[uccemebug]

I've also handled the two Sony NEX cameras, which handle and shoot ok, but the menu interface requires a lot of steps to change modes.

That's putting it mildly. I was very impressed with the tiny 20mm lens, the gorgeous display, and the outstanding shutter response on the corporate loaner that my Sony employee friend was showing me. Especially when he told me that combined they were ¥80,000. Even my wife was impressed. But then he told me to try the menu and I lost all interest whatsoever. Why use an icon-based menu system if it's not a touch screen. Just obnoxious. I think the ISO setting was under "modes"?

An I/L camera of those dimensions should just be dead easy to use. The camera manufacturers should realize that they're not selling those cameras to people who are in the mood for a lot of fiddling when they're taking pics. Leave the fiddling to the guy carrying the DSLR. This is why I picked up a 35mm film auto-exposure rangefinder to complement my many (D)SLR's. For frame-and-shoot days.

If you've ever taken apart an SLR, you will see just how complicated (and expensive) an SLR mirrorbox is. In such a competitive market, the low end DSLRs have to reduce this mirrorbox cost eventually. (In my opinion of course!!!)

And I'd argue that even the best and brightest OVF is crippled by the size of the APS-C format. The obvious fix is to go with an EVF on the APS-C sized DSLR. Preferrably one of the new line from Epson; they are head and shoulders above anything I've seen. (Also just opinions.)

[Uluru]

Pentax needs an EVIL for *THEIR* customers.

In that same line we can say Pentax needs an FF because of their customers. They won't sell FF cameras by truckloads, or even make any significant profit, but it will keep current customer base from jumping ships because lots of customers choose camera brands where they have more choices, where they can grow, thus feeling "safe". So the FF will preserve the customer base.

Overall, both is true -- they need both EVIL and an FF. EVIL, on the other hand, can attract any customer if it's done well. Indeed, they need to move their bums like they did with a 645D and add more choices -- not on the same APS-C shelf of DSLRs, but add a product on each shelf that's now empty.

[dnas]

From the first consumer DSLR, to DSLRs overtaking film SLR sales, it was less than 5 years!!!!

Misspoken analogy. DSLR's did not put SLR's out of biz. They put film processing labs out of biz.

Your post totally doesn't make any sense!!

I said DSLR SALES had overtaken film SLR sales in less than 5 years (2004).

WHERE did I say that DSLRs put film SLRs out of business?? I didn't.

This thread is about MARKET SHARE OF mirrorless interchangeable lens cameras!!!!

Market share means SALES.

[junyo]

The problem for Pentax is that none of their lenses are worth anything on an EVIL micro four thirds camera. Sure, they can fit fine with an adapter, but the small primes wouldn't auto focus, due to the lack of an in body motor. I don't see them releasing a whole new system, with new lenses.

Funny as well to compare the GF1 to a 1Ds. It depends entirely on what you are shooting. A 1Ds is not a carry around camera for family snap shots, but it will kill the GF1 in any respect (other than size). The better comparison would be a kx with a kit. Both small cameras, but the kx with an optical viewfinder, faster auto focus, better high iso, and 200 dollars cheaper. I know which I would choose at this point.

Most people who get EVIL cameras are just interested in small. If that is your main criteria, then go for it. On the other hand, at this point, anyone who does significant research will likely end up with a dSLR.

Sigh.

Can we get past this whole "size is an invalid criteria" argument? No, anyone who does significant research will not necessarily end up with a dSLR. There that old saying that 'quantity is a quality unto itself'. Well size is a photographic quality unto itself. Its the difference between a tool defining the art or just being a tool. The fact that a 1Ds isn't a carry around camera functionally means it's a crappy camera for 90% of the average shooter's existence. It's the reason most of us don't use a view camera or medium format on a day to day basis. Pretty much the reason for 35mm was adequate quality in a small form factor.

Is an OVF great? Yep. But it's not magic; has no intrinsically unique quality. Its a means to an end; eye level focusing and camera info. And a) depending on your process those things don't need to be done at eye level, and b) depending on your process, they're optional.

I'm in the "the smallest thing that will do the job" camp when it comes to cameras. And I own a couple of the small, relatively inexpensive rangefinders that everyone made in the 60s and 70s. At the risk of making myself sound like an old coot, there weren't a lot of serious photographers at that time that didn't own one. What's not to love about a small, silent camera with fast glass? Places where you couldn't use an SLR (museums, clubs, concerts) generally wouldn't mind your small camera. Those cameras weren't replacements for your SLR (except in a pinch) they were adjuncts, they were a chipping wedge instead a driver, job appropriate tools. If you want to work fast, close, unobtrusively and silent, very few things do that job as well as a small rangefinder.

