Explain just how “distinct” can a Pentax Evil get???

I agree. WR makes no sense in a market of cameras that are supposed to be small, light and cheap. I doubt many mirrorless users care about WR if they can save $50 and some weight.
Not sure about that, even in compacts the number of weatherproof camera is increasing and they sell (otherwise it would still only be Pentax and Oly who made them) so a sealed mirrorless would make sense to entice those currently shooting with a sealed P&S.

It is a mystery to me why Oly didn't do so as they were the pioneers of cheaper sealed dslr's but maybe they don't want it to have more features than the not so high specced dslr's
--




The difference between genius and LBA is that genius has its
limits.
  • Janneman ( adaptation of the Kings quote from Albert Einstein)
 
What they can, and I believe must do, is make their system the first to offer full integrating with an SLR lens system ... moreover there is no absolute requirement that the registration distance be reduced (no-one complained about the bulk of the ME).
So true !

And to all that claim that K-mount lenses don't work with CD autofocus: who says that a mirrorless camera needs CD-AF at all?

Just read todays dpr news. http://www.dpreview.com/news/1008/10080505fujifilmpd.asp

Regards,
Hannes
 
They only "work" in the sense that they focus to infinity. They have no autofocus, they have no aperture coupling or other electronic communications, and they probably do not meter properly. I dare say there is some novelty value in taking pictures with random lenses, but little scope for serious use.
They meter just fine and are pretty popular. Some lenses have aperture ring, and for others the adapters have aperture levers. The number of posts on m4/3 forum to this toic (and ebay adapter sales) are testament to how well they work. For example, leica M lens to Sony E mount adapter

http://cgi.ebay.com/leica-M-lens-Sony-E-mount-adapter-NEX-5-NEX-3-NEX-5-/200492169061?cmd=ViewItem&pt=Lens_Accessories&hash=item2eae43b765
It's just a dumb spacer ring. Certainly no sign of an aperture lever, and it even seems that you have to bend the metal with a screwdriver to "adapt" it to fit the lens!
Lecia-M lenses have apeture ring. And even the overpriced dumb adapter sold like a hotcake. What does that tell you?
 
Raphael confirmed it in the other thread. He has been a reliable source of Pentax information over the years.
 
What they can, and I believe must do, is make their system the first to offer full integrating with an SLR lens system ... moreover there is no absolute requirement that the registration distance be reduced (no-one complained about the bulk of the ME).
So true !

And to all that claim that K-mount lenses don't work with CD autofocus: who says that a mirrorless camera needs CD-AF at all?

Just read todays dpr news. http://www.dpreview.com/news/1008/10080505fujifilmpd.asp
Yes, that would make it unique. Making such a sensor with half-masked micro-lenses wouldn't be easy though. The R&D would need to be going on at least for an year for such a system to be released in 2011.
 
I they would design K mount EVIL, it will be illogical to desing the K-r also.. so EVIL for Pentax would share mount with other company I think.
--
S.
 
--

Nothing is more admirable than the fortitude with which millionaires tolerate the disadvantages of their wealth.
  • Rex Stout
 
Start from the idea that the mirrorless body isn't designed for still photography. Have a body designed around video use, with the ability to do stills. This could mean a linear body style over the traditional planer style and at that point the flange depth becomes a non issue for legacy lenses. Something like a Coke can with an articulating LCD screen on the side. Just hang a lens off the end.

Instead of capturing the P&S crowd, capture the video crowd.

Thank you
Russell

--
http://waorak.tripod.com/
 
Start from the idea that the mirrorless body isn't designed for still photography. Have a body designed around video use, with the ability to do stills. This could mean a linear body style over the traditional planer style and at that point the flange depth becomes a non issue for legacy lenses. Something like a Coke can with an articulating LCD screen on the side. Just hang a lens off the end.

Instead of capturing the P&S crowd, capture the video crowd.
like this?

 
like this?
Basically. This gets rid of the, is focus fast enough, question as the expectation of what fast focus is has changed. It's a video camera that can do stills. Like the early days of cell phones. Would you put up with the house phone dropping calls and having static, no, but you will and did on the cell phone. Different expectations.

Thank you
Russell

--
http://waorak.tripod.com/
 
I know, I know! A 21mm square format sensor!

Okay, maybe not.

--

K10D, Sig 17-70, DA 55-300, FA 50/1.4 "Billy Bass", M 400/5.6 "the Great Truncheon"
 
They only "work" in the sense that they focus to infinity. They have no autofocus, they have no aperture coupling or other electronic communications, and they probably do not meter properly. I dare say there is some novelty value in taking pictures with random lenses, but little scope for serious use.
See this thread:

http://www.hklfc.com/forum/?o=topic&act=show&id=48414&page=2

Non-native lenses work fine. Rangefinder lenses are small, and go nicely with the small camera. The ability to adapt any lens ever made is one of the major reason for the popularity of m4/3 (and now Nex with even shorter flange distance than m4/3). Samsung NX flange distance is too large to adapt M-mount lenses. K-mount mirrorless would exclude most non-native lenses to be adapted.
 
Some people point to waterproofing the camera as a distinction- this seems pretty feeble to me- any of the existing EVIL makers could waterproof their camera with minimal effort.2
But nobody has, and what is more, hardly anybody does it with their dslr's and especially almost all of their dslr's. Not even Oly which more or less pioneered the "more affordable" sealed dslr's (not counting ofcourse the very high end Canon and Nikon models). So it seems to me that a fully sealed line up would, at least for the first few years, make Pentax stand out..
I know about the registration distance issues, but I believe these are overstated- there are various technical solutions to this problem, moreover there is no absolute requirement that the registration distance be reduced (no-one complained about the bulk of the ME).
As many I started off with and ME, later an ME-Super, whic I rarely used as I jus did not like it as much. later I went backwards and got me an MX. Then I got me a KX and guess what? The bigger KX really felt nicer to me....

