[Pentaxor]

In any case, I find it somewhat remarkable that there are people here who dismiss m43 because of the slightly smaller sensor, but are happy with the Pentax Q despite the many times smaller sensor.

I don't like the Q.

[Aristophanes]

exactly how many Panny-Leica primes are made for the m4/3?

what superiority complex do you mean? the present sensor used on the m4/3 are still inferior to what is offered on the APS-C. as to how would the m4/3 reach that equality is yet to be seen.

the DA40 is still considerably smaller than the present pancake that m4/3 currently offers and the upcoming Samsung primes are significantly smaller and more compact than their Pentax DA LTD counterparts. and I have yet to see an m4/3 lens that is way much and considerably smaller than those APS-C lens line-up. so I dunno what big advantage you are referring regarding lens size on an specific sensor. besides, the larger sensor MILC that Sony and Samsung offer are as compact or even a bit more smaller than the current m4/3. we could even add into the size discussion the 3rd party Ricoh and fixed lens Sigmas if you like.

although I like the idea of having an enthusiast compact system with great IQ, I wouldn't want one to the extent that it is already ridiculously small that ergonomics and functionality suffers. I would hate to use a pretty clogged miniature size buttons on a camera. spacing is still necessary for convenience, ease of use and accidental pressing.

I find anything smaller than the GF3 to be of no real sense nor value to me except for cosmetic purpose and a different target market. in fact, the GF3 for me personally is already a bit small for my liking and I don't think that it is already too compact if they make something smaller. I mean how much weight and size does one really find convenient and useful for not just candid work?

Totally agree Pentaxor.

When Canon, Nikon, and Pentax get into mirrorless (and they will), and Samsung and Sony work out their kinks, APS-C systems will clean M43's clock despite the early head start. Why?

1) On the sales floor: this one (APS-C) has a bigger engine. The counter for M43 has always been "good enough for real world shooting" but my background says that will hold almost no water for new entrants who buy on spec, not pixel peeping. The latter is done AFTER a purchase. This killed 43. M43 is not immune to that dynamic.

2) Cost: M43 may be more expensive due to sensor supply issues, despite being smaller and supposedly taking less production resources. When Canikon get in, watch out! They can post loss leaders that Olympus cannot. Odds are Canikon will bracket M43 price points and bleed M43 on the sensor size issue. Lens development will catch up, as it always has in this industry, so that lead, too, will evaporate.

3) Marketing: M43 will only be one of many offering near identical systems. Any lead they have now will vanish in a single quarter, likely the last Q of 2011. They will never get it back.

I give M43 a 3 year run more at best before the APS-C economy-of-scale output from 7 mirrorless vendors (Canon, Nikon, Pentax, Samsung, Sony, Fuji, and Leica) grinds it down and Olympus and Panasonic need to re-engineer. The M43 market objective right now is to leverage their base for as long a run as possible. Growing their base past 2011 will be extremely difficult based on what the 7 APS-C suppliers will offer.

I think the Q has an under-sized, over-priced sensor. Other than that, the concept is OK for a glorified P&S. If it had a G12 sensor and was MSRP US$649, with an "all-in" kit at US$999 it would fly off the shelves. As it is........meh!

[eddie1960]

Totally agree Pentaxor.

When Canon, Nikon, and Pentax get into mirrorless (and they will), and Samsung and Sony work out their kinks, APS-C systems will clean M43's clock despite the early head start. Why?

1) On the sales floor: this one (APS-C) has a bigger engine. The counter for M43 has always been "good enough for real world shooting" but my background says that will hold almost no water for new entrants who buy on spec, not pixel peeping. The latter is done AFTER a purchase. This killed 43. M43 is not immune to that dynamic.

2) Cost: M43 may be more expensive due to sensor supply issues, despite being smaller and supposedly taking less production resources. When Canikon get in, watch out! They can post loss leaders that Olympus cannot. Odds are Canikon will bracket M43 price points and bleed M43 on the sensor size issue. Lens development will catch up, as it always has in this industry, so that lead, too, will evaporate.

3) Marketing: M43 will only be one of many offering near identical systems. Any lead they have now will vanish in a single quarter, likely the last Q of 2011. They will never get it back.

I give M43 a 3 year run more at best before the APS-C economy-of-scale output from 7 mirrorless vendors (Canon, Nikon, Pentax, Samsung, Sony, Fuji, and Leica) grinds it down and Olympus and Panasonic need to re-engineer. The M43 market objective right now is to leverage their base for as long a run as possible. Growing their base past 2011 will be extremely difficult based on what the 7 APS-C suppliers will offer.

