Pentax EVIL is comming!!!

**Aristophanes** · 08-06-2010, 06:41 AM

Originally posted by bymy141

I do not completely agree with you.

For myself, I'm in your category A.
This means I'm looking for the best Image Quality I can afford, plus the best portability.
Image Quality is not only a function of the camera, though important the lens is the most important thing here, secondly the sensor.
Therefore I need a camera with a large sensor + primes.
Hence the need for replaceable lenses... EVIL is not a marketing hype.

It is *only* if there was a ultra zoom compact, with glass that could match my high end lenses and a sensitive APS-C or better sensor, I'd buy it.

- Bert

But are you willing to forego the optical viewfinder? That's the crucial question.

To keep the body size down the rear LCD will also need to be the main focusing system. LCD's and EVF's are currently very poor in low light situations.

stanleyk · 08-06-2010, 06:42 AM

Originally posted by NewRsoul

I don't really get all this MIL/EVIL camera hype, the only reason I can see Size, as in if you really want or need a small camera. Price wise they're mostly more expensive than an equivalent DSLR, so how much smaller than a (Class Leading) K-X do you need, and are you willing to pay £100 more for the privilege? I'm not.

SRS
K-x with Lens £400
G2 with Lens £529

Peter

I can't speak to the G2, but the E-P2 is a very different camera than the KX. I own both. I would never attempt to manual focus with the KX. Which of course is one reason I rarely use it. The thing that I really like about the E-P2 is the EVF. That and the fact that I can use virtually any lens on it. Lately I've been using a Konica 40mm F1.8 Hexanon. I get full use of the aperture ring without having to press the green button. So in a way I suppose it's kind of silly, it's like using an old film camera. I can adjust the exposure with the aperture ring or with the shutter speed without having to use the green button. Personally I just enjoy manual focusing because it's the way I started doing photography. I like being able to decide what's in focus without resorting to camera's menu to mess with the focus points. That said I'm old and I don't like fiddling with the menu. I set the camera on M, focus manually, and set the exposure manually. I find it much easier that way.

And it's yes much smaller than the KX, especially with the 17mm or Panasonic 20mm (which is an incredible lens). I don't get into these low light, high ISO discussions because I'm an ISO 200-400 shooter. If I can't get the shot with with F1.8 at ISO 400 then I'm not interested. But I'm not a person who makes their living with photography. If I was I would shoot Nikon or Canon or Leica.

I'm not criticizing the KX or the K7 which I also own, but there is a good market for cameras like the E-P2. I would have no idea what the size of that market is nor would I speculate on it. At this point I'm not sure I would buy a Pentax version. The Olympus is a very good camera and I'm probably going to get the E-PL1 for those times when I want a flash since I already have several lens adapters. In fact I'm a seriously considering an Olympus for my next DSLR which I won't buy until tax refund time next year. They are very good cameras and the lenses are fantastic and I can still use my Pentax lenses on them. I used an E 3 recently and was really impressed.

.

stanleyk · 08-06-2010, 06:54 AM

Originally posted by Aristophanes

But are you willing to forego the optical viewfinder? That's the crucial question.

To keep the body size down the rear LCD will also need to be the main focusing system. LCD's and EVF's are currently very poor in low light situations.

I beg to differ. The EVF on the E-P2 is fantastic in low light.

I'm not trying to start an argument because I know you are wanting a FF camera and are not interested in this type of camera, but that statement is just not accurate. I manual focus exclusively with my E-P2 and have absolutely no issues with the EVF. Can't say the same for the KX. In fact I find manual focusing on the E-P2's EVF easier than the K20 with Katz Eye I just sold.

I have no interest in full frame camera but I hope Pentax makes one for all the forum members who want one. There's not reason Pentax can't make both types of cameras. I'm not buying either as the Olympus is a great camera, but I can't see why they can't do both. I can't even keep up with the number of bodies Canon and Nikon offer.

