Re: Official Full Frame Pentax Rumor - Technical Limitations of K Mount?
Hi: Im kinda' new here, but one of the things I picked up in passing is that the K-mount might be fundamentally incompatible with a full-frame DSLR? Or did I miss something? If I didnt, please explain to me what the issue is, as I was under the impression that if you put a sensor the size of a 35mm frame in the same place in reference to the lens as a 35mm frame of lens, it would all work out just peachy. Why not? I hope not, as I am hoping that the bigger sensor will give the quantum physicists more to work with to give us all the resolution we can eat AND bring dynamic range more in line with film. From my understanding, this is likely an either/or proposition with an APC sensor. Cant have both. TIA -Tom in SC -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Official Full Frame Pentax Rumor - Technical Limitations of K Mount?
The main argument at the moment is SR, as it is in the K100/10D, wouldn't work. Supposedly current full frame Pentax lenses projected image circle wouldn't be large enough to cover the moving sensor. As some people think that SR is more useful than a FF sensor, that's their reason for thinking Pentax FF is a pipe dream. Time will tell. Cheers, Dave P.S. Welcome. On 12/21/06, Tom Simpson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi: Im kinda' new here, but one of the things I picked up in passing is that the K-mount might be fundamentally incompatible with a full-frame DSLR? Or did I miss something? If I didnt, please explain to me what the issue is, as I was under the impression that if you put a sensor the size of a 35mm frame in the same place in reference to the lens as a 35mm frame of lens, it would all work out just peachy. Why not? I hope not, as I am hoping that the bigger sensor will give the quantum physicists more to work with to give us all the resolution we can eat AND bring dynamic range more in line with film. From my understanding, this is likely an either/or proposition with an APC sensor. Cant have both. TIA -Tom in SC -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Official Full Frame Pentax Rumor - Technical Limitations of K Mount?
Quoting Tom Simpson [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Im kinda' new here, but one of the things I picked up in passing is that the K-mount might be fundamentally incompatible with a full-frame DSLR? Or did I miss something? If I didnt, please explain to me what the issue is, as I was under the impression that if you put a sensor the size of a 35mm frame in the same place in reference to the lens as a 35mm frame of lens, it would all work out just peachy. only if light from lens is perpendiular to sensor. If it is not, as is the case with most wide-angle lenses, light is partialy lost. You can actually see this in Canon 5D (search for vignetting). In other words : it will work only with long lenses. This is also why Leica has choosen crop 1.3 (for price this high, they could surely afford 24x36mm sensor). Also, to accommodate shake reduction, imagining circle must be several mm bigger than sensor size. This is also why (I believe) some DA lenses actually work on 36mm (film) cameras without strong vignetting. Why not? I hope not, as I am hoping that the bigger sensor will give the quantum physicists more to I do not know what quantum physicists have to do with it, but 48x36mm sensor is twice as big as 24x36mm, thus they shouldn't have reasons to complain . Even though it is actualy cropped (by factor 1.3), from 645. B. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Official Full Frame Pentax Rumor - Technical Limitations of K
David Savage wrote: The main argument at the moment is SR, as it is in the K100/10D, wouldn't work. Supposedly current full frame Pentax lenses projected image circle wouldn't be large enough to cover the moving sensor. As some people think that SR is more useful than a FF sensor, that's their reason for thinking Pentax FF is a pipe dream. Time will tell. Pretty accurate summation. My feeling is that Pentax simply won't have any choice in the matter: The demand for higher pixel counts and low noise will continue and it will force sensor size increases. The marketplace will make the decision for them. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Official Full Frame Pentax Rumor - Technical Limitations of K
Well, they wouldn't have to go quite full-frame to get major improvements in IQ and still have enough leeway for SR excursion for the sensor, right? How about, say, a 9/10-size sensor with x1.1 crop factor? Just what is max X/Y excursion of the sensor with SR engaged, anyway? Tom in SC Mark Roberts wrote: David Savage wrote: The main argument at the moment is SR, as it is in the K100/10D, wouldn't work. Supposedly current full frame Pentax lenses projected image circle wouldn't be large enough to cover the moving sensor. As some people think that SR is more useful than a FF sensor, that's their reason for thinking Pentax FF is a pipe dream. Time will tell. Pretty accurate summation. My feeling is that Pentax simply won't have any choice in the matter: The demand for higher pixel counts and low noise will continue and it will force sensor size increases. The marketplace will make the decision for them. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Official Full Frame Pentax Rumor - Technical Limitations of K Mount?