I think the Q has an under-sized, over-priced sensor. Other than that, the concept is OK for a glorified P&S. If it had a G12 sensor and was MSRP US$649, with an "all-in" kit at US$999 it would fly off the shelves. As it is........meh!

this is pretty much bang on (the date may vary by up to a year but other than that)
As for Q price, I'm pretty certain the street price in NA will be much lower by the launch in the fall. If they come in at retail with the stupid $800 price, what is a different and cool little product will tank miserably.
If it's the right price and the apsc brackets the other end it's a smart idea

[Art Vandelay II]

exactly how many Panny-Leica primes are made for the m4/3?

Two. But as I said, software correction is not a concern for me; at all.

what superiority complex do you mean?

It's not hard to find APS-C users of all brands, not just Pentax, quick to dismiss m4/3's due to the "small" sensor. This forum alone is rampant with that opinion. It's as if people aren't aware there is always a bigger fish.

the DA40 is still considerably smaller than the present pancake that m4/3 currently offers and the upcoming Samsung primes are significantly smaller and more compact than their Pentax DA LTD counterparts. and I have yet to see an m4/3 lens that is way much and considerably smaller than those APS-C lens line-up. so I dunno what big advantage you are referring regarding lens size on an specific sensor. besides, the larger sensor MILC that Sony and Samsung offer are as compact or even a bit more smaller than the current m4/3.

True, some pancake primes are close. Although the DA40 obviously has a pretty modest max aperture, it is also missing SDM; and is still about the same size as the Panasonic 20mm f/1.7. Plus the Panasonic 14mm f/2.5 is indeed smaller than the DA40.



However, the problem is not primes, it's zooms. When someone creates an APS-C ultrawide zoom that is even close to the size of that Olympus 9-18mm then I will reconsider my stance, but as of now there is nothing in the APS-C world that is. I'm sure Pentax will doa better job of size control then Sony has done, but that 18-200mm NEX lens is totally absurd. Samsung's solution to make small zooms is to sacrifice range. Their 20-50mm is indeed compact, but with such a narrow range it's of limited use as far as I'm concerned. I think a person would be better off just buying their 30mm f/2 and using their legs to "zoom".

I find anything smaller than the GF3 to be of no real sense nor value to me except for cosmetic purpose and a different target market.

I would never use a GF3/Pen Mini as my main camera, but I do think it would be nice to have something that size as a back up body to use for activities like hiking.

[Pentaxor]

It's 90g vs. the 55g of the 14mm f/2.5.

don't worry, I haven't heard of anybody that broke their finger lifting 90g.
besides, you should compare lenses with the same focal length lens equivalent which is the 20/1.7 that weighs around the same with the 40mm. even that, 90-100g is still extremely light. so there's no significant weight issue. in fact 250g is still lightweight.

I cannot be bothered to measure size, but weight wise: Olympus 9-18mm (155g vs. ~450g for most APS-C counterparts), 14-42mm (150g vs. ~220g) and 40-150mm (200g vs. ~300g), Panasonic 14mm (55g vs. ~200g (?)), 20mm (100g vs. ~200g).

you should had looked at the Samsung NX and Sony NEX lenses as well if weight was your concern. but in case, the weight that you presented are of no real concern except something at 450g. but as anyone would know, generally anything that is heavy must have some great deal of IQ performance expected from it to perform. like I'm not sure how light an m4/3 macro lens would be or an ultra-fast m4/3 lens would weight. the 20/1.7 is still practically f2.8 and the 25/1.4 is f2. making those lenses a stop faster would most likely double the weight as well. the 25/1.4 is not really as fast as a 50/1.4 and the 50mm is slightly lighter. imagine making a 25/1.2 m4/3 lens or anything faster and you expect it to be heavier like the 25/0.95, not to mention that it is bigger and not compact in size.

