Another Wishful Thinking: an FF digital as small as ME Super?

[aldo199]

Hi All,

I bought a faulty ME Super from Sungei Road on an impluse for cheap It comes with an OK-condition M 50 f2.0 lens.
I don't have experience using a manual-focus body SLR.
I was pleasantly surprised to look at the viewfinder. It's so big, bright, and so "close" to my eyes.
It's really a joy just to look through the OVF.

So I start wondering:

1. Is it technically possible to make an FF DSLR (not RF) as small as ME Super?
2. Does current manufacturer (all brands) actually focus on making better quality OVF? For example 100% coverage and very close to 1x magnification ...

I'm really not enthusiastic with the current trend of moving to EVF.
I went to a Sony gallery one day, looking through the EVF of a camera that has a 3000-dollar carl zeiss lens attach to it .... the image (through the EVF, not the result) looks blaahh ... I don't see the point.

For me, part of the enjoyment of taking pics is not only looking at the result, but the process of composing through a big, clean, clear, bright OVF as well.
Any thoughts?

-my 0.02 SGD-

 

[pinholecam]

#1 >> As shown by K-01, I don't think so w/o removing SR.
#2 >> The OVF of a FF DSLR is bigger than that on a APS-C SLR. But usually not 100% coverage though.

I actually found the EVF on A77 to be 'good enough'. Perhaps the standard to look up to for all EVF cameras.


Pentax DSLRs are really very close to size of a film SLR like MZ-5. Do away with the Kr grip and its just a bit thicker and a really little bit taller.

 

[edutilos-]

I agree with you.

Frankly, I don't really care about FF until the price drops. I suspect that in the long run this will be possible for sure, but in the short term, prices will be kept up artificially (regardless of any technology development) simply for market discrimination purposes. Why not milk the regular consumer for all he's worth, if he wants a larger sensor? After all, you have the reason to do so...

I also do not like EVF. The reason for adopting EVF, I suppose, is really because you can save space? Without the need for mirror box and the like, you can make cameras smaller. I agree that OVF is always going to be better for response, brightness, etc. That said, the benefit of an EVF is that you can see what your image turns out as interpreted by the camera, which isn't always going to be the same as what the eye sees.

 

[detritus]

if u take out the LCD, the SR module, the screw drive, the memory buffer and all the electronics supporting these functions, i don't see why its technically impossible to make it smaller but would anyone buy something like that? ;p

it'll just be a DSLR with no instant preview, no AF, no SR and low fps.

it is technically possible but commercially unviable my 2 cents too.

of course, technology may advance to a stage where we can have ultra light, ultra thin, ultra strong composite materials for the casing, paper thin LCDs and circuitry, super efficient batteries. all that makes an ME sized full featured DSLR possible but i think the industry hasn't reached that stage yet

 

[edutilos-]

I think no AF, no SR and low FPS will be fine for landscape photographers. :bsmilie:

But like detritus said, it's not commercially viable. :bsmilie:

 

[pinholecam]

if u take out the LCD, the SR module, the screw drive, the memory buffer and all the electronics supporting these functions, i don't see why its technically impossible to make it smaller but would anyone buy something like that? ;p

it'll just be a DSLR with no instant preview, no AF, no SR and low fps.

it is technically possible but commercially unviable my 2 cents too.

of course, technology may advance to a stage where we can have ultra light, ultra thin, ultra strong composite materials for the casing, paper thin LCDs and circuitry, super efficient batteries. all that makes an ME sized full featured DSLR possible but i think the industry hasn't reached that stage yet

You realize that you are talking about a certain $9K camera?


Actually I'd be that sucker to buy such a camera you mentioned (no LCD and all).
So long as its $500 or less.
Managed to live like that on my film cameras before, so I figure I can go back to that state.

Camera will be the "K-M"
"K-mount for Masochist "

 

[detritus]

You realize that you are talking about a certain $9K camera?


Actually I'd be that sucker to buy such a camera you mentioned (no LCD and all).
So long as its $500 or less.
Managed to live like that on my film cameras before, so I figure I can go back to that state.

Camera will be the "K-M"
"K-mount for Masochist "

TS said D-SLR only mah... the other one is not SLR design :bsmilie:

there are definitely pple who will buy lah... its almost the same as those who buy the $9k one u mentioned and still spend a whole lot of cash to buy the lenses :bsmilie:

just that it will be a very niche item... not mass market at all. i wouldn't buy for sure. it inherits all the bad points of film while delivering only the marginal benefits of digital.

 

[oceanpriest]

I think no AF, no SR and low FPS will be fine for landscape photographers. :bsmilie:

But like detritus said, it's not commercially viable.

for macro shooter too :bsmilie:

You realize that you are talking about a certain $9K camera?


Actually I'd be that sucker to buy such a camera you mentioned (no LCD and all).
So long as its $500 or less.
Managed to live like that on my film cameras before, so I figure I can go back to that state.

Camera will be the "K-M"
"K-mount for Masochist "

can take out the optical finder too, then become pentax K-MD, a digital brick :bsmilie:
http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3127/3160817110_5200aae3e3.jpg

 

[sunnycamera]

if you compare manual focus film camera vs manual focus digital camera (I guess only one still make manual focus digital camera)
the size will be the same.

if you compare auto focus film camera vs auto focus digital camera ,
the size will be the same