Pentax please make a Samsung NX 10 equivalent but better...

[John Cal]

I tested the Samsung NX10 recently and think Pentax should implement a version of this camera only better, with full autofucus compatibility with existing Pentax lenses (including screw drive lenses) In body SR would seal the deal for me and put Pentax in the hybrid market at number 1.

Regards

John

 

[VaLeX]

Of course we are allowed to dream, right? I'd love a mirror-less, more compact version of K7 to fit with limited lenses. With a mobile LCD screen and a mobile, detachable EVF ... wake up!

It might not be very feasible, in fact, for Pentax, because they don't have the live-view and the EVF technology to make a competitive camera of this type. Nor the resources for developing them. And I doubt that the three companies having such a technology, or capable of producing one (Samsung, Panasonic, Sony) are willing, for the moment, to sell it.
--
Comments, criticism, suggestions: it goes without saying!
http://s86.photobucket.com/albums/k107/huzururmuz/

 

[Gazooma]

Sounds like another winner to me. Why not? If you can get the focus assist light, AF indicator light, smaller size, lighter weight, the same sensor and IQ as the K-x, sans its mechanical mirror, its flapping noise and any SR blur problem. The optical viewfinder is a small price to pay and probably won't even be noticed by the DSLR beginners who bought the K-x. It also has the potential to have some serious video capability and also snatch sales from the micro 4/3 cameras with its better IQ.

 

[Roland Mabo]

A mirrorless camera requires a new lens mount because the lens-to-sensor/film distance is shorter. For K-mount lenses, an adapter is needed even if Pentax makes a mirrorless camera. An adapter with full K-mount compatibility would be quite expensive.

Plus, there is a technical difficulty with the contrast detect AF that makes lenses designed for phase detect AF slow, or simply not working at all.

This means that if Pentax made an adapter that worked with AF, the AF would be painfully slow and hardly usable with those lenses - because of technical differencies between contrast detect AF and phase detect AF.

It is not possible to implement Pentax SAFOX (phase detect AF) on mirrorless cameras.

Probably that is why Samsung did not bother with AF compatibility with their K-mount adapter for the NX-10, because the AF would be so slow so no one would use it anyway.

It is the same with the micro 4/3 mount. They did design a 4/3 adapter that works with AF, but AF with non-contrast detect compatible lenses does not work or AF is painfully slow.
--
Take care
R
http://www.flickr.com/photos/raphaelmabo

 

[Gazooma]

VaLex, I commented before I saw your reply. Nice to dream, but it can still happen I think. Unlike the FF camera, which is clearly not a good move at this time, and the D645D, which is not so clear but a bit of a risk, a NX like camera makes good business sense, if Pentax can acquire the technology necessary. Unfortunately the partnership with Samsung did not continue with the NX. This is such a missed opportunity, for both company. The NX needs lenses and the experience in DSLR that Pentax has and Samsung can provide resources. Now, Samsung is stuck with only a few lenses, while the NX's IQ performance is quite average (and not like a K-x), not to mention skepticism due to its lack of experience in DSLR. Pentax missed out not just on the resources but also a market for its lenses and therefore better economy of scale in making lenses, while also getting what electronic and fab knowledge that Samsung can share. A lose-lose outcome.

 

[Roland Mabo]

Samsung never told Pentax about the NX10 development. Pentax got information about it by reading the press! Interesting partnership...

--
Take care
R
http://www.flickr.com/photos/raphaelmabo

 

[Gazooma]

4/3 lenses do work on micro 4/3 mirrorless cameras with an adapterthough very slow. It seems still an acceptable workaround while dedicated new lenses are made for the Samsung/Pentax mirrorless camera. For those who already own those lenses and who do not mind slower AF, e.g. in landscape work. We never had AF BTW during the film days.

 

[zinj]

Just because you use an EVF doesn't mean you have to change the mount/registration distance, it's just that you can. Micro 4/3 and Samsung took advantage of that to further reduce the size of both the camera and to some extent their lenses. One could, however, maintain the mount/registration distance and still use an EVF to forgo the pentaprism/mirror setup and save some weight space, avoid slap, etc. Maybe stick in a FF sensor?

It's true that contrast detect adds a new dimension to focusing, and I remember reading somewhere that the problem is that the focusing system needs slightly different gearing, which is why the standard 4/3 lenses focus slower. This would affect SDM lenses for sure, but whether it makes any difference to the in-body motor I don't know. Certainly SAFOX would be out the window.

