Regarding: K20D Wishlists and Photography's Masochistic Streak

Evil_Sheep said:

But I prefer the ergonomics of a
small camera body, but with features beyond the entry-level. There is
no product out there right now like that.

Click to expand...

M8 seems like your ticket, no?

--
http://www.pbase.com/klopus

Why would a small camera with weather sealing not happen? The LX is a small camera with weather sealing.

Jan Moren said:

Now, I'd like to see a small camera with weather sealing, but that's
not going to happen. The sealing itself adds quite a lot of bulk,
with every seal needing a couple of millimeters extra thickness for
the O-ring and fittings. Add a few millimeters all around and the
camera bulks up quite notcieably. Better to go for small.

Click to expand...

--
http://www.twice-cooked.com/

http://www.livejournal.com/users/wadam/
http://www.flickr.com/people/wadam/

jackbw said:

Now for the Limiteds, I'm sure there is
a designer/engineer within the organization who would have proposed a
body for it, but would have trouble getting approval.

Click to expand...

I propose a size/design similar to ME/ME Super. I own the LX too, and I owned the MX, but the ME Super is the ultimate in compact design, IMHO. The LX and MX had that aperture window that is now obsolete and that made them a little less streamlined in their looks.
--
Espen

Evil_Sheep said:

[snip]
... the ergonomics of a small camera body, ...
[snip]

Click to expand...

Now there's an oxymoron. ;-)

Ergonomics: Is the applied science of equipment design intended to maximize productivity by reducing operator fatigue and discomfort.

The K10D is right in the 'sweet spot' for me. Large enough for my arthritic hands to hold for hours with sufficient mass for good stability. My old Super-Program, though a wonderful little camera, was very fatiguing for me to use for any length of time. I had to hold it daintily like an old lady with a tea cup. ;-)

I'm sure there would be a market for your vision of a miniaturized Pentax DSLR ( at least in Japan - they love compact stuff over there ) ;-), but you would have to pay the price in ergonomics with less direct control and the attendant increased menu surfing.

Not my cup of tea. ;-)

----------------
cheers,
Rick

gazonk said:

I propose a size/design similar to ME/ME Super. I own the LX too, and
I owned the MX, but the ME Super is the ultimate in compact design,
IMHO. The LX and MX had that aperture window that is now obsolete and
that made them a little less streamlined in their looks.

Click to expand...

That aperture window is "obsolete"?

Did someone fix the crippled K-AF mount and not tell me? ;-)

I used to have an MX, my favourite camera of them all. Some of my nostalgia is because of features it didn't have. The remainder of my nostalgia is because what it did have, worked so well.

RP

That's no DSLR ...

Thibouille said:

That's no DSLR ...

Click to expand...

So what? OP to prove his point showed huge DSLR dwarfing Leica rangefinder. Naturally rangefinder and lenses are easier to make smaller - no mirror, no mirror chamber hump, much simpler shutter mechanism, closer distance between lens back element and focal plane, etc.

Major M8 downside is price, like anything Leica.

--
http://www.pbase.com/klopus

What I meant was, given everything else equal, a camera with weather sealing will be significantly larger than one without, especially for a modern camera that has a lot of access points. And the LX hardly counts as what posters here regard as a small camera; it's larger than a K100D, except in depth with is simply constrained by the mount and the extra space needed for the sensor.

If the design objective is a really compact camera, womething to compete with the Sigma DP-1 for instance, it most likely makes sense to ditch both weather sealing and the mirror focusing system with its bulky prism in favour of a see-though viewfinder and live-view focusing.

wadam said:

Jan Moren said:

Now, I'd like to see a small camera with weather sealing, but that's
not going to happen. The sealing itself adds quite a lot of bulk,
with every seal needing a couple of millimeters extra thickness for
the O-ring and fittings. Add a few millimeters all around and the
camera bulks up quite notcieably. Better to go for small.

Click to expand...

--
http://www.twice-cooked.com/

http://www.livejournal.com/users/wadam/
http://www.flickr.com/people/wadam/

Click to expand...

--
Japan: http://janneinosaka.blogspot.com
Images: http://www.flickr.com/photos/jannem/

I was "conditioned" to worry about the size of the 10D before I ever got it, and was worried about it being much bigger than my DS. I tried to find it too big, uncomfortable, too heavy, or just plain awkward. The fact is, I used my DS today for the first time in a while, and found it too small, too jammed together, and too uncomfortable. Maybe you just get used to what you use everyday? I don't see where smaller is always better, after all, electric guitars could easily be made the size of a harmonica. Somehow the Stones just wouldn't look the same, and at times might have a few problems with such a tiny device? For me, the size of the 10D is just about perfect.
--
'This is more serious than I thought.....but it is still fun!
http://www.pbase.com/rupertdog Take a look- It's Free!

richardplondon said:

That aperture window is "obsolete"?

Did someone fix the crippled K-AF mount and not tell me? ;-)

Click to expand...

Hehe, I was expecting that comment It's obsolete when using new lenses, at least!

--
Espen

Jan Moren said:

And the LX hardly
counts as what posters here regard as a small camera; it's larger
than a K100D, except in depth with is simply constrained by the mount
and the extra space needed for the sensor.

Click to expand...

The LX is smaller than the K100D! A little wider, that's true, but the K100D is taller and deeper. The LX looks small next to a K100D! And the weight of the LX is equal to the weight of the K100D without batteries.
--
Espen

Ouch you're right, my bad, forgot the comparison the OP did was with a Leica, just normal you include the M8 in a comparison then.

One major reason for the increase in size at Pentax, is the built-in shake reduction system. This system simply needs space to move. If Pentax switched to optical image stabilisation, in the lenses, then the bodies could be made smaller - but the size and weight of the optics would increase.

However, Pentax said in the march interview (published in DC Watch Impress magazine) that they may start developing a more compact DSLR (probably without camera based shake reduction) if the sales of the new generation DSRL's (called "K20D" and "K200D" in this forum) goes very well. If the new DSLR's becomes hughe successes, then Pentax will have the founds to develop a more niche-oriented compact DSLR in a limited serie. Pentax first priority, the top priority, now is the new DSLR's - they are not smaller than the current K..D-serie but they are not larger either and that is fine with me. No EOS 1DS-size in Pentax, thank you.
--
Take care
R
http://www.flickr.com/photos/raphaelmabo