I'm having trouble with identifying Shake Reduction as a problem for full frame sensor cameras. Everybody is talking like the shake reduction movement is centimeters of travel. Look at some of the side by side comparisons. Remember some of the old time discussions about 'circle of confusion' at 1/1000th of an inch. Shake reduction is going to be a movement of very tiny proportions. 1 to 3 pixels on a sensor that is 3000+ pixels wide. If our full frame lenses can't deal with that small amount of moving or miss positioning, I would be really surprised. Bring on the full frame! Comments or corrections to this logic??? Regards, Bob S, On 12/21/06, David Savage [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The main argument at the moment is SR, as it is in the K100/10D, wouldn't work. Supposedly current full frame Pentax lenses projected image circle wouldn't be large enough to cover the moving sensor. As some people think that SR is more useful than a FF sensor, that's their reason for thinking Pentax FF is a pipe dream. Time will tell. Cheers, Dave P.S. Welcome. On 12/21/06, Tom Simpson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi: Im kinda' new here, but one of the things I picked up in passing is that the K-mount might be fundamentally incompatible with a full-frame DSLR? Or did I miss something? If I didnt, please explain to me what the issue is, as I was under the impression that if you put a sensor the size of a 35mm frame in the same place in reference to the lens as a 35mm frame of lens, it would all work out just peachy. Why not? I hope not, as I am hoping that the bigger sensor will give the quantum physicists more to work with to give us all the resolution we can eat AND bring dynamic range more in line with film. From my understanding, this is likely an either/or proposition with an APC sensor. Cant have both. TIA -Tom in SC -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Official Full Frame Pentax Rumor - Technical Limitations of K Mount?
There's an unfounded belief based on psuedo science that you need a really wide lens mount, (and different registration distance) for proper illumination of a FF imaging sensor based on the angle of light leaving the lens. Based on the performance of many of Canon's WA lenses, (zooms and primes) and the fact that they have the largest lens mount of any current manufacturer, I'd have to say that's probably not true or Canon has failed in general to take advantage of, well their advantage. Leica has one of the smallest lens mounts in the M series and the rear elements are often small and intrude well into the camera, I think it has more to do with proper sensor design. Tom Simpson wrote: Hi: Im kinda' new here, but one of the things I picked up in passing is that the K-mount might be fundamentally incompatible with a full-frame DSLR? Or did I miss something? If I didnt, please explain to me what the issue is, as I was under the impression that if you put a sensor the size of a 35mm frame in the same place in reference to the lens as a 35mm frame of lens, it would all work out just peachy. Why not? I hope not, as I am hoping that the bigger sensor will give the quantum physicists more to work with to give us all the resolution we can eat AND bring dynamic range more in line with film. From my understanding, this is likely an either/or proposition with an APC sensor. Cant have both. TIA -Tom in SC -- Things should be made as simple as possible -- but no simpler. --Albert Einstein -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Official Full Frame Pentax Rumor - Technical Limitations of K Mount?
On 12/21/06, Tom Simpson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi: Im kinda' new here, but one of the things I picked up in passing is that the K-mount might be fundamentally incompatible with a full-frame DSLR? Or did I miss something? If I didnt, please explain to me what the issue is, as I was under the impression that if you put a sensor the size of a 35mm frame in the same place in reference to the lens as a 35mm frame of lens, it would all work out just peachy. Why not? I hope not, as I am hoping that the bigger sensor will give the quantum physicists more to work with to give us all the resolution we can eat AND bring dynamic range more in line with film. From my understanding, this is likely an either/or proposition with an APC sensor. Cant have both. TIA -Tom in SC Hello Tom, from a fellow South Carolinian (transplant). What part of the state are you in? I work at USC and live in Columbia. I have been mostly a lurker here for about three years. Welcome to the group. There are a lot of helpful people here. Perry. -- Perry Pellechia Primary email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Alternate email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Home Page: http://homer.chem.sc.edu/perry -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Official Full Frame Pentax Rumor - Technical Limitations of K
Tom, Similar to my thinking in another thread. I think Max Excursion in SR is 2-3 pixels on a 3000+ pixel sensor. No big deal... Regards, Bob S. On 12/21/06, Tom Simpson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well, they wouldn't have to go quite full-frame to get major improvements in IQ and still have enough leeway for SR excursion for the sensor, right? How about, say, a 9/10-size sensor with x1.1 crop factor? Just what is max X/Y excursion of the sensor with SR engaged, anyway? Tom in SC Mark Roberts wrote: David Savage wrote: The main argument at the moment is SR, as it is in the K100/10D, wouldn't work. Supposedly current full frame Pentax lenses projected image circle wouldn't be large enough to cover the moving sensor. As some people think that SR is more useful than a FF sensor, that's their reason for thinking Pentax FF is a pipe dream. Time will tell. Pretty accurate summation. My feeling is that Pentax simply won't have any choice in the matter: The demand for higher pixel counts and low noise will continue and it will force sensor size increases. The marketplace will make the decision for them. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Official Full Frame Pentax Rumor - Technical Limitations of K Mount?