People don't seem to understand that the same niche still exists. Mike Johnston, quite a serious photographer, wrote about the desire for such a camera, back in 2005 (and ended up, in 2009, with a GF1). Not even the companies making them seem to understand at this point what the true appeal is. Panasonic (and Olympus, and Samsung and Sony) effectively cripple their camera. It can't really be used as easily as it should be for what it's best at. Now, I understand why they did it; everyone loves zooms (hell I love 'em like a fat kid loves cake); this is one of the chief complaints against rangefinders. But since size is almost entirely the point, some massive zoom on the front of a tiny camera completely destroys the reason for it to be a tiny camera. The designers took the easy way out of designing a viewing system that would accommodate any lens someone would be dumb enough to slap on the body. And a tack-on EVF is a step in the wrong direction (makes the camera bigger). Emulating the SLR layout is a step in the wrong direction (makes the camera bigger). Exclusively arms length focusing is a step in the wrong direction (makes the camera obtrusive). The fact that no one is getting it quite right (yet) is the only reason I bought a K-x instead an EVIL. I still almost pulled the trigger on the GF1 and a hotshoe OVF.

But at some point Panasonic (and Olympus, and Samsung and Sony) will figure this out, and companies insisting that they don't need one of these better have a solid pro level SLR body, because the the stuff under that is going away.

Something like the GF1 with the 20mm and a small, simple built-in VF (just enough to frame) and focusing scale on the lens? That would have cost Pentax a sale. Even giving up some of the high ISO quality, I would be all over that. It's just a much more flexible platform for impromptu "life" shooting and having with you all the time, as opposed to formal photography (with a capital "P" and a little bit of pretension). The K-x is a very small SLR. But it's still a brick. And it sounds like a shotgun going off in a quiet room.

No one's buying an EVIL as a P&Ss except people that were buying low end DSLRs as P&Ss; if you really just want a point and shoot, that's what cellphones are for. A good chunk of the EVILs sold are being cannibalized from low end and second body DSLR sales. And it's just going to get worse.

[Aristophanes]

In that same line we can say Pentax needs an FF because of their customers. They won't sell FF cameras by truckloads, or even make any significant profit, but it will keep current customer base from jumping ships because lots of customers choose camera brands where they have more choices, where they can grow, thus feeling "safe". So the FF will preserve the customer base.

Overall, both is true -- they need both EVIL and an FF. EVIL, on the other hand, can attract any customer if it's done well. Indeed, they need to move their bums like they did with a 645D and add more choices -- not on the same APS-C shelf of DSLRs, but add a product on each shelf that's now empty.

It's the economy-of-scale and cost-shifting Pentax requires. They are not Leica. For every FF DSLR they sell they'd need to sell 20 P&S and 6 other DSLR's + an average of lenses for the latter to make the gross revenues necessary for FF in the first place.

MF is a bit of different fish. The economics there have always been more self-contained an self-sustaining to the point that Canikon don't even play in that game. Clearly Pentax hopes to be more the mass market MF company than the pro shop tool, as the pro shop is, sadly, a dwindling profession these days. Going for the high-end istockphoto crowd has more leverage. Good plan IMO.

[Aristophanes]

Your post totally doesn't make any sense!!

I said DSLR SALES had overtaken film SLR sales in less than 5 years (2004).

WHERE did I say that DSLRs put film SLRs out of business?? I didn't.

This thread is about MARKET SHARE OF mirrorless interchangeable lens cameras!!!!

Market share means SALES.

DSLR has put film SLR's out of biz as a feed to the bottom line. They're almost certainly sold at a loss now. I believe Nikon and Canon each have an old flagship still going, but sales are effectively nil by revenue measure.

This thread is NOT about the market share of mirrorless interchangeable lens cameras. It was always about the DSLR market share. From the FP:

"In Japan, DSLR sales has increased 34.9% year over year in the month of May.

Of significance is that in the last week of May, EVIL sales has almost reached the 30% mark at 29.9% market share."

If you understand what opportunity cost means, you will note that from the graph in the FP unit sales have increased, it's just that most of the new market growth has come from EVIL. That's good as the overall higher-end base of users is upwards. It does not mean that DSLR sales have tanked. The pie is bigger so the opportunity costs have not benefitted Pentax, nor have they hurt Pentax.

Most of your posts were apocalyptic stating that unless Pentax joins M43 they have no chance as DSLR sales are being eaten by EVIL with smaller sensors.

From the source data, this is simply not true. Agains, given that the Sony NEX is in the mix with APS-C (and the E-mount appears designed for FF, BTW), this is simply not true.

[Aristophanes]

Sigh.
If you want to work fast, close, unobtrusively and silent, very few things do that job as well as a small rangefinder.

People don't seem to understand that the same niche still exists.

Oddly, the Pentax K-x with a DA40 is about as close in size to a true rangefinder like the Leica M3 in size and mass (580g + lens for the Leica to 580g with batteries + lens for the K-x).

Now, the Leica is built like tank compared to a 230g Rollei. There 's a great variety of RF's out there.

