I'm not sure how much scaling up would be required the hypothetical FF
Pentax would require for a FF mirror box. If you compare a *ist-D and a
*ist-Ds and an ZX/MZ-5n, you'll find that the *ist-D has the same size
mirror box as the ZX/MZ camera and the *ist-Ds camera has a mirror box
and mirror more in keeping with an APS-C sensor. Yet it isn't
appreciably smaller for that, the volume just seems to be distributed
differently. Now the shake reduction system might require a slightly
different form factor, but then again it might not.
On 7/17/2013 5:18 PM, John wrote:
I ran across this in a discussion thread in DPReview comparing the Nikon
D600 to the Nikon D7100.
I've mentioned here before that I've been looking closely at the Nikon
D600 and consider its specifications to be a minimum starting point for
what any Pentax FF must offer. Still, it has some shortcomings from my
point of view (beyond Nikon having put their IS in the lenses).
Someone mentioned the D7100 as an example of what a Pentax K5II
follow-on camera would need to be, so I took a look at its specs on
DPReview and it seems to have fixed every concern I had about the D600
(other than IS which I understand ain't gonna' happen).
http://www.falklumo.com/lumolabs/articles/equivalence/ff.html
Semi-OT because the author bases his design of a hypothetical compact FF
Nikon "D800c" on scaling up the the Pentax K5 body to fit in a FF sensor
& mirror box.
The rest of the article doesn't matter all that much, but I thought it
was interesting for the suggestion that Nikon should be taking design
cues from Pentax.
--
There are two kinds of computer users those who've experienced a hard drive
failure, and those that will.
--
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.