There's an unfounded belief based on pseudo science that you need a really wide lens mount, (and different registration distance) for proper illumination of a FF imaging sensor based on the angle of light leaving the lens. Based on the performance of many of Canon's WA lenses, (zooms and primes) and the fact that they have the largest lens mount of any current manufacturer, I'd have to say that's probably not true or Canon has failed in general to take advantage of, well their advantage. Leica has one of the smallest lens mounts in the M series and the rear elements are often small and intrude well into the camera, I think it has more to do with proper sensor design. Tom Simpson wrote: Hi: Im kinda' new here, but one of the things I picked up in passing is that the K-mount might be fundamentally incompatible with a full-frame DSLR? Or did I miss something? If I didnt, please explain to me what the issue is, as I was under the impression that if you put a sensor the size of a 35mm frame in the same place in reference to the lens as a 35mm frame of lens, it would all work out just peachy. Why not? I hope not, as I am hoping that the bigger sensor will give the quantum physicists more to work with to give us all the resolution we can eat AND bring dynamic range more in line with film. From my understanding, this is likely an either/or proposition with an APC sensor. Cant have both. TIA -Tom in SC -- Things should be made as simple as possible -- but no simpler. --Albert Einstein -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Official Full Frame Pentax Rumor - Technical Limitations of K
Actually, max movement is around 2.5mm on the DX format sensors. That's a lot more than a couple pixels. More like 300 pixels on the 6MP sensors (25.5mm wide sensor is 3008 pixels across). -Adam Bob Sullivan wrote: Tom, Similar to my thinking in another thread. I think Max Excursion in SR is 2-3 pixels on a 3000+ pixel sensor. No big deal... Regards, Bob S. On 12/21/06, Tom Simpson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well, they wouldn't have to go quite full-frame to get major improvements in IQ and still have enough leeway for SR excursion for the sensor, right? How about, say, a 9/10-size sensor with x1.1 crop factor? Just what is max X/Y excursion of the sensor with SR engaged, anyway? Tom in SC Mark Roberts wrote: David Savage wrote: The main argument at the moment is SR, as it is in the K100/10D, wouldn't work. Supposedly current full frame Pentax lenses projected image circle wouldn't be large enough to cover the moving sensor. As some people think that SR is more useful than a FF sensor, that's their reason for thinking Pentax FF is a pipe dream. Time will tell. Pretty accurate summation. My feeling is that Pentax simply won't have any choice in the matter: The demand for higher pixel counts and low noise will continue and it will force sensor size increases. The marketplace will make the decision for them. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Official Full Frame Pentax Rumor - Technical Limitations of K Mount?
Actually, you're missing something in your comparison. The mirror. SLR wide angle lens designs are very different from RF designs. Leica SLR lenses actually have one of the longest register distances and Canon one of the shortest. And Leica couldn't go FF on the M because of the issue of corner illumination, but this was due to the very close distance between the rear element of some M lenses and the sensor (this is also the reason for the thin and less effective IR filter on the M8) and even then they had to do some magic (offset microlenses) to get it to work right. Also there's the issue that Canon's ultra-wide lens designs aren't the greatest. They're competent but not up to the better designs from the competition. That said, I suspect K mount won't have severe issues on full frame, given how well adaptor-mounted wide-angle lenses from Nikon and Contax perform on the 5D and 1Ds's (C/Y mount and F mount both have similar throat sizes and longer registers than K mount). -Adam P. J. Alling wrote: There's an unfounded belief based on psuedo science that you need a really wide lens mount, (and different registration distance) for proper illumination of a FF imaging sensor based on the angle of light leaving the lens. Based on the performance of many of Canon's WA lenses, (zooms and primes) and the fact that they have the largest lens mount of any current manufacturer, I'd have to say that's probably not true or Canon has failed in general to take advantage of, well their advantage. Leica has one of the smallest lens mounts in the M series and the rear elements are often small and intrude well into the camera, I think it has more to do with proper sensor design. Tom Simpson wrote: Hi: Im kinda' new here, but one of the things I picked up in passing is that the K-mount might be fundamentally incompatible with a full-frame DSLR? Or did I miss something? If I didnt, please explain to me what the issue is, as I was under the impression that if you put a sensor the size of a 35mm frame in the same place in reference to the lens as a 35mm frame of lens, it would all work out just peachy. Why not? I hope not, as I am hoping that the bigger sensor will give the quantum physicists more to work with to give us all the resolution we can eat AND bring dynamic range more in line with film. From my understanding, this is likely an either/or proposition with an APC sensor. Cant have both. TIA -Tom in SC -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Official Full Frame Pentax Rumor - Technical Limitations of K
