Whats Next for Pentax

It will be the first true APS-C mount camera.
What I mean is that it will be like the registry distance of 4/3rds.
but with APSC.
Could be. This will get the size down and Hoya did mention smaller size.
meaning shorter than Nikon, Canon and Alpha mount.
The mount will be shorter, but not different! still K mount but with
a small alteration which will prevent normal K mount to be mounted at
the new wrong reg distance. The extension tube like adapter will be
able to mount any K mount lens as before with full function.
This will let us use our DA, FA and A lenses. A good thing.
The mirror will stay! and be the same size.
I would guess the mirror will be a little smaller. The mirror was made for FF. If the same size mirror is used they might have to do like Sony did with the A900.
The sensor will stay, but will be an improved version like the one on
the Samsung NX cameras.
Video is almost certain if its available on the new Samsung.
SDXC compatible
Most likely.
Smaller than K20D, but not that much smaller. Like K200D but with
more function.
Remember the Petnax patent for overlaying information in an viewfinder. With this patent the viewfinder could be both an optical viewfinder and an EVF. Hopefully if this patent is used the optical VF will be at least as good as the K20D.
live view will be better incorporating contrast AF.
It would be a good thing.
Possible tilt and swivel as it might be aimed t outdoors men, (being
a more useful feature for them than most).
OLED display. I would love that, still not as high res as the Nikon
and Canon cameras, but simply better colours.
New AF sensor, 21 cross sensors covering almost everything in frame.
Nice but. I would think it would be something like 11 point in phase detection mode and 21 or more in Contrast dection mode.
Styling will be limited esque with very tough materials and a perfect
finish.
Nice]
New lenses will be hot hot hot.
Smaller kit lens, new 30mm 1.4, and a new 105-135mm pancake
Nice. Think of RF size lenses but with AF, SDM and weather-sealing.

It all sounds very promising. We are setting ourselves up to be disappointed later this year.

I just hope for a camera with a better optical VF, more DR, higher Iso, lower nosie, faster AF.

Now should I buy the DA*55 and the DA15 Ltd now or wait and see what the future holds for us.

Dave
 
Looking at this patent in the European registry

http://v3.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?adjacent=true&KC=A&date=20080403&NR=2008077001A&DB=EPODOC&locale=en_GB&CC=JP&FT=D

it appears to me to be a description of a lens mount that fits two different camera mounts. One larger diameter camera mount, and one smaller diameter camera mount. On the lens, there are two mounts, an inner and an outer mount.

Say, we have a k-mount camera with the traditional registration distance, and an EVIL new mount with a smaller diameter and registration distance. The new lens 'double' mount would fit both - the smaller mount on the end for the EVIL camera, and the wider, outer mount for the k-mount camera. You would adapt to the different registration distance at the same time, though the smaller mount might interfere with the mirror box on the k-mount camera?

The 'resilient material' refers to the water sealing - hard material against a rubber seal.

thorsten

Album at http://www.schnier.net/gal
 
Looking at this patent in the European registry

http://v3.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?adjacent=true&KC=A&date=20080403&NR=2008077001A&DB=EPODOC&locale=en_GB&CC=JP&FT=D

it appears to me to be a description of a lens mount that fits two
different camera mounts. One larger diameter camera mount, and one
smaller diameter camera mount. On the lens, there are two mounts, an
inner and an outer mount.

Say, we have a k-mount camera with the traditional registration
distance, and an EVIL new mount with a smaller diameter and
registration distance. The new lens 'double' mount would fit both -
the smaller mount on the end for the EVIL camera, and the wider,
outer mount for the k-mount camera. You would adapt to the different
registration distance at the same time, though the smaller mount
might interfere with the mirror box on the k-mount camera?

The 'resilient material' refers to the water sealing - hard material
against a rubber seal.

thorsten

Album at http://www.schnier.net/gal
Well, that's actually a good idea!
 