[eddie1960]

However, the problem is not primes, it's zooms. When someone creates an APS-C ultrawide zoom that is even close to the size of that Olympus 9-18mm then I will reconsider my stance, but as of now there is nothing in the APS-C world that is. I'm sure Pentax will doa better job of size control then Sony has done, but that 18-200mm NEX lens is totally absurd. Samsung's solution to make small zooms is to sacrifice range. Their 20-50mm is indeed compact, but with such a narrow range it's of limited use as far as I'm concerned. I think a person would be better off just buying their 30mm f/2 and using their legs to "zoom".

the problem is zooms getting smaller sacrifices iq. I agree the nex zooms are ridiculous (the nex itself is a hopeless camera for me, tried it and hated it- the oly and pana less so) the q is kind of fun and at the right price i can see it doing ok, i do however think it's aimed at an asian market and that is where the success will be. It's where Pentax has it's most success already.
Personally I will wait and see what the rumoured apsc milc brings. I think they may be forced to make it a K mount product just to reconcile lens production lines but you never know. I do think they will make it a pretty high end unit with WR and metal body etc as the Q seems the entry lower end consumer target
On the other thread someone mentioned the Q may well be targeted as a Flagship of a PS line revamp with lower end and fixed lens variants coming. If they market right putting it in the hands of trendsetters then it will build a whole line of sales
Still think it's overpriced. If you could get it with all the lenses for a grand it would be an interesting toy. If It has decent Images good high iso and decent video i would buy it with the kit lens and the fisheye and maybe the toy wide just for live music videos when i'm shooting bands so my DSLR can be dedicated to the stills (if the price was right otherwise there are better video options in small packages at $800)

[johnmflores]

Totally agree Pentaxor.

When Canon, Nikon, and Pentax get into mirrorless (and they will), and Samsung and Sony work out their kinks, APS-C systems will clean M43's clock despite the early head start. Why?

1) On the sales floor: this one (APS-C) has a bigger engine. The counter for M43 has always been "good enough for real world shooting" but my background says that will hold almost no water for new entrants who buy on spec, not pixel peeping. The latter is done AFTER a purchase. This killed 43. M43 is not immune to that dynamic.

2) Cost: M43 may be more expensive due to sensor supply issues, despite being smaller and supposedly taking less production resources. When Canikon get in, watch out! They can post loss leaders that Olympus cannot. Odds are Canikon will bracket M43 price points and bleed M43 on the sensor size issue. Lens development will catch up, as it always has in this industry, so that lead, too, will evaporate.

3) Marketing: M43 will only be one of many offering near identical systems. Any lead they have now will vanish in a single quarter, likely the last Q of 2011. They will never get it back.

I give M43 a 3 year run more at best before the APS-C economy-of-scale output from 7 mirrorless vendors (Canon, Nikon, Pentax, Samsung, Sony, Fuji, and Leica) grinds it down and Olympus and Panasonic need to re-engineer. The M43 market objective right now is to leverage their base for as long a run as possible. Growing their base past 2011 will be extremely difficult based on what the 7 APS-C suppliers will offer.

I think the Q has an under-sized, over-priced sensor. Other than that, the concept is OK for a glorified P&S. If it had a G12 sensor and was MSRP US$649, with an "all-in" kit at US$999 it would fly off the shelves. As it is........meh!

IIRC, a while back you predicted that full-frame cameras were going to drop in price and put the top end of the APS-C market (K-5, 7D, D300, etc...) at risk. Do you still believe that will happen?

In other words, what's your vision of the new world order? Mirrorless APS-C at the entry, dSLR APS-C in the mid-range, and dSLR FF at the top?

IMO, we've reached an age where IQ is a non-issue for the entry and mid-range. Sure, APS-C is marginally better than M43, but as others have suggested, the sensor in the GH2 (and now G3) is more than adequate for entry and mid-range users - the folks that are buying cameras to capture family moments and keep the kit lens on 90% of the time.

Up until recently, M43's challenge has been AF and low-light at a pricepoint that soccer moms and little league dads can afford. The GH2 had both (nearly) but was above entry-level. The G3, however, is right in the thick of the entry-level, with a form factor that's hard to ignore. There's still a huge perception gap though. The default path is still P&S -> dSLR and it's going to take a lot of marketing to change that.

Mirrorless APS-C, on the other hand, struggles with lens size, as evidenced by the Sony NEX series. Will the entry and mid-level be satisfied with the reduction in body size alone while the lenses remain the size of Big Gulps? Only time will tell.

The only thing I will predict is that it will be a slugfest between Sony and Panasonic. Neither will give up that easily with so much market on the table. Panasonic's rolled out 4 cameras in the last 9 months and shows no sign of letting up. Expect the same from Sony (hopefully). It's a great time to buy!

And Samsung? Remember, they are bigger than Sony even. If they ever focus their attention on this market, they will make an impact.

Pity Nikon and Canon though. Each year they wait on the sidelines is another year and two generations of cameras where Sony and Panasonic are improving CDAF, EVF, in-camera PP, Peaking, and other decidedly digital innovations that are firmly in their wheelhouse. It will be most interesting to see if and how Canikon catch up...