I've been hoping for a 1.3x crop for some time now. I think that would be within the working area. However if everyone else goes FF Pentax will have to as well. (And in camera SR will become a footnote). Tom Simpson wrote: Well, they wouldn't have to go quite full-frame to get major improvements in IQ and still have enough leeway for SR excursion for the sensor, right? How about, say, a 9/10-size sensor with x1.1 crop factor? Just what is max X/Y excursion of the sensor with SR engaged, anyway? Tom in SC Mark Roberts wrote: David Savage wrote: The main argument at the moment is SR, as it is in the K100/10D, wouldn't work. Supposedly current full frame Pentax lenses projected image circle wouldn't be large enough to cover the moving sensor. As some people think that SR is more useful than a FF sensor, that's their reason for thinking Pentax FF is a pipe dream. Time will tell. Pretty accurate summation. My feeling is that Pentax simply won't have any choice in the matter: The demand for higher pixel counts and low noise will continue and it will force sensor size increases. The marketplace will make the decision for them. -- Things should be made as simple as possible -- but no simpler. --Albert Einstein -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: Official Full Frame Pentax Rumor - Technical Limitations of K
Not only that, I bet some or most FF Pentax lenses already have enough margin on their image cirles to accomodate sufficient SR displacements just like the APS lenses have enough for the APS sensors. And even if they didnt and SR was not possible across the full frame, you still could do SR across part of the frame, the APS part, if needed. I dont see why FF would totally preclude any SR under any circumstances. I would rather have a FF camers that still can do APS SR if they had to, than an APS w SR camera that cant do FF at all. jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bob Sullivan Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2006 10:59 AM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Official Full Frame Pentax Rumor - Technical Limitations of K Tom, Similar to my thinking in another thread. I think Max Excursion in SR is 2-3 pixels on a 3000+ pixel sensor. No big deal... Regards, Bob S. On 12/21/06, Tom Simpson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well, they wouldn't have to go quite full-frame to get major improvements in IQ and still have enough leeway for SR excursion for the sensor, right? How about, say, a 9/10-size sensor with x1.1 crop factor? Just what is max X/Y excursion of the sensor with SR engaged, anyway? Tom in SC Mark Roberts wrote: David Savage wrote: The main argument at the moment is SR, as it is in the K100/10D, wouldn't work. Supposedly current full frame Pentax lenses projected image circle wouldn't be large enough to cover the moving sensor. As some people think that SR is more useful than a FF sensor, that's their reason for thinking Pentax FF is a pipe dream. Time will tell. Pretty accurate summation. My feeling is that Pentax simply won't have any choice in the matter: The demand for higher pixel counts and low noise will continue and it will force sensor size increases. The marketplace will make the decision for them. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Official Full Frame Pentax Rumor - Technical Limitations of K Mount?
On 12/21/06 11:45 AM, Adam Maas, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Actually, you're missing something in your comparison. The mirror. SLR wide angle lens designs are very different from RF designs. Yes, but hearing stepping of EVF coming close. I understand that next tide is the elimination of mirror box from DSLR, and people are expecting it happening sooner than we anticipate. EVF resolution and refresh rate are being significantly improved and it won't be long before somebody comes up with and incorporate acceptable EVF. It will probably be done by those who do not have any particular sentiment to optical viewfinder but have ability to develop good EVF. Sony or Panasonic? If mirror box could be eliminated from DSLR, all sorts of innovations become possible. Ken -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Official Full Frame Pentax Rumor - Technical Limitations of K Mount?