For a lot of people a small well made camera like the E-P2 is perfect for other people a large DSLR is perfect. There's no one right answer it's whatever works for you personally. I like rangefinders but a lot of people don't. I don't use my M3 much anymore because I don't have a dark room since I moved, but I would love it if Pentax made an affordable camera like that. Now that I would buy.

dnas · 08-06-2010, 07:12 AM

Originally posted by stanleyk

I beg to differ. The EVF on the E-P2 is fantastic in low light.

I'm not trying to start an argument because I know you are wanting a FF camera and are not interested in this type of camera, but that statement is just not accurate. I manual focus exclusively with my E-P2 and have absolutely no issues with the EVF. Can't say the same for the KX. In fact I find manual focusing on the E-P2's EVF easier than the K20 with Katz Eye I just sold.

I have no interest in full frame camera but I hope Pentax makes one for all the forum members who want one. There's not reason Pentax can't make both types of cameras. I'm not buying either as the Olympus is a great camera, but I can't see why they can't do both. I can't even keep up with the number of bodies Canon and Nikon offer.

For a lot of people a small well made camera like the E-P2 is perfect for other people a large DSLR is perfect. There's no one right answer it's whatever works for you personally. I like rangefinders but a lot of people don't. I don't use my M3 much anymore because I don't have a dark room since I moved, but I would love it if Pentax made an affordable camera like that. Now that I would buy.

I agree!!!

This story about how bad the micro 4/3 viewfinder is in low light is just so much nonsense.
It's true that the refresh rate is slow, but you can actually see MORE with the LCD/EVF on the G1 & G2 than you can on an OVF.

dnas · 08-06-2010, 07:24 AM

Originally posted by dnas

I agree!!!

This story about how bad the micro 4/3 viewfinder is in low light is just so much nonsense.
It's true that the refresh rate is slow, but you can actually see MORE with the LCD/EVF on the G1 & G2 than you can on an OVF.

And here's the proof....

This is a very low light situation, as you can see. If you were using an OVF, this is about what you would see, which is not much. However, notice how much brighter the image is on the LCD? This demonstrates that the EVF/LCD produces a much brighter REFERENCE for framing and focusing(for example manual focusing), than an OVF with the same lighting conditions.

Now I'm NOT saying that the EVF is superior to an OVF in normal light, but it's still pretty good. But in LOW light, it produces a grainy but brighter image than an OVF. So the " LCD/EVF is bad in low light" story told by people who have never used a micro 4/3 camera in low light is total nonsense.....

Blue · 08-06-2010, 07:56 AM

Originally posted by dnas

YOU were quoting size in 3 dimensions(e.g. 135 x 90 x 61.5 and the *ist film camera was 122 x 84 x 63.5, etc), not just ONE (registration distance), so the height is obviously relevant to the discussion as well.

Yes, but if you go back and look, you will see that I highlight the thickness. You randomly started talking about height in the middle of the "thin" discussion without clarifying that. Furthermore, the height of the prism/pentamirror on an EVIL system is moot. The debate was about the feasibility of building a k-mount APS-c EVIL.

bymy141 · 08-06-2010, 08:30 AM

Originally posted by Aristophanes

But are you willing to forego the optical viewfinder? That's the crucial question.

To keep the body size down the rear LCD will also need to be the main focusing system. LCD's and EVF's are currently very poor in low light situations.

Yes. Nevertheless, an optical VF (can be) is better...

I have an old Panasonic FZ-5 (long time predecessor of the FZ35, FZ40, FZ 100 now).
It has a display and an electronic viewfinder. Works rather well for me..
The additional advantages are: size & weigth. I do travel a lot...

- Bert

kalison · 08-06-2010, 01:12 PM

I wonder if it will look exactly like the Samsung NX10

emr · 08-06-2010, 01:34 PM

Originally posted by kalison

I wonder if it will look exactly like the Samsung NX10

I certainly hope it doesn't try to look like a DSLR like the NX does with the fake prism bump and all.

dnas · 08-06-2010, 04:42 PM

If we're going to compare sizes, then we should compare properly.

