Pentax is investigating a mirrorless system camera - Page 10

johnmflores · 10-09-2009, 05:47 AM

Originally Posted by RaduA

I have no doubts that there is a sensible market for such cameras but at this moment maybe the prices are too big, options to few and performance not up to par.

Radu

Excellent point Radu that I have not considered here - M43 cameras are currently priced significantly above entry level dSLRs, and more often than not are competing against higher-specified mid-level entries. Judging by their pricing (and by much of the talk of the Olympus E-P1) they are being aimed at serious enthusiasts as second systems to their primary dSLRs.

It's an interesting strategy - maybe they are trying to legitimize the format among the general public by selling it to "serious" photographers first - but I for one think that they'd sell boatloads if priced at the entry level. What I don't know is if the higher pricing is due to the miniaturization or just product strategy - Olympus would cannibalize their entry-level dSLRs if they priced the E-Px similarly. Likewise, Panasonic has to put a significant price difference between their supercompact line (LX-3) and the M43 G line.

Maybe they are not ready to take the leap just yet. After all, for Olympus to say, "ok, from today no more entry level dSLRs. Instead, here is M43, a new, unproven form factor" would be a very risky move. High potential reward, but also high risk, and larger companies work very hard to manage risk like that.

*isteve · 10-09-2009, 06:31 AM

Originally Posted by RaduA

Sorry, Espen but you're wrong!

All G1, GH1 and most recently E-P1 had the same evolution (or involution) in sales as their novelty worn off. Although the most competent micro camera to date I suspect that GF-1 will follow the same trend in a few months.

For example E-P1 started at 11.7% in July, fell at 8.8% in August and in September made only 5.81%. G1 and GH1 are currently at 2.something % down from initial 10 percent or so. Compare this with classic cameras such as C 450D and 500D which scored over 20-25% market share for a long time. My point is that a well build and specd "regular dslr" has arguably better potential than a micro mount camera at this point based on price/performance+features ratio.

I have no doubts that there is a sensible market for such cameras but at this moment maybe the prices are too big, options to few and performance not up to par.

Radu

I agree, the products dont interest me as an alternative to an SLR but as a second camera when I dont need the SLR.

As such, the interchangeable lens aspect is a bit pointless and they are too expensive.

If you are going to buy the 14-140 lens (which is quite big) you may as well buy a fixed lens zoom camera with the same sensor. Less complex, cheaper, and you can make a lens that retracts into the body to reduce size.

The sales are at least partly coming from people who liked bridge cameras but wanted a bigger sensor. They will take sales from them, and from some people for whom SLRs are just too much of a commitment, but I think mid-tier SLRs and upwards are quite safe for now.

thibs · 10-09-2009, 10:47 AM

Originally Posted by *isteve

I agree, the products dont interest me as an alternative to an SLR but as a second camera when I dont need the SLR.

As such, the interchangeable lens aspect is a bit pointless and they are too expensive.

Agreed, I'd buy a camera like LX3 (which upper limit from a weight/size PoV for me). I don't care about the lens being interchangeable if it is a good and bright one (like LX3 or S90).
S90 form factor would be even better, or GRIII.

Bigger = not in a pocket which means, if it's to be bothered by size and weight, lets take the K-7.

nosnoop · 10-09-2009, 09:55 PM

Originally Posted by RaduA

For example E-P1 started at....
Compare this with classic cameras such as C 450D and 500D which scored over 20-25% market share for a long time

Stop! Hold it right there!
So far NO other brands can come close to the big two - REGARDLESS of any camera model.

I bet you if the E-P1 has the Canon/Nikon brand name on top, it will hold a healthy market share for a long long time.

My point is that a well build and specd "regular dslr" has arguably better potential than a micro mount camera at this point based on price/performance+features ratio.

Again, this depends on the brand. But if you look at individual brand, Olympus and Panasonic have never quite achieved the same success with their "regular dslr".

Michael Barkowski · 10-19-2009, 08:19 AM

Originally Posted by nosnoop

Stop! Hold it right there!
So far NO other brands can come close to the big two - REGARDLESS of any camera model.

I bet you if the E-P1 has the Canon/Nikon brand name on top, it will hold a healthy market share for a long long time.

Agreed. I have not seen the EP-1 nor G1 or GF1 in the nearby electronics chains yet. If they were Canon they would definitely be in there.