Pentax showed one of these as a concept at the last Photokina http://www.photokina-show.com/pentax/ I still don't think I'd want to use one even with significant improvements. (Hell I still manually focus 99% of the time even with auto focus lenses). K.Takeshita wrote: On 12/21/06 11:45 AM, Adam Maas, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Actually, you're missing something in your comparison. The mirror. SLR wide angle lens designs are very different from RF designs. Yes, but hearing stepping of EVF coming close. I understand that next tide is the elimination of mirror box from DSLR, and people are expecting it happening sooner than we anticipate. EVF resolution and refresh rate are being significantly improved and it won't be long before somebody comes up with and incorporate acceptable EVF. It will probably be done by those who do not have any particular sentiment to optical viewfinder but have ability to develop good EVF. Sony or Panasonic? If mirror box could be eliminated from DSLR, all sorts of innovations become possible. Ken -- Things should be made as simple as possible -- but no simpler. --Albert Einstein -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Official Full Frame Pentax Rumor - Technical Limitations of K
Not yet a big issue. Dario - Original Message - From: Adam Maas [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2006 5:46 PM Subject: Re: Official Full Frame Pentax Rumor - Technical Limitations of K Actually, max movement is around 2.5mm on the DX format sensors. That's a lot more than a couple pixels. More like 300 pixels on the 6MP sensors (25.5mm wide sensor is 3008 pixels across). -Adam -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: Official Full Frame Pentax Rumor - Technical Limitations of K
I dont like the idea for anything between APS and FF. If your going to go bigger than APS, might as well go for the whole lens cirle which is about 2.25 times the area used now. jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of P. J. Alling Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2006 11:30 AM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Official Full Frame Pentax Rumor - Technical Limitations of K I've been hoping for a 1.3x crop for some time now. I think that would be within the working area. However if everyone else goes FF Pentax will have to as well. (And in camera SR will become a footnote). Tom Simpson wrote: Well, they wouldn't have to go quite full-frame to get major improvements in IQ and still have enough leeway for SR excursion for the sensor, right? How about, say, a 9/10-size sensor with x1.1 crop factor? Just what is max X/Y excursion of the sensor with SR engaged, anyway? Tom in SC Mark Roberts wrote: David Savage wrote: The main argument at the moment is SR, as it is in the K100/10D, wouldn't work. Supposedly current full frame Pentax lenses projected image circle wouldn't be large enough to cover the moving sensor. As some people think that SR is more useful than a FF sensor, that's their reason for thinking Pentax FF is a pipe dream. Time will tell. Pretty accurate summation. My feeling is that Pentax simply won't have any choice in the matter: The demand for higher pixel counts and low noise will continue and it will force sensor size increases. The marketplace will make the decision for them. -- Things should be made as simple as possible -- but no simpler. --Albert Einstein -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: Official Full Frame Pentax Rumor - Technical Limitations of K
Adding SR to a FF camera would have less displacement overhead than on aps camera because the magnitude of camera movement is the same, possilby even less with slighty larger and more massive body. In other words, add SR to a FF increases the body size the same absolute amount approx. which is smaller in proportion to the sensor than with APS. jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Adam Maas Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2006 11:47 AM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Official Full Frame Pentax Rumor - Technical Limitations of K Actually, max movement is around 2.5mm on the DX format sensors. That's a lot more than a couple pixels. More like 300 pixels on the 6MP sensors (25.5mm wide sensor is 3008 pixels across). -Adam Bob Sullivan wrote: Tom, Similar to my thinking in another thread. I think Max Excursion in SR is 2-3 pixels on a 3000+ pixel sensor. No big deal... Regards, Bob S. On 12/21/06, Tom Simpson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well, they wouldn't have to go quite full-frame to get major improvements in IQ and still have enough leeway for SR excursion for the sensor, right? How about, say, a 9/10-size sensor with x1.1 crop factor? Just what is max X/Y excursion of the sensor with SR engaged, anyway? Tom in SC Mark Roberts wrote: David Savage wrote: The main argument at the moment is SR, as it is in the K100/10D, wouldn't work. Supposedly current full frame Pentax lenses projected image circle wouldn't be large enough to cover the moving sensor. As some people think that SR is more useful than a FF sensor, that's their reason for thinking Pentax FF is a pipe dream. Time will tell. Pretty accurate summation. My feeling is that Pentax simply won't have any choice in the matter: The demand for higher pixel counts and low noise will continue and it will force sensor size increases. The marketplace will make the decision for them. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Official Full Frame Pentax Rumor - Technical Limitations of K Mount?