Pentax *ist DL2 (DSLR), Pentax MX (SLR, probably the smallest 35mm SLR ever made), Panasonic GF1. Lenses are 18-55mm on the *ist, 50mm on the MX, and 14-45mm on the GF1.

Front:
The DSLR is way bigger than both the classic MX and the GF1.

This is obvious when you look at it from an oblique angle, the bulk of the DSLR is plain to see.

Top:
You can see how thick the DSLR is, even if you took away the bulge at the front.
The body of the MX and the GF1 are a similar thickness, but if you include the protruding mirror box/K mount, it is quite a bit thicker, because of the flange/registration distance, 45.5mm vs 20mm).

Notice how the MX and the GF1 are a similar size overall, but the MX has a prime lens while the GF1 has a zoom. If we compare like with like, then we need to show both cameras with a similar zoom range.

GF1 with 14-45mm (28-90mm equiv)
MX with 18-55mm (27-82mm equiv)

It's obvious now, that if Pentax could make an EVIL camera the size of the MX, but with a Pentax K mount, it would be a lot larger than the overall package that micro 4/3 delivers. Pentax COULD make a smaller zoom, but as Sony has shown, you can't get an 18-55mm lens too much smaller and still expect reasonable quality on an APS-C sensor.

ewalk · 08-06-2010, 05:16 PM

I would be perfectly fine with a new micro-K mount, provided you could get a robust adapter to keep using older legacy K-mount lenses.

And as long as the new camera has an APS-C sized sensor

dnas · 08-06-2010, 05:47 PM

Originally posted by ewalk

I would be perfectly fine with a new micro-K mount, provided you could get a robust adapter to keep using older legacy K-mount lenses.

And as long as the new camera has an APS-C sized sensor

They could have any micro mount including micro-K mount or even micro 4/3, but as long as there is a fully operational legacy K-mount adapter, I think most Pentax users would be pleased.

TaoMaas · 08-07-2010, 06:50 AM

I believe that a lot of new DSLR users are folks who are wanting to take better shots of their kids. Following actiion (as in a soccer game) is EXTREMELY hard with an LCD held at arm's length when zoomed in with a telephoto. I think that any EVIL camera that hopes to make significant in-roads needs to have some sort of eye-level viewfinder that doesn't involve an additional cost to the basic camera.

Christopher M.W.T · 08-07-2010, 07:02 AM

With lots of expensive r&d and miniaturization you could in theory cram the DSLR into the MX package....but I could imagine the cost of the camera been quite high.

dnas · 08-07-2010, 07:42 AM

Originally posted by TaoMaas

I believe that a lot of new DSLR users are folks who are wanting to take better shots of their kids. Following actiion (as in a soccer game) is EXTREMELY hard with an LCD held at arm's length when zoomed in with a telephoto. I think that any EVIL camera that hopes to make significant in-roads needs to have some sort of eye-level viewfinder that doesn't involve an additional cost to the basic camera.

Panasonic G1, GH1, G2 & G10 already have a built in eye-level viewfinder that doesn't involve an additional cost to the basic camera.

08-06-2010, 07:56 AM	#111
Blue Moderator Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Florida Hill Country Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,377	Originally posted by dnas YOU were quoting size in 3 dimensions(e.g. 135 x 90 x 61.5 and the ist film camera was 122 x 84 x 63.5, etc), not just ONE (registration distance), so the height is obviously relevant to the discussion as well. Yes, but if you go back and look, you will see that I highlight the thickness. You randomly started talking about height in the middle of the "thin" discussion without clarifying that. Furthermore, the height of the prism/pentamirror on an EVIL system is moot. The debate was about the feasibility of building a k-mount APS-c EVIL. Last edited by Blue; 08-06-2010 at 08:03 AM.*