To a lot of people this could be affordable. Lieca makes lenses that
are 3 times more expensive for roughly the same equivalent in Pentax.
such a lens would cost around what the old 1.2 50mm lenses would cost.
How do you know that?
And... what kind of f/1 lens would that be? A 50mm? Wider?
yes a 50mm, I am not saying it will happen. But a F1 50mm is possible, just like it is for rangefinders. and those are dedicated FF designs. Or maybee a 1.2 50mm lens the same size as the FA50 1.4?
what about a zoom thats a constant F2 from 16-50mm at the same size
as the older one.
Or even availability to mount any other manufacturers lenses with an
adapter.
Not a practical idea. The new mount should have the shortest
registration distance, impossible to do without getting rid of the
mirror (so, an EVIL design?)
No its not. Pentax registry distance is currantly 45.56mm, Canon FF
cameras have a reg distance of 42mm, making something a dedicated
APS-C mount you can probably go as low as 39-40mm and still keep the
mirror!
Please, think a little about it. You're talking about a 2-3mm adapter
which must be able at least to control the EF electronic aperture,
and about a 5.56-6.56mm adapter which must include the aperture lever
and support both in-body and in-lens (SDM) AF with K-mount lenses.
I am not talking about mounting Canon lenses, I am saying that there is mirror clearance for Canon mount even with 42mm reg distance on FF, so a dedicated APS-c mount could be even smaller!!!
To all of a sudden have the ability to make smaller faster lenses on
APS-C!!!!!
Few wides would benefit from that. So?
So some lense designes will benefit.
I would not, all it would take is a small adapter. I have extention
rings that are fully K mount supportive except for AF, and that is
proven it can be added on AF teleconverters.
I want my lenses to work properly; an extension tube-like adapter is
an unnecessary addition, and an AF teleconvertor is a big no-no (as I
don't want to change the focal lenght of my lenses nor to lose
quality).
I am not talking about using a tele converter. I have extension tubes that are fully auto, except for AF, which can be done as well. All AF teleconverters work with full control, take away the lens element in the teleconverter and you have an extension tube.

I have an extention tube which is a 6mm extention to the body, No glass elements. If you think this is in any way shape or form detramental to quality then you might be thinking its because I mentioned a teleconverter. which I did not mean it as an adapter, just that they support full auto on every lens.
Full K mount compatibe camera, APS-C with almost all the advantages
of 4/3
What advantages are you talking about?
You obviously do not understand why a shorter registry distance is
very good for lens design. you should look at rangefinder cameras,
their reg distance is low. Lieca M mount is 27.8mm. which is why they
are able to make.
You're wrong here. Leica M is a rangefinder, thus allowing the last
lens elements to sit close to the film surface. The K-mount can also
be modified EF-S-like style, while retaining full backwards
compatibility, but there is a limit - the mirror clearance. I see
that you're completely ignoring this approach.
No I am not as I am thinking of minimizing mirror clearance. knocking 6mm off the K mount will still clear APS-C and give way to smaller/faster design, just like normal 4/3
The micro 4/3 don't have a mirror, doh! I'll be mad if Pentax would
launch mirrorless cameras - fortunately they won't, not in the near
future at least.
Doh, I know. Which is how Olympus/panasonic are able to make smaller lenses for micro 4/3 than normal 4/3. but normal 4/3 does, and that lens is designed for it.
Heck it could even be the rumored 1.3 crop sensor with new mount and
smaller reg distance.
1.3 would not be a great number to multiply by but it could work very
well.
you could still shave off 5-6mm from the kmount if we went that way.
Too much work for nothing. They won't do it.
Its not nothing, you have to look at what the possibilities are.
Also , if this is a smaller K mount, then Pentax could keep the K
mount and go FF in the future.
How would that help?
again, having a dedicated mount for one model could reduce size of lenses or increase speed. on 1.3 it would not be as noticable as on APS-C, but still, it could be made smaller than Canon mount and benefit from this.
Please, think it over a little. There is no big deal with a shorter
registration K-mount (if they'll keep the mirror, which they'll do)
but a lot of issues.
You should think more on this yourself.
K mount has a registry distance designed for a full frame mirror.
There is a lot of empty space in the currant APS-C model.

You could keep the same mirror size, but decreasing the registry distance will allow for lenses to be built coming closer to the sensor plane. this is exactly the great thing about 4/3. the dedicated mount was closer to the mirror and sensor plane, it allowes for smaller or faster lenses. Which would be great for Pentax lenses. A small adapter can sort out the compatibility with currant K mount glass to make the camera into a full K mount (just like oly does with its currant 4/3 lenses on micro 4/3. Although I would hope it does not suffer compatibility issues as that system.
 