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Actually, you're missing something in your comparison. The mirror. SLR wide angle lens designs are very different from RF designs. Leica SLR lenses actually have one of the longest register distances and Canon one of the shortest. And Leica couldn't go FF on the M because of the issue of corner illumination, but this was due to the very close distance between the rear element of some M lenses and the sensor (this is also the reason for the thin and less effective IR filter on the M8) and even then they had to do some magic (offset microlenses) to get it to work right. Also there's the issue that Canon's ultra-wide lens designs aren't the greatest. They're competent but not up to the better designs from the competition. That said, I suspect K mount won't have severe issues on full frame, given how well adaptor-mounted wide-angle lenses from Nikon and Contax perform on the 5D and 1Ds's (C/Y mount and F mount both have similar throat sizes and longer registers than K mount). I agree, even with SR the worst you are going to get is some vignetting in longish lenses, due to greater movement of the SR mechanism, and the whole optical path problem. -Adam P. J. Alling wrote: There's an unfounded belief based on psuedo science that you need a really wide lens mount, (and different registration distance) for proper illumination of a FF imaging sensor based on the angle of light leaving the lens. Based on the performance of many of Canon's WA lenses, (zooms and primes) and the fact that they have the largest lens mount of any current manufacturer, I'd have to say that's probably not true or Canon has failed in general to take advantage of, well their advantage. Leica has one of the smallest lens mounts in the M series and the rear elements are often small and intrude well into the camera, I think it has more to do with proper sensor design. Tom Simpson wrote: Hi: Im kinda' new here, but one of the things I picked up in passing is that the K-mount might be fundamentally incompatible with a full-frame DSLR? Or did I miss something? If I didnt, please explain to me what the issue is, as I was under the impression that if you put a sensor the size of a 35mm frame in the same place in reference to the lens as a 35mm frame of lens, it would all work out just peachy. Why not? I hope not, as I am hoping that the bigger sensor will give the quantum physicists more to work with to give us all the resolution we can eat AND bring dynamic range more in line with film. From my understanding, this is likely an either/or proposition with an APC sensor. Cant have both. TIA -Tom in SC -- Someone handed me a picture and said, This is a picture of me when I was younger. Every picture of you is when you were younger. ...Here's a picture of me when I'm older. Where'd you get that camera man? - Mitch Hedberg -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Official Full Frame Pentax Rumor - Technical Limitations of K
For SR to work with longer lenses (300-600mm) at reasonable close- focus distances you need approximately 5mm movement off the static null point (total of about 10mm horizontal and vertical movement). This is validated by both Minolta and Pentax in-body shake reduction designs, and far far more than 2-3 pixels. Godfrey On Dec 21, 2006, at 7:59 AM, Bob Sullivan wrote: Similar to my thinking in another thread. I think Max Excursion in SR is 2-3 pixels on a 3000+ pixel sensor. No big deal... -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Official Full Frame Pentax Rumor - Technical Limitations of K Mount?
The primary issue is that digital sensors are more sensitive to the light path than film. As the angle of incidence increases, diffraction around the edges of photosite wells: chromatic aberration and moire effects become a problem, as does total illumination at the photosite causing darkening at corners and edges. This effect is less pronounced with SLR lenses than with RF camera lenses because SLR lenses have already been formulated to accommodate the mechanical obstruction of a swinging mirror, moving the nodal point forwards relative to the focusing plane, but it remains an issue as you get to the ultrawide range shorter than 24mm in focal length. To solve this really requires a different approach to lens design for the digital sensor with short focal length lenses in particular, overall a wider lens mount diameter relative to the format size helps a lot as it gives more leeway for lens design to produce optimized lenses. A shorter mount register, relative to format size, also helps as it allows room in the lens design for additional collimating elements to the rear of the primary lens groups. Both Canon and Leica, in producing 24x36mm sensors and in accommodating RF lens designs respectively, have both opted for a compromise sensor with offset microlenses to help reduce the diffraction/lightloss/CA issues, and with in-camera image processing to massage the data as well. Olympus, with Kodak and other vendors, designed the 4/3 system specifications from the ground up with these notions in mind. Note the diameter and register of the lens mount relative to the format in that system: this is a near-ideal, optimized relationship of these components: regardless of whether they've achieved other performance goals, they suffer very little moire, chromatic aberration and corner light falloff. But of course they also started afresh with lens designs and ignored backwards compatibility with OM system lenses other than through adaptation with reduced functionality. The smaller format 16x24 sensor ameliorates a good number of these issues for legacy lens systems while still maintaining a great deal of quality and compatibility. The