Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
01-24-2011, 06:33 PM   #31
Pentaxian
johnmflores's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Somerville, NJ
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,185
QuoteOriginally posted by Aristophanes Quote
Problems:

M43 doesn't compete with Sony's offerings of MILC at APS-C size. Long term edge to Sony.

Cannot easily leverage existing lens base; ad for Pentax, and entire new line of proprietary lenses is a non-starter (unless their version is NOT MILC, but something closer to what Fuji is doing).
Quality is not the only determinant of market success - see VHS vs. Betamax, LP vs. cassette, Netscape vs. Internet Explorer, etc... M43 already meets the needs of nearly all those tourists snapping away with their kit lenses. The M43 consortium challenge in North America is marketing.

Should Pentax enter M43, their challenge is a lens lineup as well as unique and competitive bodies. It's the same challenge that they face in the dSLR space, but without the 800# gorillas Nikon and Canon owning significant market and mindshare. M43 is still young enough - in the US at least - for Pentax to make an impact. They need to be different than existing players though, and that's what they are at least promising.

It's the same argument that drove Panasonic and Olympus to M43 in the first place. I'd argue that if they hadn't, Olympus would be out of business by now and Panasonic would be no better off than Sony in the dSLR space. Come to think of it, they'd be even worse off, due to lacking the installed base that Sony has through the Konica-Minolta acquisition.

01-24-2011, 07:50 PM   #32
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jun 2007
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 597
This news kinda put a damper on my excitement Ah well, if it's true I just might wait for the NEX 7 instead... bummer.
01-25-2011, 12:27 AM   #33
Veteran Member




Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: West Coast , Sweden
Posts: 467
What is the real advantage of joining m43? Is the R&D time much reduced? They still need to make a complete new set of lenses. Why not make them to Pentax specifications from ground up by creating a new mount? The only major thing I can think of is that third party lenses will produced for m43. A new mount needs to prove successful before other manufacturers join in.

If m43 is the largest sensor format supprted in the long term future, I'm really disappointed. However, I think that they are fed up with the "doesn't offer FF" whining and I don't think they miss that train again. Especially when sensor tech is more mature than when the k-mount aps-c strategy was set.
01-25-2011, 01:35 AM   #34
Pentaxian
thibs's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Belgium
Photos: Albums
Posts: 5,260
QuoteOriginally posted by zackspeed Quote
Is 4/3 compatible with Pentax K and SDM???
Mmmm love your tease.... and hat it at the same time

01-25-2011, 02:03 AM   #35
Veteran Member
Steelski's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Varna
Posts: 468
I hope its true

A few very simple reasons.
One..... Although M4/3 is not big, its too big. A smaller that APS-C and m4/3 will allow for truly tiny lenses. Something smaller that 110 would be ideal.
The whole point of what 110 was, is to be tiny. And interchangeable.
the system will not be loosing much in the way of high ISO.
And it only gets better in the future.
Imagine a truly pocketable system,,,,, I do not mean in a massive coat.
weather sealed, cheaper, smaller, fully featured, great SR (lighter sensor). if its half of what the K-5 sensor is then its still 8MP. cooler sensor. less complex lens design.
Imagine in 5 years time the system will have a usable ISO 25600 ISO. Be smaller than the competition.
They only need very few lenses for the system.
F2 10mm-30mm F1.2 20mm lens, F1.4 40mm, F2 85mm and a 6mm F3.5
The mount could however be usable for a larger sensor. Perhaps APS-c APS-H, or even FF.
01-25-2011, 02:13 AM   #36
Veteran Member




Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: West Coast , Sweden
Posts: 467
Steelski, your thinking is similar to mine, but I wish a separate mount for the "truly pocketable". If a FF compatible mount were used, the size would be limited by this.
And I was thinking lenses not so bright (although it would be nice). f/2 or so maximum. Would keep the lens prices low and attract many from the p&s camp.

Last edited by Supernaut; 01-25-2011 at 02:21 AM.
01-25-2011, 02:18 AM   #37
Veteran Member




Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Prague
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,198
QuoteOriginally posted by Aristophanes Quote
M43 doesn't compete with Sony's offerings of MILC at APS-C size. Long term edge to Sony.
The NEX bodies look sexy and sensors are capable, but so far the overall performace and usability is horrible. None of their 3 lenses is any good optically. They may have short term advantage as many people seeked cheap digital body to mount legasy lenses. But in long term the NEX will fail. Unless Pentax would join then and build PeNEX body wit decent controls and lenses that are worth buying...
01-25-2011, 02:36 AM   #38
Senior Member
aaronius's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 188
I think it is good if the new Pentax EVIL adopt the M4/3 format instead of coming out with a whole new mount. The M4/3 format although still young, already has a good selection of lenses eg. Panny 7-14mm, Panny 20mm F1.7.

So people who buy the Pentax EVIL will already have a selection of lenses to choose from the difference manufacturers. And people who are already invested into M4/3 might also switch over to a Pentax M4/3 body because of a better sensor?