It will be the first true APS-C mount camera.
What I mean is that it will be like the registry distance of 4/3rds.
but with APSC.
Could be. This will get the size down and Hoya did mention smaller
size.
meaning shorter than Nikon, Canon and Alpha mount.
The mount will be shorter, but not different! still K mount but with
a small alteration which will prevent normal K mount to be mounted at
the new wrong reg distance. The extension tube like adapter will be
able to mount any K mount lens as before with full function.
This will let us use our DA, FA and A lenses. A good thing.
The mirror will stay! and be the same size.
I would guess the mirror will be a little smaller. The mirror was
made for FF. If the same size mirror is used they might have to do
like Sony did with the A900.
I am not sure that the mirror is the same size as it was on full frame, I will have to check that, but it would need to be big enough only for APS-C

The reason I said it will stay is because I believe it to cover only the APS-C portion of the image.
The sensor will stay, but will be an improved version like the one on
the Samsung NX cameras.
Video is almost certain if its available on the new Samsung.
SDXC compatible
Most likely.
Smaller than K20D, but not that much smaller. Like K200D but with
more function.
Remember the Petnax patent for overlaying information in an
viewfinder. With this patent the viewfinder could be both an optical
viewfinder and an EVF. Hopefully if this patent is used the optical
VF will be at least as good as the K20D.
live view will be better incorporating contrast AF.
It would be a good thing.
Possible tilt and swivel as it might be aimed t outdoors men, (being
a more useful feature for them than most).
OLED display. I would love that, still not as high res as the Nikon
and Canon cameras, but simply better colours.
New AF sensor, 21 cross sensors covering almost everything in frame.
Nice but. I would think it would be something like 11 point in phase
detection mode and 21 or more in Contrast dection mode.
Styling will be limited esque with very tough materials and a perfect
finish.
Nice]
New lenses will be hot hot hot.
Smaller kit lens, new 30mm 1.4, and a new 105-135mm pancake
Nice. Think of RF size lenses but with AF, SDM and weather-sealing.

It all sounds very promising. We are setting ourselves up to be
disappointed later this year.
We are, I do not want to be disappointed. I do not think I will have a problem with a more conventional approach, although I think I outlined to myself a system I would really like.
I just hope for a camera with a better optical VF, more DR, higher
Iso, lower nosie, faster AF.

Now should I buy the DA*55 and the DA15 Ltd now or wait and see what
the future holds for us.
If you have the money then buy. I do not think Pentax will bring out something none K mount compatible.
 
No its not. Pentax registry distance is currantly 45.56mm, Canon FF
cameras have a reg distance of 42mm, making something a dedicated
APS-C mount you can probably go as low as 39-40mm and still keep the
mirror!
APS-C is 1/3 smaller than full frame so for a dedicated APS-C mirror box the registration distance could probably be scaled down to something like 30 mm. That would leave something like 15 mm for the adapter. Seems like a risky idea, but who knows, if they are determined never to go FF it makes a lot of sense...
 
I'm getting tired of this, so I'll summarize - and hopefully put an end to this.

What you're saying is that Pentax should do is a variant of the K-mount with a shorter registration distance - while keeping the mirror, so only few mm difference. This should be doable, since the aps-c mirror is smaller than a ff mirror. As advantage, you're saying more compact or faster (for the same size) lenses. You're willing to put up with the necessity of using an adapter to use the old lenses, hopefully with no limitation. You're aware that this means cutting the path fo FF (or force Pentax to make two separate line of lenses, for long and short registration distance mounts); I hope you don't think anymore that you can offer a decent compatibility level through adapters with any other mount.

You're making the mistake of thinking the registration distance is the one that matters on optical lens design; this is not true. The mirror clearance distance is the one that force the lens makers to use retrofocus designs for focal lengths shorter than a certain value; it doesn't really matter where the mount is (well, it does matter, but from a mechanical, not optical point of view). That's why I'm saying, for a few mm it doesn't make sense to change the mount.

Instead of this, I'm offering an alternative: having the APS-C only wide lenses have elements which are closer to the sensor, as for the EF-S lenses. No adapter will be needed, and you'll keep the size advantage from your approach - as the last lens element can be as close as the mirror allows, regardless of the tiny difference in registration distance. FF path is still open, a decent level of forward and backwards compatibility is assured.

There is a third approach, which Pentax and Nikon actually uses: just keep everything the same. Any lens can be mounted on any camera, it's just that an APS-C lens will vignette on a FF camera.

The only drawback is a very slightly bigger camera (not with a 50mm+ lens mounted on it) and wides that are somewhat bigger than they could be.

I'm choosing #2 or even better, #3 anytime (well, I plan to buy the 15mm - small enough for me;) ). I'll get mad if I'll have to use adapters for my lenses.

Alex S.
 