secondary issue is that Pentax has elected to go with in-body image stabilization rather than in-lens stabilization. This addresses three concerns: first was the notion of the cost/bulk/weight compromise in lens design, second was the issue of lens quality and durability with constantly moving elements, and third was the notion of compatibility/applicability for older lenses. To achieve good image stabilization this way with long lenses requires movement of up to 5mm off the null position center, which means that lenses which barely cover the 24x36mm image circle would no longer be able to take advantage of image stabilization with this schema. --- For my uses, the 16x24mm sensor format has worked well, allows suitable quality and sensitivity as well as adequate wide angle coverage with exceptional quality, such that I am happy to have the smaller size optics required for my desired field of view range as well as adequate/satisfactory compatibility with older lens designs. Good noise and quality at ISO 1600 and 10Mpixel is good enough for my work. I also look forward to the larger, higher quality results with medium format sized sensors ... and I expect prices in that market to remain pretty steep for a while to come. 24x36mm sensors ... well, for me it's mostly irrelevant now as I have tailored my kit to the 16x24mm format, but if they do come out with a price/quality sensible alternative in that size that provides compelling advantage AND is compatible with all my current lenses, it really requires that I buy just one more slightly longer focal length lens and I'll be ready for it. Godfrey On Dec 21, 2006, at 6:01 AM, Tom Simpson wrote: Im kinda' new here, but one of the things I picked up in passing is that the K-mount might be fundamentally incompatible with a full-frame DSLR? Or did I miss something? If I didnt, please explain to me what the issue is, as I was under the impression that if you put a sensor the size of a 35mm frame in the same place in reference to the lens as a 35mm frame of lens, it would all work out just peachy. Why not? I hope not, as I am hoping that the bigger sensor will give the quantum physicists more to work with to give us all the resolution we can eat AND bring dynamic range more in line with film. From my understanding, this is likely an either/or proposition with an APC sensor. Cant have both. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Official Full Frame Pentax Rumor - Technical Limitations of K
It's +/-5mm by every reference I've seen, for both Pentax and Minolta derivative-designs. G On Dec 21, 2006, at 8:46 AM, Adam Maas wrote: Actually, max movement is around 2.5mm on the DX format sensors. That's a lot more than a couple pixels. More like 300 pixels on the 6MP sensors (25.5mm wide sensor is 3008 pixels across). -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Official Full Frame Pentax Rumor - Technical Limitations of K Mount?
Christian wrote: P. J. Alling wrote: Pentax showed one of these as a concept at the last Photokina http://www.photokina-show.com/pentax/ That thing is 4 years old. oops, almost 10 years old. (1997) -- Christian http://photography.skofteland.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Official Full Frame Pentax Rumor - Technical Limitations of K
On Thu, 21 Dec 2006, Adam Maas wrote: Actually, max movement is around 2.5mm on the DX format sensors. So you are on 36+5=41mm already. The K-mount is 49mm wide, I think. Kostas -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Official Full Frame Pentax Rumor - Technical Limitations of K Mount?
P. J. Alling wrote: Pentax showed one of these as a concept at the last Photokina http://www.photokina-show.com/pentax/ That thing is 4 years old. -- Christian http://photography.skofteland.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Official Full Frame Pentax Rumor - Technical Limitations of K Mount?
On 21/12/06, Christian, discombobulated, unleashed: http://www.photokina-show.com/pentax/ That thing is 4 years old. oops, almost 10 years old. (1997) Sigh. http://www.imaging-resource.com/EVENTS/PMAS01/982079635.html -- Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: Official Full Frame Pentax Rumor - Technical Limitations of K
The image cirle of the lens is not the same thing as the diameter of the mount. The image circle can be much larger. jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Kostas Kavoussanakis Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2006 1:45 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Official Full Frame Pentax Rumor - Technical Limitations of K On Thu, 21 Dec 2006, Adam Maas wrote: Actually, max movement is around 2.5mm on the DX format sensors. So you are on 36+5=41mm already. The K-mount is 49mm wide, I think. Kostas -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Official Full Frame Pentax Rumor - Technical Limitations of K
Given what I am reading here, if the marketplace demands SR, and we want our installed base of lenses to still work properly, and you want a sensor bigger than APC, then it may be the best deal you are going to get. Seems like otherwise, we are going to have to give up one of the above. Note that whatever you think of the expendability of SR, the market in general would probably overrule you. Sooo...unless you want to junk all your lenses... -Tom in SC J. C. O'Connell wrote: I dont like the idea for anything between APS and FF. If your going to go bigger than APS, might as well go for the whole lens cirle which is about 2.25 times the area used now. jco -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Official Full Frame Pentax Rumor - Technical Limitations of K Mount?