[Pentaxor]

True, some pancake primes are close. Although the DA40 obviously has a pretty modest max aperture, it is also missing SDM; and is still about the same size as the Panasonic 20mm f/1.7. Plus the Panasonic 14mm f/2.5 is indeed smaller than the DA40.

dimension wise (LxW) the DA40 and 14/2.5 are pretty much equal. although we are not comparing the same focal length equivalence then. it is true that it is missing SDM which is a make or break for Pentax. and I don't have any faith in SDM. the Samsung however has a pretty good and fast/silent AF system.

However, the problem is not primes, it's zooms. When someone creates an APS-C ultrawide zoom that is even close to the size of that Olympus 9-18mm then I will reconsider my stance, but as of now there is nothing in the APS-C world that is. I'm sure Pentax will doa better job of size control then Sony has done, but that 18-200mm NEX lens is totally absurd. Samsung's solution to make small zooms is to sacrifice range. Their 20-50mm is indeed compact, but with such a narrow range it's of limited use as far as I'm concerned. I think a person would be better off just buying their 30mm f/2 and using their legs to "zoom".

compact zooms will always be a challenge whether it is on APS-C or m4/3. so the debate here is pretty much pointless. same with long telephoto primes. it would be up to the lens manufacturer to produce such lenses and does not limit size with regards to sensor size. either way, there are compromises involved or some way around it.

I would never use a GF3/Pen Mini as my main camera, but I do think it would be nice to have something that size as a back up body to use for activities like hiking.

it would be nice for hiking, but personally I'm pretty much content with the size of the current MILCs. I once owned a Canon S 1400IS camera. really sexy and extremely light and compact P&S camera. I hated it for being too small and IQ is :ugh:. I got it as a gift and gave it away after the initial use.

[Pentaxor]

On the other thread someone mentioned the Q may well be targeted as a Flagship of a PS line revamp with lower end and fixed lens variants coming. If they market right putting it in the hands of trendsetters then it will build a whole line of sales

this is my feeling as well. but for a P&S alternative, the price doesn't make any sense.

[eddie1960]

this is my feeling as well. but for a P&S alternative, the price doesn't make any sense.

I agree the price is the big issue. the lens prices are actually cheap form what i've seen (the fish-eye is what $130) it's the base kit that's too high
But announced prices rarely last, particularly if they are too high
i still would bet on $6-650 by the time it hits north america in the fall. or next january it's be $400 and clearing out scrapped as a failure.
Unique items can command some premium though so you never know
and if it does well in Asia (where it is most likely targeted) then it may just get pulled from the NA market. Lots of really cool electronics over the years were big there and had little success here (remember Mini Disc)

[Aristophanes]

IIRC, a while back you predicted that full-frame cameras were going to drop in price and put the top end of the APS-C market (K-5, 7D, D300, etc...) at risk. Do you still believe that will happen?

In other words, what's your vision of the new world order? Mirrorless APS-C at the entry, dSLR APS-C in the mid-range, and dSLR FF at the top?

IMO, we've reached an age where IQ is a non-issue for the entry and mid-range.

First, IQ always matters. Always.

If it did not 110 and APS film would have flourished. They died long before 135 and 120.

Second, eventually, years to come (5-8), sensor production costs will drop enough that competing on size will be a factor more than now. I think Sony was telegraphing the future with the NEX mount being FF. At some point pouring capital into making FF fabs more effective will be the only way to compete.

Third, mirrorless is NOT low-end now as the sunk costs of DSLR allows for some real bottom level productions, and not everyone wants a smaller camera. Mirrorless APS-C will, for awhile, be entry to mid-level verging strongly towards the latter, especially for after-market lens sales, but will struggle at the low end. In fact, M43 does NOT want it to go low-end to much. They cannot produce sensors to commodity price like the Nikon D3100. Canon still manufactures the T1i in the same time that Panasonic and Olympus have gone through 3 generations of M43. Which company is getting the most bang out of their production lines, locking them in to long-term brand power and buying habits?

Fourth, all that will matter for M43 is that on the sales floor (or in the forums) their engine is smaller than APS-C and their marketing message will get lost in the din of 9 companies fighting over the same turf. I do not believe that M43's smaller engine has built up anywhere near a big enough lead.

Rolling out lots of models in a short timeframe is NOT necessarily a sign of profits and productivity.