01-25-2011, 02:52 AM   #39
Veteran Member
blende8's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Bremen, Germany
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,484
I don't like it and I don't want it, but I can understand if Pentax is joining the -FT group. Main reason is the existing lenses. There is not so much pressure to build up a complete lens line.
If they bring out a really good body with great features, better ergonomy and better menus, it may be a success.
AF is very important (Alas, a constant problem for Pentax).
Hopefully in-body stabilisation.
And it has to have a tilt display.
01-25-2011, 04:02 AM   #40
Senior Member
climit's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Kalamata
Posts: 224
Pentax is going to bring out a Full Frame EVIL.
01-25-2011, 04:03 AM   #41
Veteran Member
ghelary's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Paris, France
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 617
QuoteOriginally posted by blende8 Quote
I don't like it and I don't want it, but I can understand if Pentax is joining the -FT group. Main reason is the existing lenses. There is not so much pressure to build up a complete lens line.
If they bring out a really good body with great features, better ergonomy and better menus, it may be a success.
AF is very important (Alas, a constant problem for Pentax).
Hopefully in-body stabilisation.
And it has to have a tilt display.
About the only statement we had from Pentax representative was that if they join the EVIL crowd they would do it their own way... So I don't believe this will be happening.

My 2 cents
01-25-2011, 06:44 AM   #42
Veteran Member
froeschle's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Germany
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 552
QuoteQuote:
Is 4/3 compatible with Pentax K and SDM???
Maybe ... at least partly ...
But who really cares about SDM functionality (big lenses on a tiny body)?
Screw drive support (for e.g. the small limited lenses) would be more appropriate.

Compatibility? See ebay search for

Pentax K, micro 4/3
( Pentax PK K lens to Micro items )
results in prices starting from $17.50

Pentax DA (additional aperture control needed), micro 4/3
( Pentax DA lens to Micro items )
-> $59.90

Such adapters are also available at online shops (see e.g. rainbowimaging or fotodiox).

Furthermore, inexpensive mounting of PK lenses without AF is possible for most EVIL/MILCs.
A genuine Pentax adapter only would be special, if full PKAF2 functionality would be guaranteed.

Should Pentax introduce a new mount, which is not fully compatible with PKAF2, which nobody else supports and for which no lens line-up exists? Or better join an already existing alliance?
Would the latter not be the lesser of two EVILs? And/or realize an additional PKAF-EVIL?

Imho, the (only?) positive effect of a new mount would/will be that the "not enough existing lenses for a PKAF-FF camera" argument (which really is untrue, see e.g. https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-slr-lens-discussion/31629-da-lens-...ts-thread.html ) would finally be invalidated.



---



If they join the EVIL crowd they would do it their own way.

Unique enough?

QuoteQuote:
[...] design like NEX
... but with native PKAF2 mount

... and with m43 mount :
Attached Images
 

Last edited by froeschle; 01-25-2011 at 06:52 AM.
01-25-2011, 08:27 AM - 2 Likes   #43
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Charlotte, NC
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 886
QuoteOriginally posted by Steelski Quote
A few very simple reasons.
One..... Although M4/3 is not big, its too big. A smaller that APS-C and m4/3 will allow for truly tiny lenses. Something smaller that 110 would be ideal.
Now I totally disagree with this. I simply don't understand the point of a really small sensor + interchangeable lenses. I change lenses for two reasons; different field of view, and for different depth of field characteristics. Unlike in the days of the Auto 110 zoom lenses can now take care of the field of view changes. All they'd have to do is make a camera similar to Panasonic LX5, but with a 2/3's size sensor and a 24-105mm zoom built in. Any sensor smaller than 4/3's is simply too limiting in regards to DOF. They'd have to make faster than f/1 glass to produce decent bokeh...and even then it would still only look like something around f/4 on a full frame camera.

It seems to me there are two camps on these things; those that want a tiny camera to compliment their DSLR; and those like me that want to replace it all together. The first group would be very well served by the fixed lens camera I described above, but the second group needs a large sensor. 4/3's is not ideal, but it is acceptable, especially with a fast prime attached. But if it were up to me I'd say go full frame and put a $2000 price on it. It would be modern day Contax G2.
01-25-2011, 09:54 AM   #44
Senior Member
climit's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Kalamata
Posts: 224
QuoteOriginally posted by Art Vandelay II Quote
But if it were up to me I'd say go full frame and put a $2000 price on it. It would be modern day Contax G2.
+1

That's it.
01-25-2011, 10:15 AM   #45
Senior Member




Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 171
I would have no interest in buying such an item. If I wanted such small sensor cameras I'd stick with the compact superzoom cameras like Panasonic's TZ/ZS series.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
aps-c, camera, cameras, mm, nc-1, offer, pentax, pentax news, pentax rumors, sensor
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Canon 120mp APS-H CMOS sensor ! jogiba Non-Pentax Cameras: Canon, Nikon, etc. 16 08-22-2013 10:48 PM
Arguably the worlds best sensor, and it's way smaller than full frame. 500+ MP Clinton Photographic Technique 25 03-04-2011 09:10 PM
New Samsung APS-C sensor with 10.7 fps ogl Pentax News and Rumors 84 06-29-2010 12:52 AM
Would you buy a Pentax P&S with APS-C sensor? NorthPentax Pentax News and Rumors 20 04-01-2009 10:47 AM
My only gripe about aps-c sensor pasipasi Pentax DSLR Discussion 14 03-13-2009 06:17 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:12 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top