Michalm
Well-known
Sigma FP is an example that even very small full frame is possible, Digital LX doesnt have to be bigger than analog LX. Batteries are more efficient and electorinics slimmed down these days , camera like that shouldnt compete with high speed all bells and whistles mirroless becuase no DSLR can but I'm sure no Pentax fans would care .And to have small dslr with large OVF and 31 limited lens attached would be very enjoyable experience to carry and shoot with .
Correct me if I'm wrong, but an APS-C DSLR with a spec of 100% coverage and approx. 1.05x viewfinder magnification (assuming a 'normal' lens for APS-C which is 33mm) would be:
approx. 1.05 / 1.5 = 70% of life-size?
approx. 1.05 / 1.5 = 70% of life-size?
Disappointed_Horse
Well-known
I don't disagree. I am not very familiar with Sony products as they simply don't interest me that much. (Not saying they're bad, just not for me.) I think the problem is that basically every digital camera made in the last 15 years, except for the Leica Ms, pack in so many "features" that UI/UX is a complete mess and they are not fun or even pleasant to use. I mean, seriously, the manuals for the Z-series Nikons and their recent DSLRs are over 400 pages long! How in the world is anyone supposed to use all these features? Personally, I think this is a major reason smartphones have eaten the camera maker's lunch for the last ten years—the stock camera apps have a mostly usable and understandable feature set, and if enthusiasts want more features, they are just a few clicks away in the app store. (I also think this is partly behind the resurgence of film photography and mechanical, manual focus cameras, bu that's probably a topic for another thread.)
I think Pentax imagines a future where it is to digital SLRs what Leica is to digital rangefinders. That may not be a bad strategy in a declining market.
kshapero
South Florida Man
An interesting take. I shoot with a Leica M-A and a Nikon D610/ Both offer a completely different experience. I need them both in my life.
We are talking about a small DSLR though, not mirrorless. Therefore the fp isn’t a good example. Why hasn’t a dslr been as thin as the fp? Think about it.
agentlossing
Well-known
Any K-mount SLR will have to provide enough room for that large flange distance, but you could probably decrease size in other areas. I'd take a Pentax DSLR without a screen, providing it had a fast and reliable phone connection, sort of the Pixii concept. But that's too niche for Pentax. They're niche but not that niche.
Michalm
Well-known
Sure , FP was just an sharp example how smaller things have became than ever before and if you add mirrorbox and pentaprism OVF it shouldn't be much bigger than Pentax K-01 which is smaller than leica M but thicker of course. I dont care about IBIS or even LCD but would like to see small DSLR .
Understood. It’s true but it seems that a dslr will always be fatter than a mechanical slr.
Freakscene
Obscure member
No. The 1.5 crop is life size, there is no viewfinder reduction. The 100% view also need not be APS-C size. Your premise that the APS view is cropped in the viewfinder is wrong. The view may still be smaller than a DX format viewfinder, but it also may not (the viewfinder in a Canon 6d or a Nikon D610, for instance, is pretty ordinary).
I am really interested to see the viewfinder. If it is less squinty than the normal APS-C finders I’ll be interested, but I also really do not need a new system.
I did some work for Nikon Australia in the early 2000s and unless what they were telling dealers was complete bs, this is just incorrect. They were planning to stick with APS format dSLRs until Canon showed them that, at least to the buying public, bigger was better, and the Nikon Board started to feel that they were losing prestige by not having a ‘full frame’ camera.
Marty
FWIW, Pentax did dip their toes in the mirrorless market, so they did “go mirrorless”, twice. And both cameras were soon discontinued.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentax_K-01
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentax_Q_series
FWIW, Pentax did dip their toes in the mirrorless market, so they did “go mirrorless”, twice. And both cameras were soon discontinued.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentax_K-01
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentax_Q_series
Well, one was discontinued after one model (K-01) and the other had numerous versions. I wonder how much all of those custom color options hurt them.
Also, let's not forget that technically, the Ricoh GR III is mirrorless and part of this family.
OK, just trying to use the 100% coverage and 1.05x figures as a basis for comparison with other viewfinders.