--




The difference between genius and LBA is that genius has its
limits.
  • Janneman ( adaptation of the Kings quote from Albert Einstein)
 
The problem is that DSLR lenses don't AF efficiently with contrast detect AF.
All that is needed for a PDAF lens to work well on CDAF is a proper algorithm, a proper electric motor with gearing and a proper sensor read-out.
There is no physical restriction prohibiting this to be developed.

All the lens needs to do with CDAF is to be able to focused in and out smoothly. The nice thing with most of Pentax's lenses is that the motor sits inside the camera, so a Pentax EVIL can easily fulfill the above-mentioned requisites.

Now, SDM lenses, that could get more difficult. Maybe! As far as I can see, no one here really knows how the SDM motor driver algorithm works and how much is in the lens and if it can be bypassed or not.
The body size would be larger than the competition.
Marginally. Also, body size is only part of the reasons why people are after EVIL. Generally, looking at body size and not system size is a dangerous (but admittedly tempting) mistake.

You are still assuming that Pentax would design the EVIL camera to have the full K-mount register and not opt for a rather simple adapter from a µK to K. Going this route would allow using basically any lens.

Even in an EVIL with full K-mount register, the "dead" space does not need to be "dead". You can create collapsible lenses using that volume. Or develop optical filters placed between lens and sensor. Either would work towards making the system more attractive than the "dead volume" solution you are fearing.
The K-mount also limits the number of manual focus lenses that you can use (such as all rangefinder lenses will be unusable) due to larger flange distance.
Well, if you were right and Pentax would go with the full K-mount register, you'd be right, but even then: It could be a deliberate decision to make people use Pentax lenses on a Pentax body. You know, what most manufacturers want. Apart from that, while I like to use old lenses on my cameras, I feel that the average buyer puts pretty little importance to cross-brand backwards compatibility.

The real risk for a K-mount EVIL, or rather µK Evil is that a mechanical mount like K or µK (if we want a simple adapter from µK to K) is rather expensive and all recent mounts have been electric&electronic.

--

'Well, 'Zooming with your feet' is usually a stupid thing as zoom rings are designed for hands.' (Me, 2006)
'I don't own lenses. I pwn lenses.' (2009)
My Homepage: http://www.JensRoesner.de
 
I agree. WR makes no sense in a market of cameras that are supposed to be small, light and cheap.
How so? Do you have the numbers that confirm your claim, which I can prove instantly it's totally wrong and faulty?

Many small cameras get defective because of the two main reasons: 1) they drop on the floor, 2) or the moist and water/liquid sneak in, because users are carrying such cameras everywhere around, in all weather simply because they're so small .

That's the info I got from the Pentax service for example, and they have tried during the last several years to feed their data to camera designers and production. That's exactly the reason Pentax wants to save on future cost -- weather sealing is not only a good incentive to buy a product and to distinguish your camera line, but also cuts the cost in unnecessary warranty issues. Sealing all cameras imposes a bit of a cost, but sealing more and more cameras while optimising the lineup is exactly on their roadmap, because users respond favourably. For them is better to have fewer but more robust models than more cheap models that incur a bigger maintenance cost.

But some guys cannot find any logic or meaning even in most obvious things.
 
WR, SR and through-the-lens phase detection autofocus ... That is what I would like to see ... SR not necessary if it has a good sensor with high ISO and low noise. WR would be cool, not critical. On chip phase detection autofocus as Fuji system would be the greatest! Unfortunately, I don't think that any of that will happen. So the only thing I hope for is a very low price :-)

Marek
 
Any one got a good working theory how "Distinct" can pentax get with EVIL?

Panasonic has the 1st EVIL, Olympus has the 1st EVIL with build-in stabilization, Samsung has the 1st APS-C sensor Evil, Sony has the smallest APS-C sensor with radical styling. What is left for Pentax to do?
Aside from size, some of the multi-shot tricks are unique to Nex too. Sweep Panorama, Handheld 3-shot HDR, twilight and anti-motion blur mode.
 
They only "work" in the sense that they focus to infinity. They have no autofocus, they have no aperture coupling or other electronic communications, and they probably do not meter properly. I dare say there is some novelty value in taking pictures with random lenses, but little scope for serious use.
See this thread:

http://www.hklfc.com/forum/?o=topic&act=show&id=48414&page=2

Non-native lenses work fine. Rangefinder lenses are small, and go nicely with the small camera. The ability to adapt any lens ever made is one of the major reason for the popularity of m4/3 (and now Nex with even shorter flange distance than m4/3). Samsung NX flange distance is too large to adapt M-mount lenses. K-mount mirrorless would exclude most non-native lenses to be adapted.
Are you saying that they do have autofocus, and aperture coupling and other electronic communications? Your link demonstrates that it is possible to take pictures with non-native lenses (which I did not dispute), but does not appear to contradict any of the limitations as I understand them, which amount abandoning 40 years of progress.

I very much doubt that the ability to adapt any lens ever made a major reason for the popularity of m4/3, outside a fringe of enthusiasts. Most people who buy a m4/3 camera never get beyond the kit lens, let alone playing with leicas.
 

Keyboard shortcuts

Back
Top