No its not. Pentax registry distance is currantly 45.56mm, Canon FF
cameras have a reg distance of 42mm, making something a dedicated
APS-C mount you can probably go as low as 39-40mm and still keep the
mirror!
APS-C is 1/3 smaller than full frame so for a dedicated APS-C mirror
box the registration distance could probably be scaled down to
something like 30 mm. That would leave something like 15 mm for the
adapter. Seems like a risky idea, but who knows, if they are
determined never to go FF it makes a lot of sense...
It makes no sense, unless they want to do much more than reducing the registration distance.

Just make the smaller mirror and allow APS-C only lenses to bury itself another 15mm into the camera body. Or do nothing of this sort, which is fine with me.

Alex S.
 
It makes no sense, unless they want to do much more than reducing the
registration distance.
Just make the smaller mirror and allow APS-C only lenses to bury
itself another 15mm into the camera body.
The trend is smaller cameras. Of course I think a mirrorless design is a more likely scenario, but who knows...
Or do nothing of this sort,
which is fine with me.
Fine with me to.
 
it appears to me to be a description of a lens mount that fits two
different camera mounts. One larger diameter camera mount, and one
smaller diameter camera mount. On the lens, there are two mounts, an
inner and an outer mount.
That describes the Pentax 67 mount....
Possibly just reregistering the old patent....
 
  • The 14.5mp sensor has supposedly been modified (lets hope for a
faster read-off, and electronic shutter capabilities and if they are
being very brave lets hope for it to be a backlit sensor design
allowing for 4 times more photos to reach the photo sensitive surface)
What is a backlit sensor?
Its a sensor design where the photo sensitive surface is not blocked
in anyway by the electronics needed to read and translate the
photons... i think Sony may have been the first to start testing the
idea, (nothing in production yet), Canon calls it something like 100%
fill factor and again i'm not sure if theirs is in production yet but
most companies are working on it as the next evolution in sensors
design.

it is hard and costly to implement it on a CMOS sensor but rather
cheap and easy to implement on a CCD if i recall correctly.

--
Mike from Canada
A back-thinned and illuminated sensor is not a terribly new idea as this has been around in CCDs for some time. It seems like it is a bit newer in CMOS designs however.

A normal sensor has the actual photo sensitive device down in the pixel well and there are various layers and circuitry in the layers above and around the photo sensitive device or area. This reduces the efficiency of the pixel when illuminated from the "front".

A back-illuminated sensor is one where the bottom substrate has been carefully thinned such that when you illuminate it from the rear it can collect and convert photons more directly than when illuminated from the other side. The challenge (among others I am sure) is to get the thinning done so that you end up with very close to the same substrate thickness over the surface of the entire sensor, otherwise uneven thinning makes for areas that are more or less sensitive to illumination than other areas of the sensor.

A back-thinned Samsung CMOS sensor would be very interesting, but I am even more interested in the pixel reset/count patent that Samsung has filed and hope that we see that technology in the near future.

Getting a more sensitive back-thinned CMOS sensor PLUS the pixel reset technology could put Pentax in the position of having the lowest noise highest DR sensor of any manufacturer, perhaps by a large margin.

Ray
 
fThe challenge (among others I am sure) is to get
the thinning done so that you end up with very close to the same
substrate thickness over the surface of the entire sensor, otherwise
uneven thinning makes for areas that are more or less sensitive to
illumination than other areas of the sensor.
Consider a sandwitch:

a few mkm of silicone on top of a few nm of silicone oxide on top of a few mm of silicone.

With a proper choice of etcher you can etch the substrate from the bottom side all the way through silicone until you will reach the silicone oxide layer, which will stop the etching process. This is a standard trick in micromachining known as a stopping layer. You can control where the etching stops with an accuracy better than 1 nm.

But you’re a right – there are many other challenges with CMOS on membrane design.

Regars,
Andrey.
 
I've read the whole thread, and after 3 pages of ideas, opinions, rumors, fantasies...

I have a collection of pentax cameras and glass from my dad ('70), including very precious glass. This is why I bought a K10 as my first Dsrl, in December 2006, before any review of it. Since, I bought 2 more bodies and a lot of lenses, including the 31, and many others.

Today I sold my backup K10 body with kit lens looking forward to this summer's new high end camera. I've been waiting for 2 years for a higher specd camera than the K20. If by summer Pentax hasn't announced a new professional body, I will be switching to nikon. Only problem being that selling my whole kit would probably only buy me a D700 with 24-70, giving up 8-9 lenses.

The only thing I don't understand is why the big guns of the professional photography world are not producing stupid EVIL cameras, and are instead sticking with taugh bodies, with the least shooting modes as possible, and big bright pentaprisms.

