Web Analytics RiceHigh's Pentax Blog: P-Q K2Q Product Show at Osaka on Sept 4 (Yesterday)

Monday, September 05, 2011

P-Q K2Q Product Show at Osaka on Sept 4 (Yesterday)

The show on Sept 3 was cancelled, but the Sunday show was resumed. So, here is the latest hot live show report, at the DC Watch, which has just been posted for less than an hour ago!

http://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/docs/news/20110905_475272.html

Viewing those posted photos, click to enlarge, then you will know what the show is about! Below are some of the selected thumbnails. Do go read the full report to learn more and to view photos in large size.

Time (UTC +0800):
標籤： , , , , , ,

Comments (13)

Loading... Logging you in...
Dashboard | Edit profile | Logout
  • Logged in as
0 Vote up Vote down
frank's avatar

frank · 707 weeks ago

i guess no matter how small cameras get lenses will alwasy be big.
6 replies · active 706 weeks ago
-1 Vote up Vote down
Chris's avatar

Chris · 707 weeks ago

No need to guess - physics dictates exactly that. You cannot build a 200mm f2.8 lens that fits in your hand because the diameter of the front element has to be approximately 200/2.8 = 70mm.

Turning this argument around, the efforts for smaller and smaller cameras will lead to lenses with higher f numbers, such as 5.6-8, and very high-sensititve but tiny sensors (such as the Q has). At the end of this development, cameras will lose the capability to creatively play with depth-of-field - so camera software will be used to simulate depth-of-field-effects ("software bokeh").

Exciting times in which we live. I don't know yet if I like it. So far, the creative digital filters in my K-5 have been rarely used but in those rare instances it was helpful and a lot of fun, so I don't want to miss that...

C

PS. Question to all the others here: I am thinking to buy a Q in place of a K converter, for the rare instances when I need something longer than my DA200mm (the longest lens I own). How much does a Q with K-adapter cost? And what is the equivalent focal length of the field of view that, say, a DA200mm lens will have with the Q?
Loading...
0 Vote up Vote down
RiceHigh's avatar - Go to profile

RiceHigh 110p · 707 weeks ago

Multiplied by 5.6 times.
+2 Vote up Vote down
AlexS's avatar

AlexS · 707 weeks ago

Less than that (~3.7), because we're comparing with APS-C.
0 Vote up Vote down
frank's avatar

frank · 706 weeks ago

wow so a 200mm would be 800mm...pretty cool...in the end I think its the lenses that hold up more than the cameras.
Loading...
+1 Vote up Vote down
RiceHigh's avatar - Go to profile

RiceHigh 110p · 706 weeks ago

This is not correct, the multiplying factor on *actual* focal length remains the same.
-1 Vote up Vote down
AlexS's avatar

AlexS · 706 weeks ago

Why so? A 200mm on the Q would have the same angle of view as a ~740mm on the K-5; and I believe that's what Chris asked.
-1 Vote up Vote down
Pwong's avatar

Pwong · 707 weeks ago

This is a great cam for the fast c-mount zooms! Hope the c-mount adaptor will be out soon
2 replies · active 706 weeks ago
0 Vote up Vote down
Zebooka's avatar

Zebooka · 707 weeks ago

Micro 4/3 is far more better
0 Vote up Vote down
Pwong's avatar

Pwong · 706 weeks ago

But for most of the c-mount zooms and non-tele c-mount primes, they will not cover the entire 4/3, hence, sensors smaller than 4/3 are preferred
0 Vote up Vote down
irukanji's avatar

irukanji · 706 weeks ago

I wonder how many people that keep coming back to the laws of physics in justifying the manufacturing limitations know exactly what they are referring to? Working with the high-resolution imaging at a diagniostic centre of a major hospital I can assure you that the high-res images captured with some minuscule (as in 3 mm diameter) camera/lens endoscope probes in less than perfect surroundings, to put it mildly, are nothing short of spectacular. So, what can and cannot be done is probably less down to the laws of physics and more to the industrial ingenuity, motivation and profitability.
2 replies · active 706 weeks ago
Loading...
+1 Vote up Vote down
RiceHigh's avatar - Go to profile

RiceHigh 110p · 706 weeks ago

So, what is the need of trying so hard to overcome all those when there is simply no good reason for doing so, then?
-1 Vote up Vote down
Chris's avatar

Chris · 706 weeks ago

Well if you are referring to my comment above, in this instance I know what I talk about. I am a physicist by education, and as it happens I am working in the medical devices field.

Still what I say above is right. 200mm f/2.8 has a front element of about 200/2.8 = 70mm. Now you can say you don't need f2.8, that's ok. But if you need 2.8, there are consequences that no ingenuity can take away.

Post a new comment

Comments by

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)