.I found this link, which claims that the camera's viewfinder compares to a full-frame viewfinder with an effective size of 0.70, which is what I posted earlier (1.05x divided by 1.5.)
This makes it the largest OVF in any APS-C DSLR, edging out the Nikon D500 at 0.67.
"Framing on the Pentax K-3 III is performed via an extra large reflex optical viewfinder with 1.05X magnification and 100% coverage. This magnification is equivalent to 0.7X on a Full-Frame camera." : https://www.neocamera.com/camera/pentax/k3iii
agentlossing
Well-known
Yes, that should be correct. That's why the K3m3 is being compared to a FF VF, because the real world magnification of a FF SLR is bigger than that of APS-C.
Freakscene
Obscure member
No, you are confusing magnification with the size of the image in the viewfinder. A 1.0x magnification view through a DX size SLR is 24x36mm. A 1.0x magnification view through an APS size viewfinder is 16.7x25.1mm. The image is larger in a DX viewfinder of the same magnification, even though the magnification is the same. Have a look through a Leica S viewfinder some time - the magnification is ok, but the view is tremendous.
Pentax have said that there is a 1.05x magnifying element in the K-3 III viewfinder but been mute about the total magnification of the system. Your calculations might be correct if the viewfinder is 1.0x + a 1.5x element, but the viewfinder might be lower magnification, or it might have a magnifying component in the pentaprism too - Pentax have been very clear about the prism being made of ED glass. So it remains to be seen what the actual viewfinder magnification will be.
The magnification figures are also not comparable between brands because manufacturers measure magnification and coverage differently.
Marty
olakiril
Well-known
DpReview has it at 0.68x FF equivalent which would make sense.
https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/pentax-k-3-mark-iii-initial-review
I still believe that a smaller sized DSLR is possible. Need to get rid of the LCD and the AF. I always had an idea to convert a nikon SLR to digital with the innards of a mirrorless body. Looked at it a lot, definitely possible and the size won't be that much different than a Nikon FE body. The problem is always the tiny market. It is a version of the Df that many were dreaming about, and apparently it will remain as such.
Now that you mentioned it, the price of the K3III is what confused me. I can get a D850 (the best DSLR ever made in my opinion) which is a FF camera for $500 LESS than the K3III.
Freakscene
Obscure member
Yes, I saw that but dpreview don’t say if they measure by area, diagonal, horizontal or the ‘best’ measurement. It makes a huge difference.
Marty
olakiril
Well-known
Since the aspect ratio of the sensors is the same, the APS-C sensor is 0.69 smaller no matter the diagonal, horizontal or vertical.
So if you put a 35mm lens on K3iii (equivalent of 50mm), things will be x0.68 (as per dpreview states) smaller than what your eyes see. D850 for comparison has a 0.75x magnification factor and the D500 has a .67 FF equivalent magnification factor.
So, is it a good viewfinder or not? You guys have confused me!
Skiff
Well-known
Hm, but there are several very compact 35mm / FF DSLRs, like the Pentax K1 / K1 II, Nikon D600, D610, D750, D780.
For example for me these above mentioned Nikons are already almost too small / compact for my medium sized hands (with the D780 having the best ergonomics of the four). They are "at the border" of being just right / a bit too small for me. I can work with it, but they definitely should not be smaller, as it would make ergonomics worse.
Well, we can shrink cameras, but not hands.....
.The new Pentax K3 Mark III looks like being quite compact, but still having a sufficient size being adequate for great ergonomics. I will certainly visit my local cam store in May to try this camera.
Last edited:
olakiril
Well-known
I expect it to be among the best that APS-C can offer and pretty close to FF.
Eye relief and brightness are the two other big parts that make an OVF great. The 20.5mm - 22mm eye relief is quite good (D850 is at ~17mm) which means magnifying eyepieces can be used easily to increase the magnification even more. The brightness mostly depends on the opening of the lens and of course the ground glass. APS-C sensors have 1 stop of disadvantage compared to FF. A ground glass optimized for MF with courser grain will be generally dimmer. Not sure about the K3iii.