But when I see the Sony NEX and their rather large lens and the sheer volume of space they take up with a zoom in particular, I'm not certain they meet the portability requirements one expects from this segment. As a niche, something's not there. The lens supply will be limited so the interchangeability will be suspect, and the size is not pocketable. An LX3 might be a better choice in many circumstance, and is probably closer to the small rangefinder ideal.

[dnas]

DSLR has put film SLR's out of biz as a feed to the bottom line. They're almost certainly sold at a loss now. I believe Nikon and Canon each have an old flagship still going, but sales are effectively nil by revenue measure.

This thread is NOT about the market share of mirrorless interchangeable lens cameras. It was always about the DSLR market share. From the FP:

"In Japan, DSLR sales has increased 34.9% year over year in the month of May.

Of significance is that in the last week of May, EVIL sales has almost reached the 30% mark at 29.9% market share."

If you understand what opportunity cost means, you will note that from the graph in the FP unit sales have increased, it's just that most of the new market growth has come from EVIL. That's good as the overall higher-end base of users is upwards. It does not mean that DSLR sales have tanked. The pie is bigger so the opportunity costs have not benefitted Pentax, nor have they hurt Pentax.

Most of your posts were apocalyptic stating that unless Pentax joins M43 they have no chance as DSLR sales are being eaten by EVIL with smaller sensors.

From the source data, this is simply not true. Agains, given that the Sony NEX is in the mix with APS-C (and the E-mount appears designed for FF, BTW), this is simply not true.

Goalpost moving...

[Aristophanes]

Goalpost moving...

Read the subject line. It's hard for you to see the goalposts if you're not anywhere near the field.

[dnas]

Most of your posts were apocalyptic stating that unless Pentax joins M43 they have no chance as DSLR sales are being eaten by EVIL with smaller sensors.

You are very fond of putting words into mouths, that were just not there.....

It is evident that you do not understand what I say.

I said that Pentax's DSLR sales have remained static (and it's a similar case with Olympus DSLRs), but the new segment of the market (micro 4/3) has boosted Olympus and Panasonic sales to around 25%+ of the WHOLE
mirrorless interchangeable lens cameras market (including DSLRs).

And I was saying that most probably, the only way Pentax can boost their share of that market(above a static 4-6%), is to do what Olympus did, and produce similar cameras (micro 4/3 or similar).

I DIDN'T SAY Pentax has "no chance", I said that if Pentax wish to boost their sales in a similar way, they most probably need to get into this segment of the market, or remain a static also-ran.

[dnas]

Read the subject line. It's hard for you to see the goalposts if you're not anywhere near the field.

It's hard to see the goalposts if YOU move them to where ever you're kicking the ball. :P

[Aristophanes]

You are very fond of putting words into mouths, that were just not there.....

It is evident that you do not understand what I say.

I said that Pentax's DSLR sales have remained static (and it's a similar case with Olympus DSLRs), but the new segment of the market (micro 4/3) has boosted Olympus and Panasonic sales to around 25%+ of the WHOLE
mirrorless interchangeable lens cameras market (including DSLRs).

Read again what you just wrote. The last sentence.

It is evident you do not understand what you write.

Nor what a DSLR is. Proof. First line, something to do with a mirror:

Digital single-lens reflex camera - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[dnas]

Read again what you just wrote. The last sentence.

It is evident you do not understand what you write.

Nor what a DSLR is. Proof. First line, something to do with a mirror:

Digital single-lens reflex camera - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You like to attack the man don't you?

I know what a DSLR is, so you needn't post a link or be so condescending.

I said this:
"Pentax's DSLR sales have remained static (and it's a similar case with Olympus DSLRs), but the new segment of the market (micro 4/3) has boosted Olympus and Panasonic sales to around 25%+ of the WHOLE
mirrorless interchangeable lens cameras market (including DSLRs)."

The mirrorless was a copy and paste error.

To make it clear:
1. Pentax's DSLR sales have remained static.
2. Olympus' DSLR sales have also remained static
3. A new segment of the interchangeable lens camera market is the micro 4/3 (and others), in ADDITION to DSLRs.
4. The new segment of the market (micro 4/3) has boosted Olympus and Panasonic sales to around 25%+ of the WHOLE
interchangeable lens cameras market (including DSLRs).

Tell me something, have you repaired cameras & and lenses (on and off) for more than 25 years like I have?

Have you ever repaired DSLRs like I have? Have you converted a DSLR to IR like I have?

So yes, I know what a DSLR is.

[gazonk]

But when I see the Sony NEX and their rather large lens and the sheer volume of space they take up with a zoom in particular.

Try the E-PL1 instead with the retractable 14-42. It's not exactly pocketable, but it's definitely smaller than the K-x: The K-x with the 18-55 weighs 780g and has a depth of 135mm. The E-PL1 with the 14-42 weighs 494g and has a depth of 87mm.

[Kunzite]

1. Pentax's DSLR sales have remained static.

I thought the K-x was quite successful...