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: 6, showing: 1 – 6
On article Hands on with the Pentax 645Z (707 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.

Link | Posted on Jun 5, 2014 at 15:03 UTC
On article Hands on with the Pentax 645Z (707 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.

Link | Posted on May 29, 2014 at 15:10 UTC
On article Hands on with the Pentax 645Z (707 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.

Link | Posted on May 28, 2014 at 21:49 UTC
On article Hands on with the Pentax 645Z (707 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.

Link | Posted on May 28, 2014 at 16:02 UTC
On article Hands on with the Pentax 645Z (707 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?

Link | Posted on May 24, 2014 at 20:52 UTC as 46th comment | 11 replies
On article Hands on with the Pentax 645Z (707 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.

Link | Posted on May 21, 2014 at 17:26 UTC as 49th comment | 3 replies
Total: 6, showing: 1 – 6