On 5/5/2010 10:24 AM, Miserere wrote:
On 4 May 2010 19:41, Rob Studdert<[email protected]> wrote:
I think that we have the right to comment, often the users have a
better idea of what companies should be doing compared to what they
are doing.
Of course we all have the freedom to comment, but many people don't
seem to understand how a camera company works and are 1 f-stop away
from asking for an 18-200mm f/2 zoom under 0.5kg that fits in a
pocket. I'm all for discussing the future, but would rather we kept it
realistic, so I'll stay away from pipe-dream threads.
For instance the very obvious fact that here and on other
forums Pentax shooters are either supplementing or entirely dumping
their Pentax kits for 36x24mm sensor bodies whilst Pentax is gearing
to provide a very niche 645D body and some lenses is difficult to
envision as a well conceived decision on so many levels.
> From the get-go I was against a 645D. Pentax has much more pressing
needs (or at least its user base does), with lenses coming way ahead
of full-frame. But Pentax does its strange things, like it always has.
But here's something I want to throw out there, and I'm not aiming
this at your specifically, Rob, even if I am replying to your message:
What if Pentax knows what it's doing by holding back on FF? What if
there is no point to digital FF, Pentax knows it, and is just waiting
for consumers to figure it out? What if not releasing a FF camera
right now is what the user needs, even if it's not what (s)he wants?
Let's imagine Pentax's K-7 successor (and let's call it the K-8) has a
15MP Sony sensor with the high ISO capabilities of the K-x, and the
camera retains all the good stuff the K-7 already has. Furthermore, it
has a VF with 1.4x magnification and 98% coverage. Would people prefer
this camera for $1,300, or a camera with the same specs (minus the VF
numbers) with a FF 24MP sensor for $2,000?
Here are some VF sizes for comparison:
K10/20D: 329.4 mm^2
K-7: 335.8 mm^2
K-8: 500.8 mm^2
D700: 588.5 mm^2
5D mkII: 601.2 mm^2
Cheers,
--M.
I think the 1.4x magnification of an APC-C sized viewfinder would be
pushing the physical limits of what is possible.
I'm currently using the O-ME53 which gives a 1.2x magnification to the
K20D. The view approximates what you see through the viewfinder of the
MZ/ZX 3/5n cameras. Not as nice large as the MX or ME or even the LX
but still biger and bright enough. I don't think I'd want to use the
K20D without it.
I don't doubt that the K-8 could have 1.2x magnification built into it's
viewfinder with little downside, except maybe cost, but much more than
that and manual focusing or brightness or both would have to be
compromised.
--
{\rtf1\ansi\ansicpg1252\deff0\deflang1033{\fonttbl{\f0\fnil\fcharset0 Courier
New;}}
\viewkind4\uc1\pard\f0\fs20 I've just upgraded to Thunderbird 3.0 and the
interface subtly weird.\par
}
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
[email protected]
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