I agree that Samsung is a company to watch. They are free from the shackles of the Japanese market, including the Yen.

[Pentaxor]

Lots of really cool electronics over the years were big there and had little success here (remember Mini Disc)

Man, those things never stood a chance. they practically never even existed from the start. having said that, the potential for going smaller is still on. tv's getting thinner, players getting smaller, cpu processors as as small as a penny or even smaller as I would think. not to mention these things are cheaper as well. I just don't understand why cameras aren't, considering the cost of electronics nowadays. really a puzzle or just a case of monopoly or cartel.

[eddie1960]

Man, those things never stood a chance. they practically never even existed from the start. having said that, the potential for going smaller is still on. tv's getting thinner, players getting smaller, cpu processors as as small as a penny or even smaller as I would think. not to mention these things are cheaper as well. I just don't understand why cameras aren't, considering the cost of electronics nowadays. really a puzzle or just a case of monopoly or cartel.

Funnily enough Mini disc did Really Really well in Japan, 4 + years after it's death here there were still new models coming available there. I was in the CES business at the time and used to get all sorts of Japan info from reps and the buying department and the japanese market is truly a very different market
things we scratch are heads over seem like a natural there
I'm betting this was the thinking that came up with Q

EDIT; As for cameras not getting cheaper like tvs and computer for example there are some limiting factors. # 1 has to be the cost of manufacturing the high end glass needed, another is the need to differentiate market segments by price. third will be the size of the market. Flat panel tvs got as cheap as they did thanks to a change in the broadcast standards that drove sales and moved them to a commodity product faster. that and it was a sexy idea we've all been dreaming of for 60 years thanks to Sci Fi or the Jetsons :
D Cameras are not a central to the public's life as Television, and for many the cell phone camera is good enough (as was the 126 camera way back or even the plastic 110 cameras as horrible as they were)
I think the technical aspect of sensor yield has been an issue as well. the focus has been on the MP race and Hi Iso performance not raising yields to lower sensor pricing
there also is no big Chinese move into higher end cameras driving the market down like happened with flat panels and computers

[Art Vandelay II]

When Canon, Nikon, and Pentax get into mirrorless (and they will), and Samsung and Sony work out their kinks, APS-C systems will clean M43's clock despite the early head start. Why?

If the rumors are to be believed neither Canon or Nikon will be using APS-C. Nikon is rumored to use a 2.5x crop factor, and Canon a 2x (but in a 2x3 ratio). Leica is also working on a mirrorless camera, I'm sure it will at last use APS-C, but knowing them it could be full frame.

I'm glad there are options, I especially hope the new Pentax APS-C cameras is built as well as K-5, with a 16mm/2.8, 30mm/2, and a 55mm/2 all available at launch (pipe dream I know). Such as system might be enough to make me switch off of m4/3's, but there is no guarantee....the new Olympus primes do sound awfully good.

As far as worrying about the past repeating itself. I wouldn't be so sure about that. m4/3's is already doing better than 4/3's ever did. Plus, m4/3's doesn't suffer from the 2 biggest handicaps that prevented people like myself from ever considering a 4/3's DSLR. I was never interested in 4/3's because 4 years ago I didn't think the IQ had passed that magical "good enough" threshold yet. Their cameras were barely usable at ISO800 (not that my K10D was much better). Secondly, aside from the E-3 4/3's cameras had awful optical view finders. Obviously that is no longer an issue with EVF's.

So, it wasn't a matter of me buying APS-C just because it was bigger. At the time bigger was indeed better. However now the difference is so close it isn't worth worrying about.

[rparmar]

Putting an FA77 on M43 is like stuffing a Porsche 911 engine in a Toyota Prius. Go right ahead. Make a cable TV show out of it.

Ah, the belaboured car analogy. You know, the one that never works.

Is it OK if instead of a TV show I make really excellent photos instead? Because I've got that covered using my Limiteds on an MFT body.

Obviously you have never used MFT and are unaware of the excellent images it produces. Or the fact that fast primes are in demand. Or the fact that a re-engineered Limited might actually be smaller than the already small units for APS-C. (Just like the Pentax-L 43mm Special was completely rethought and rebuilt.) Or the fact that Leica and Voigtlander already "waste their time" making excellent lenses for the platform.

Yep, Pentax could have been wasting their time with Olympus, Panasonic, Leica and Voigtlander for company. Thank goodness they didn't do that! Instead... they made a toy camera for rich fetishists!

Generally I like your posts Aristophanes. But you have never been so wrong about anything.