--
Andrew

 

[Roland Mabo]

A K-x without mirror but with the same mount to sensor distance would simply have the same size as today's K-x so why bother with making it mirrorless when this means the camera is not getting smaller? And what to answer the customers why Pentax has failed to make a mirrorless camera as small as the competition? It is unusual for Pentax to be the biggest in size...

"We made it big so we could keep the same mount for compatibility" - isn't something that would make Pentax the no 1. choice among mirrorless cameras.

The Olympus and Panasonic mirrorless micro 4/3 are doing fine, despite their lack of full compatibility with the 4/3 mount (several 4/3 lenses are not autofocusing on micro 4/3, and the few that does are focusing very slowly).

It seems that customers are just fine with having to buy new lenses, because they are small. Many that buys into micro 4/3 has not had any DSLR before, they don't own any lenses so they don't bother about the performance issues with older lenses.

--
Take care
R
http://www.flickr.com/photos/raphaelmabo

 

[A Modest Mouse]

Of course we are allowed to dream, right? I'd love a mirror-less, more compact version of K7 to fit with limited lenses. With a mobile LCD screen and a mobile, detachable EVF ... wake up!

It's almost like the Limited lenses are meant to MF nicely too. Almost like you'd need an OVF for that - or almost like EVF's aren't anywhere close to a Pentaprism in quality. I mean, who wouldn't want a grainy EVF and no ability to MF? Seriously.

It might not be very feasible, in fact, for Pentax, because they don't have the live-view and the EVF technology to make a competitive camera of this type. Nor the resources for developing them. And I doubt that the three companies having such a technology, or capable of producing one (Samsung, Panasonic, Sony) are willing, for the moment, to sell it.
--
Comments, criticism, suggestions: it goes without saying!
http://s86.photobucket.com/albums/k107/huzururmuz/

--

The Mouse Gallery
http://www.photobucket.com/andy_allen

'My boss just quit the job, says he's goin out to find the
blind spots and he'll do it ... the 3rd planet is sure
they're bein watched, by an eye in the sky that can't
be stopped - when ya get to the promised land ...
you're gonna shake the eyes hand.'

 

[Gazooma]

A K-x without mirror but with the same mount to sensor distance would simply have the same size as today's K-x so why bother with making it mirrorless when this means the camera is not getting smaller?

Mirror slap, noise, frame rate?

There was also some talk or rumour about some micro 4/3 camera design that can have both the electronic and mechanical bits to work lens for both standard 4/3 and also micro 4/3 mounts. There is a mirror that can be flipped out of the way when the standard moutn lens and adapter are used. Is that possible?

 

[Gazooma]

Some clever hinges and movements like a convertible top in a car, I suppose, sliding or moving the mirror up and away in some sort of protuding part on top of the mount.

 

[KingDon]

the upcoming Sony mirrorless also has a new mount. No one wants to use the old mount. There must be a real good reason for that.

 

[Alex Sarbu]

A K-x without mirror but with the same mount to sensor distance would simply have the same size as today's K-x so why bother with making it mirrorless when this means the camera is not getting smaller?

Mirror slap, noise, frame rate?

There was also some talk or rumour about some micro 4/3 camera design that can have both the electronic and mechanical bits to work lens for both standard 4/3 and also micro 4/3 mounts. There is a mirror that can be flipped out of the way when the standard moutn lens and adapter are used. Is that possible?

I'd say that was just someone's wet dream.

People keep thinking of complicated (Rube Goldberg like) solutions without trying to realize if it is feasible or not.

The u4/3+4/3 mount camera - variable registration distance. The camera must be as thin as a normal u4/3, yet extend to the normal 4/3 size when required; the mirror must magically appear from somewhere. Even more, the mount itself must somehow grow - i.e. variable diameter - as the u4/3 mount is 6mm smaller.

The alternative? A u4/3 camera with a 4/3 adapter. Simple and efficient.

Alex S.

 

[parallaxproblem]

the upcoming Sony mirrorless also has a new mount. No one wants to use the old mount. There must be a real good reason for that.

Yes, exactly

The reasons they won't use alpha mount are the same reasons that Pentax wouldn't use K-mount in such a camera:

1. There is a mechanical aperture linkage in A-mount, just like the mechanical aperture linkage in K-mount: electric-> mechanical adaptors are theoretically possible but in reality no major camera company would build one and nobody would design a micro mount now with a mechanical aperture linkage!