08-06-2010, 04:42 PM	#115
dnas Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Japan (Australian expat) Posts: 179	If we're going to compare sizes, then we should compare properly. Pentax ist DL2 (DSLR), Pentax MX (SLR, probably the smallest 35mm SLR ever made), Panasonic GF1. Lenses are 18-55mm on the ist, 50mm on the MX, and 14-45mm on the GF1. Front: The DSLR is way bigger than both the classic MX and the GF1. This is obvious when you look at it from an oblique angle, the bulk of the DSLR is plain to see. Top: You can see how thick the DSLR is, even if you took away the bulge at the front. The body of the MX and the GF1 are a similar thickness, but if you include the protruding mirror box/K mount, it is quite a bit thicker, because of the flange/registration distance, 45.5mm vs 20mm). Notice how the MX and the GF1 are a similar size overall, but the MX has a prime lens while the GF1 has a zoom. If we compare like with like, then we need to show both cameras with a similar zoom range. GF1 with 14-45mm (28-90mm equiv) MX with 18-55mm (27-82mm equiv) It's obvious now, that if Pentax could make an EVIL camera the size of the MX, but with a Pentax K mount, it would be a lot larger than the overall package that micro 4/3 delivers. Pentax COULD make a smaller zoom, but as Sony has shown, you can't get an 18-55mm lens too much smaller and still expect reasonable quality on an APS-C sensor. Last edited by dnas; 08-06-2010 at 04:57 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Likelihood of EVIL Pentax @ Photokina?	lurchlarson	Pentax DSLR Discussion	30	07-24-2010 12:09 AM
Pentax EVIL...	Unsinkable II	Pentax DSLR Discussion	24	03-16-2010 09:03 PM
Pentax Should Build an EVIL Camera	Biro	Pentax News and Rumors	308	02-08-2010 01:10 AM
Movie endings / plot twists you did not see comming ..	daacon	General Talk	32	09-30-2009 09:34 PM
Easter is comming!!! Easter is comming!!!	Oldphoto678	Post Your Photos!	2	04-05-2009 10:18 PM

08-06-2010, 06:41 AM	#106
Aristophanes Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Rankin Inlet, Nunavut Photos: Albums Posts: 3,948	Originally posted by bymy141 I do not completely agree with you. For myself, I'm in your category A. This means I'm looking for the best Image Quality I can afford, plus the best portability. Image Quality is not only a function of the camera, though important the lens is the most important thing here, secondly the sensor. Therefore I need a camera with a large sensor + primes. Hence the need for replaceable lenses... EVIL is not a marketing hype. It is only if there was a ultra zoom compact, with glass that could match my high end lenses and a sensitive APS-C or better sensor, I'd buy it. - Bert But are you willing to forego the optical viewfinder? That's the crucial question. To keep the body size down the rear LCD will also need to be the main focusing system. LCD's and EVF's are currently very poor in low light situations.