MikePerham · 10-19-2009, 08:39 AM

Originally Posted by nosnoop

Stop! Hold it right there!
So far NO other brands can come close to the big two - REGARDLESS of any camera model.

I bet you if the E-P1 has the Canon/Nikon brand name on top, it will hold a healthy market share for a long long time.

Again, this depends on the brand. But if you look at individual brand, Olympus and Panasonic have never quite achieved the same success with their "regular dslr".

Originally Posted by Michael Barkowski

Agreed. I have not seen the EP-1 nor G1 or GF1 in the nearby electronics chains yet. If they were Canon they would definitely be in there.

If the big boys got into the EVIL game, it would certainly steal sales from their lower priced DSLRs. This could start a whole new round of market competition that eventually erodes margins and changes the game all over again.

I am with *iststeve, I think a fixed lens, large sensor compact is the way to go and this does not compete with the bottom end DSLRs as much, and will be picked up by many DSLR owners as a second camera.

*emr* · 10-19-2009, 08:51 AM

The more I think about this, the more I'd like an EVIL camera that would use K mount lenses. Something with AF and a sensor not smaller than m4/3. Imagine a GF1 or E-P1 like camera body with AF-capable DA limited lenses. Yummy!

eurostar · 10-19-2009, 08:57 AM

Why with a sensore not smaller than m4/3? It would be perfect with an APS-C sensor... I want total interoperability between dsrl and evil...

*emr* · 10-19-2009, 08:59 AM

Originally Posted by eurostar

Why with a sensore not smaller than m4/3?

Not smaller than m4/3 meaning something of decent size, preferably APS-C or bigger but m4/3 might work too.

MikePerham · 10-19-2009, 02:16 PM

Originally Posted by eurostar

Why with a sensore not smaller than m4/3? It would be perfect with an APS-C sensor... I want total interoperability between dsrl and evil...

The problem with interoperability between DSLRs and EVIL is the registration distance is not the same, so the EVIL camera needs an adapter to make the DSLR lens work, and as in the Panny, not all the 4/3 DSLR lenses do.

Kinda throws cold water on my enthusiasm for this concept ...I am quite happy for now with the K-7 and limited lenses. Maybe an APS-C fixed lens compact at some future date (would have to be more affordable than the Leica).

eurostar · 10-20-2009, 12:34 AM

Why register distance must be not the same? The very old (1997) concept digital camera from Pentax had a normal K-mount, and the protruding mount was used to place many buttons for direct operations. This way K lenes can be used directly, but new lenses evil-only can still be made, if the rear part insert deeply in the mount, like the back of a L rear-converter.

MikePerham · 10-20-2009, 08:27 AM

Originally Posted by eurostar

Why register distance must be not the same? The very old (1997) concept digital camera from Pentax had a normal K-mount, and the protruding mount was used to place many buttons for direct operations. This way K lenes can be used directly, but new lenses evil-only can still be made, if the rear part insert deeply in the mount, like the back of a L rear-converter.

Because the mirror box takes up the room. The whole point of an EVIL camera is to eliminate the mirror box and make the camera smaller - do that and you change the registration distance. Existing m4/3 cameras employ a converter to increase registration distance so standard 4/3 lenses work. However, apparently not all 4/3 lenses do that on the Panasonic. I would assume that has something to do with the electronics.

*emr* · 10-20-2009, 08:45 AM

With the mirror and OVF removed, many posters think that there's no significant reduction in camera body size due to the registration length. But that's in just one direction. We don't have to be stuck on traditional camera shape and use, but something quite new could be innovated. I'm not saying that all video cameras are good or easy to handle, but they vary a great deal in shape and ways to hold the camera.

*isteve · 10-20-2009, 09:06 AM

Originally Posted by emr

With the mirror and OVF removed, many posters think that there's no significant reduction in camera body size due to the registration length. But that's in just one direction. We don't have to be stuck on traditional camera shape and use, but something quite new could be innovated. I'm not saying that all video cameras are good or easy to handle, but they vary a great deal in shape and ways to hold the camera.

The Coolpix 990 format would enable longer zooms and longer reg distance in a compact format.

Ricoh were hinting at a new format as well....

The new "GX", straight from the horse's mouth : Ricoh Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review

eurostar · 10-20-2009, 10:32 AM

I am talking about this:
http://www.dpreview.com/articles/pho...x/IMG_0409.jpg

Aside from the very 90s' design, wouldn't it be a good concept for a pancakes-ready EVIL?