Regards,

--
http://www.nathanservi.com
 
Singing the tech talk in a digital soup bowl, looking through a cracked crystal ball at a ruined economy we pass the days and nights away, I think the developmental time frame will be skewed by other things than mirror clearances, and sensor designs, In my opinion no radical design changes in the next iteration, refined sensor, faster Fps,bigger buffer, classier design, better live view, no articulated LCD, OVF the same. video maybe, but crippled in some way, that it... But they are working on the new line, its just that there's not enough money in the pipeline to convince the Finacial powers to fund the ideas and bring them to production level. FOLLOW THE MONEY!

Regards

Brent
--
Changing light gives me the possibility of seeing the world from a new
perspective.
For me photography is a tool for capturing these insights, for reflection and
sharing.
 
Hi MightyMike,
MightyMike wrote:
[snip]
  • The 14.5mp sensor has supposedly been modified (lets hope for a
faster read-off, and electronic shutter capabilities and if they are
being very brave lets hope for it to be a backlit sensor design
allowing for 4 times more photos to reach the photo sensitive surface)
Faster readout would be nice. In fact, the frame rate on Pentax SLRs has been a real weak point. I'd like to see it switchable between a low rate (3fps, as now) and a medium rate (6-8fps).

However, switching to back-illumination would not give such a photon boost. Most detectors nowadays have microlenses so that their areal efficiency for light gathering is fairly high, typically above 80%. This is one of the advances that levelled the playing field between CCD and CMOS detectors. Using back-illuminated detectors would give a boost to quantum efficiency at the blue end of the spectrum, of course.
  • It'll be a K20D but with a shorter registration distance and a
smaller then K-Mount mount
  • it will have a tapered adapter available for use with existing lenses
I'd prefer to see the same mount and registration distance. An adapter would ease the pain, but there might be real geometric issues getting a big lens to fit on a petite new body, just pushed forwards a cm or so. There could well be problems accessing any switches or controls on the front of the body.
[snip]
  • It'll likely have a 2.7" screen up from 2.5" but hopefully 3" and i
have my doubts as to whether it will have flip n twist.
  • I hope for a high res. LCD and EVF but chances are that at least
the LCD might not be high res.
The LCD should be as big as the back of the camera allows. The K20D should have had at least a 3" screen. The number of pixels should also be increased to match the other makers.
  • the OVF and penta-prism will be replaced with an EVF,
  • the mirror removed and hopefully the shutter removed in favour of
an electronic shutter,
Actually, I'm in favour of electronic shutter. With a CMOS or interline CCD detector, it's trivial to implement. The EVF is riskier, as it could be held hostage to cost reduction. EVF is a handicap unless it has either (i) enough pixels or (ii) built-in pan & zoom for fine manual focussing. Given EVF and electronic shutter, the mirror and pentaprism are superfluous.
[snip]
  • The burst rate will go up to 4fps at 14.5mp, possibly to 5fps...
and faster FPS at lower res. like 6mp @ 10fps
This is aiming too low. I'd prefer 6-8fps as a high rate and 3fps as a low rate, independent of resolution.
[snip]

Other points on internal IS and body weather sealing etc. are no-brainers. Personally, I don't really care about automatic face detection (what would it do with animal photos?) once it's easily enabled and disabled.
AF is the question, it is possible to make contrast detect AF work
fast with existing lenses even the screw drive lenses but has Pentax
figured it out yet? it will be a guarantee that SDM lenses should
focus possibly slow, and of course the new lenses will focus but if
the older and much more common screw drive lenses won't focus it'll
be a big flop, it'll be like telling 90% of your loyal customer base
that their loyal LBA is of no consequence. all new lenses will be
weather sealed.
Pentax AF speed/accuracy is a bit of an embarrassment, to tell the truth. It's OK in decent light, but performs much worse than the others in mediocre light. This and the frame rate should be addressed as a priority.

There have been numerous reports of SDM issues, and this technology seems not to be mature yet. Until then, I'd like an option to switch SDM lenses to screw drive focus on SDM bodies. I had a glitch recently with my DA*16-50/2.8 which suddenly refused to focus on my K20D. It still worked fine on the *istD (screw drive), and my other SDM lenses work fine on the K20D, but the 16-50 could only be used in manual mode. This problem persisted, so it's gone back for warranty repair. Luckily, I have a 16-45/4 as backup...

--

Horses are good subjects for photography, but terrible platforms for a photographer.
 

Keyboard shortcuts

Back
Top