2. The registration distance of K-mount and alpha mount is around 43 or 44mm. A micro mount registration distance would be closer to 20mm. To fit your 35mm lenses to a micro mount will require fitting them via a 20/25mm adaptor. This might be worthwhile for a bit of fun or if you have a very special lens but will most people want to have such an adaptor permanently fitted to the front of their micro-mount camera when one of the reasons for buying it is because it's smaller? You might as well stick with an optical K-mount body IMHO!

3. If they make the mount different then you need to buy a whole new set of lenses from them ;-) (particularly if you buy into the system thinking you can use your old lenses and then find it's impractical!)

 

[VaLeX]

Of course we are allowed to dream, right? I'd love a mirror-less, more compact version of K7 to fit with limited lenses. With a mobile LCD screen and a mobile, detachable EVF ... wake up!

It's almost like the Limited lenses are meant to MF nicely too. Almost like you'd need an OVF for that - or almost like EVF's aren't anywhere close to a Pentaprism in quality. I mean, who wouldn't want a grainy EVF and no ability to MF? Seriously.

Sure that the Limited (especially the FA ones) are meant to MF and MF works great with an OVF, rather than an EVF. But, there are though, some possible advantages even with EVF:

• discretion (nu mirror slap);
• a plausible reduction in size (I know, you might say that a 31 Lim. attached to a K7d or to an NX10 it's roughly the same, since it's the lens which is big - yet the general difference won't be negligible);
• very important for me: with my +3 hypermetropia combined with 1,5 astigmatism, manual focus is an utopia unless split screen provided. And autofocus is surely faster than my MF (even with split screen, even in close-to-low light).
• the EVF might not necessarily be grainy. I didn't have the chance to look through a u4/3 EVF, bur reading impressions it seems that it's quite OK. Not to mention that you can always have DOF preview and even Shutter Speed Preview (if objects move ...)

So. I won't dismiss the idea from the very start, in fact it quite makes sense for me, but I have other doubts, already expressed.
--
Comments, criticism, suggestions: it goes without saying!
http://s86.photobucket.com/albums/k107/huzururmuz/

 

[Model Mike]

http://cfs8.tistory.com/original/6/tistory/2008/09/10/16/41/48c77a18e185b

Mike

 

[Leuf]

A K-x without mirror but with the same mount to sensor distance would simply have the same size as today's K-x so why bother with making it mirrorless when this means the camera is not getting smaller?

Cost is the driving factor. If you can put in an EVF for less than the cost of a pentamirror, mirror, phase detect AF and metering sensors then you are ahead. You also don't have to deal with any BF/FF repairs done under warranty. The results don't have to be as good for this to happen at the low end.

Also without the mirror you can design lenses that intrude into the body. So the package of body + lens doesn't need to be much larger.

I don't think it's a good idea, but it's possible.

 

[dragra]

cheers,
d

 

[Ared Mossinel]

It is a good question to look at...what is the competitive advantage of being bigger? Since an EVIL is mirror free, what does one do with the extra space? Why not try to super charge the thing: more power, more processors, more widgets. Add seals, gps, higher level processing (stitching, 360º, movie based panoramas etc...) whatever it takes. Make the thing an Image Processor. Oh and put in a bigger screen on the back. All in the K-x box.

It could be used as a market research tool. Put in so many toys that the "Features List" out runs the K7, nevermind the competition.

...as a side note: that is what I would have done as Samsung. One can always make it smaller later, just like Panasonic did.

A K-x without mirror but with the same mount to sensor distance would simply have the same size as today's K-x so why bother with making it mirrorless when this means the camera is not getting smaller? And what to answer the customers why Pentax has failed to make a mirrorless camera as small as the competition? It is unusual for Pentax to be the biggest in size...

"We made it big so we could keep the same mount for compatibility" - isn't something that would make Pentax the no 1. choice among mirrorless cameras.

The Olympus and Panasonic mirrorless micro 4/3 are doing fine, despite their lack of full compatibility with the 4/3 mount (several 4/3 lenses are not autofocusing on micro 4/3, and the few that does are focusing very slowly).

It seems that customers are just fine with having to buy new lenses, because they are small. Many that buys into micro 4/3 has not had any DSLR before, they don't own any lenses so they don't bother about the performance issues with older lenses.

--
Take care
R
http://www.flickr.com/photos/raphaelmabo