08-06-2010, 06:42 AM	#107
stanleyk Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Taylor, Texas Posts: 1,018	Originally posted by NewRsoul I don't really get all this MIL/EVIL camera hype, the only reason I can see Size, as in if you really want or need a small camera. Price wise they're mostly more expensive than an equivalent DSLR, so how much smaller than a (Class Leading) K-X do you need, and are you willing to pay £100 more for the privilege? I'm not. SRS K-x with Lens £400 G2 with Lens £529 Peter I can't speak to the G2, but the E-P2 is a very different camera than the KX. I own both. I would never attempt to manual focus with the KX. Which of course is one reason I rarely use it. The thing that I really like about the E-P2 is the EVF. That and the fact that I can use virtually any lens on it. Lately I've been using a Konica 40mm F1.8 Hexanon. I get full use of the aperture ring without having to press the green button. So in a way I suppose it's kind of silly, it's like using an old film camera. I can adjust the exposure with the aperture ring or with the shutter speed without having to use the green button. Personally I just enjoy manual focusing because it's the way I started doing photography. I like being able to decide what's in focus without resorting to camera's menu to mess with the focus points. That said I'm old and I don't like fiddling with the menu. I set the camera on M, focus manually, and set the exposure manually. I find it much easier that way. And it's yes much smaller than the KX, especially with the 17mm or Panasonic 20mm (which is an incredible lens). I don't get into these low light, high ISO discussions because I'm an ISO 200-400 shooter. If I can't get the shot with with F1.8 at ISO 400 then I'm not interested. But I'm not a person who makes their living with photography. If I was I would shoot Nikon or Canon or Leica. I'm not criticizing the KX or the K7 which I also own, but there is a good market for cameras like the E-P2. I would have no idea what the size of that market is nor would I speculate on it. At this point I'm not sure I would buy a Pentax version. The Olympus is a very good camera and I'm probably going to get the E-PL1 for those times when I want a flash since I already have several lens adapters. In fact I'm a seriously considering an Olympus for my next DSLR which I won't buy until tax refund time next year. They are very good cameras and the lenses are fantastic and I can still use my Pentax lenses on them. I used an E 3 recently and was really impressed. .

08-06-2010, 06:54 AM	#108
stanleyk Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Taylor, Texas Posts: 1,018	Originally posted by Aristophanes But are you willing to forego the optical viewfinder? That's the crucial question. To keep the body size down the rear LCD will also need to be the main focusing system. LCD's and EVF's are currently very poor in low light situations. I beg to differ. The EVF on the E-P2 is fantastic in low light. I'm not trying to start an argument because I know you are wanting a FF camera and are not interested in this type of camera, but that statement is just not accurate. I manual focus exclusively with my E-P2 and have absolutely no issues with the EVF. Can't say the same for the KX. In fact I find manual focusing on the E-P2's EVF easier than the K20 with Katz Eye I just sold. I have no interest in full frame camera but I hope Pentax makes one for all the forum members who want one. There's not reason Pentax can't make both types of cameras. I'm not buying either as the Olympus is a great camera, but I can't see why they can't do both. I can't even keep up with the number of bodies Canon and Nikon offer. For a lot of people a small well made camera like the E-P2 is perfect for other people a large DSLR is perfect. There's no one right answer it's whatever works for you personally. I like rangefinders but a lot of people don't. I don't use my M3 much anymore because I don't have a dark room since I moved, but I would love it if Pentax made an affordable camera like that. Now that I would buy.

08-06-2010, 07:12 AM	#109
dnas Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Japan (Australian expat) Posts: 179	Originally posted by stanleyk I beg to differ. The EVF on the E-P2 is fantastic in low light. I'm not trying to start an argument because I know you are wanting a FF camera and are not interested in this type of camera, but that statement is just not accurate. I manual focus exclusively with my E-P2 and have absolutely no issues with the EVF. Can't say the same for the KX. In fact I find manual focusing on the E-P2's EVF easier than the K20 with Katz Eye I just sold. I have no interest in full frame camera but I hope Pentax makes one for all the forum members who want one. There's not reason Pentax can't make both types of cameras. I'm not buying either as the Olympus is a great camera, but I can't see why they can't do both. I can't even keep up with the number of bodies Canon and Nikon offer. For a lot of people a small well made camera like the E-P2 is perfect for other people a large DSLR is perfect. There's no one right answer it's whatever works for you personally. I like rangefinders but a lot of people don't. I don't use my M3 much anymore because I don't have a dark room since I moved, but I would love it if Pentax made an affordable camera like that. Now that I would buy. I agree!!! This story about how bad the micro 4/3 viewfinder is in low light is just so much nonsense. It's true that the refresh rate is slow, but you can actually see MORE with the LCD/EVF on the G1 & G2 than you can on an OVF.

