makers would come calling. Just a hope.

Direct link | Posted on May 29, 2014 at 15:10 UTC
On Hands on with the Pentax 645Z article (660 comments in total)
In reply to:

Dr. Leonard: In addition to a mirrorless design to save weight and complexity, how about doing away with the focal plane shutter and use lenses with leaf shutters. Ups x sync also. No mirror, no pentaprism, no shutter - how expensive could it be?

I know. I'm talking about a new camera, not the Pentax reworked. SONY won't have to buy the sensor and by eliminating mirror, pentaprism and shutter, you would have a much simpler camera and presumably cheaper. The money saved would go to super lenses.

Direct link | Posted on May 28, 2014 at 21:49 UTC
On Hands on with the Pentax 645Z article (660 comments in total)
In reply to:

Dr. Leonard: In addition to a mirrorless design to save weight and complexity, how about doing away with the focal plane shutter and use lenses with leaf shutters. Ups x sync also. No mirror, no pentaprism, no shutter - how expensive could it be?

The Leica lenses are sharp, no? And there are others.
I'm talking about SONY doing this, not Pentax.

Direct link | Posted on May 28, 2014 at 16:02 UTC
On Hands on with the Pentax 645Z article (660 comments in total)

In addition to a mirrorless design to save weight and complexity, how about doing away with the focal plane shutter and use lenses with leaf shutters. Ups x sync also. No mirror, no pentaprism, no shutter - how expensive could it be?

Direct link | Posted on May 24, 2014 at 20:52 UTC as 25th comment | 11 replies
On Hands on with the Pentax 645Z article (660 comments in total)

Camera is heavy, expensive and has a large mirror (do I hear a slap?). Note to SONY - the 645Z already uses your sensor. How about developing a mirrorless model to save weight, complexity (mirror damping), and with a lower price (less complex)? Say around 4K to tempt Nikon 800 would be buyers or even 5K, cheaper than the top models from Nikon or Canon.

Direct link | Posted on May 21, 2014 at 17:26 UTC as 28th comment | 3 replies
On Fujifilm X-E1 Preview preview (410 comments in total)

Noise section doesn't show anything.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 9, 2013 at 18:31 UTC as 7th comment
Total: 7, showing: 1 – 7