A lifelong Columbian, USC grad and ex-employee, now living out towards Lexington. Small world, eh? :-) -Tom Perry Pellechia wrote: On 12/21/06, Tom Simpson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi: Im kinda' new here, but one of the things I picked up in passing is that the K-mount might be fundamentally incompatible with a full-frame DSLR? Or did I miss something? If I didnt, please explain to me what the issue is, as I was under the impression that if you put a sensor the size of a 35mm frame in the same place in reference to the lens as a 35mm frame of lens, it would all work out just peachy. Why not? I hope not, as I am hoping that the bigger sensor will give the quantum physicists more to work with to give us all the resolution we can eat AND bring dynamic range more in line with film. From my understanding, this is likely an either/or proposition with an APC sensor. Cant have both. TIA -Tom in SC Hello Tom, from a fellow South Carolinian (transplant). What part of the state are you in? I work at USC and live in Columbia. I have been mostly a lurker here for about three years. Welcome to the group. There are a lot of helpful people here. Perry. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Official Full Frame Pentax Rumor - Technical Limitations of K
On 22/12/06, Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It's +/-5mm by every reference I've seen, for both Pentax and Minolta derivative-designs. I measured +/- 3mm clearance on the K10D for an expected working range of +/- 2.5mm -- Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://home.swiftdsl.com.au/~distudio//publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: Official Full Frame Pentax Rumor - Technical Limitations of K
I dont agree that SR cannot be implemented with FF lenses completely or even with limited use of the ff sensor when SR is on. This would be better than APS or larger than APS but smaller than full frame because it could still do everthing those types of designs could do and more. jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tom Simpson Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2006 5:03 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Official Full Frame Pentax Rumor - Technical Limitations of K Given what I am reading here, if the marketplace demands SR, and we want our installed base of lenses to still work properly, and you want a sensor bigger than APC, then it may be the best deal you are going to get. Seems like otherwise, we are going to have to give up one of the above. Note that whatever you think of the expendability of SR, the market in general would probably overrule you. Sooo...unless you want to junk all your lenses... -Tom in SC J. C. O'Connell wrote: I dont like the idea for anything between APS and FF. If your going to go bigger than APS, might as well go for the whole lens cirle which is about 2.25 times the area used now. jco -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Official Full Frame Pentax Rumor - Technical Limitations of K Mount?
On 22/12/06, Adam Maas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Actually, you're missing something in your comparison. The mirror. SLR wide angle lens designs are very different from RF designs. Leica SLR lenses actually have one of the longest register distances and Canon one of the shortest. And Leica couldn't go FF on the M because of the issue of corner illumination, but this was due to the very close distance between the rear element of some M lenses and the sensor (this is also the reason for the thin and less effective IR filter on the M8) and even then they had to do some magic (offset microlenses) to get it to work right. Also there's the issue that Canon's ultra-wide lens designs aren't the greatest. They're competent but not up to the better designs from the competition. That said, I suspect K mount won't have severe issues on full frame, given how well adaptor-mounted wide-angle lenses from Nikon and Contax perform on the 5D and 1Ds's (C/Y mount and F mount both have similar throat sizes and longer registers than K mount). Spot on Adam, well said. All the naysayers are beleaguered by FUD injected by marketeers knowing that they simply have no FF products to sell or others touting why they do and others don't. -- Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://home.swiftdsl.com.au/~distudio//publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Official Full Frame Pentax Rumor - Technical Limitations of K
How does focus distance affect the amount of sensor travel needed? On Thu, Dec 21, 2006 at 10:28:33AM -0800, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: For SR to work with longer lenses (300-600mm) at reasonable close- focus distances you need approximately 5mm movement off the static null point (total of about 10mm horizontal and vertical movement). This is validated by both Minolta and Pentax in-body shake reduction designs, and far far more than 2-3 pixels. Godfrey On Dec 21, 2006, at 7:59 AM, Bob Sullivan wrote: Similar to my thinking in another thread. I think Max Excursion in SR is 2-3 pixels on a 3000+ pixel sensor. No big deal... -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Official Full Frame Pentax Rumor - Technical Limitations of K
On 22/12/06, John Francis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: How does focus distance affect the amount of sensor travel needed? It doesn't appreciably, focal length is the major scaling factor for translating body shake to sensor movement. Of course focal length can change slightly with as focus is brought forward from infinity but not generally appreciably until macro focus ranges. But then you knew all that :-) -- Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://home.swiftdsl.com.au/~distudio//publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Official Full Frame Pentax Rumor - Technical Limitations of K Mount?
But first shown at Photokina 2006, your point? Christian wrote: P. J. Alling wrote: Pentax showed one of these as a concept at the last Photokina http://www.photokina-show.com/pentax/ That thing is 4 years old. -- Things should be made as simple as possible -- but no simpler. --Albert Einstein -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