08-06-2010, 07:24 AM	#110
dnas Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Japan (Australian expat) Posts: 179	Originally posted by dnas I agree!!! This story about how bad the micro 4/3 viewfinder is in low light is just so much nonsense. It's true that the refresh rate is slow, but you can actually see MORE with the LCD/EVF on the G1 & G2 than you can on an OVF. And here's the proof.... This is a very low light situation, as you can see. If you were using an OVF, this is about what you would see, which is not much. However, notice how much brighter the image is on the LCD? This demonstrates that the EVF/LCD produces a much brighter REFERENCE for framing and focusing(for example manual focusing), than an OVF with the same lighting conditions. Now I'm NOT saying that the EVF is superior to an OVF in normal light, but it's still pretty good. But in LOW light, it produces a grainy but brighter image than an OVF. So the " LCD/EVF is bad in low light" story told by people who have never used a micro 4/3 camera in low light is total nonsense.....

08-06-2010, 08:30 AM	#112
bymy141 Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,563	Originally posted by Aristophanes But are you willing to forego the optical viewfinder? That's the crucial question. To keep the body size down the rear LCD will also need to be the main focusing system. LCD's and EVF's are currently very poor in low light situations. Yes. Nevertheless, an optical VF (can be) is better... I have an old Panasonic FZ-5 (long time predecessor of the FZ35, FZ40, FZ 100 now). It has a display and an electronic viewfinder. Works rather well for me.. The additional advantages are: size & weigth. I do travel a lot... - Bert

08-06-2010, 01:12 PM	#113
kalison Veteran Member Join Date: May 2010 Location: Utah Posts: 376	I wonder if it will look exactly like the Samsung NX10

08-06-2010, 01:34 PM	#114
emr Guest	Originally posted by kalison I wonder if it will look exactly like the Samsung NX10 I certainly hope it doesn't try to look like a DSLR like the NX does with the fake prism bump and all.

08-06-2010, 05:16 PM	#116
ewalk Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Texas Posts: 316	I would be perfectly fine with a new micro-K mount, provided you could get a robust adapter to keep using older legacy K-mount lenses. And as long as the new camera has an APS-C sized sensor

08-06-2010, 05:47 PM	#117
dnas Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Japan (Australian expat) Posts: 179	Originally posted by ewalk I would be perfectly fine with a new micro-K mount, provided you could get a robust adapter to keep using older legacy K-mount lenses. And as long as the new camera has an APS-C sized sensor They could have any micro mount including micro-K mount or even micro 4/3, but as long as there is a fully operational legacy K-mount adapter, I think most Pentax users would be pleased.

08-07-2010, 06:50 AM	#118
TaoMaas Pentaxian Join Date: May 2007 Location: Oklahoma City Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,574	I believe that a lot of new DSLR users are folks who are wanting to take better shots of their kids. Following actiion (as in a soccer game) is EXTREMELY hard with an LCD held at arm's length when zoomed in with a telephoto. I think that any EVIL camera that hopes to make significant in-roads needs to have some sort of eye-level viewfinder that doesn't involve an additional cost to the basic camera.

08-07-2010, 07:02 AM	#119
Christopher M.W.T Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 1,689	With lots of expensive r&d and miniaturization you could in theory cram the DSLR into the MX package....but I could imagine the cost of the camera been quite high.

08-07-2010, 07:42 AM	#120
dnas Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Japan (Australian expat) Posts: 179	Originally posted by TaoMaas I believe that a lot of new DSLR users are folks who are wanting to take better shots of their kids. Following actiion (as in a soccer game) is EXTREMELY hard with an LCD held at arm's length when zoomed in with a telephoto. I think that any EVIL camera that hopes to make significant in-roads needs to have some sort of eye-level viewfinder that doesn't involve an additional cost to the basic camera. Panasonic G1, GH1, G2 & G10 already have a built in eye-level viewfinder that doesn't involve an additional cost to the basic camera.