[gazonk]

If they can price it around $250 and offer a line of weird, cool optics and clever scene modes, it could be a hit, especially in Japan.

Hmm, you may be right, especially if the optics include at least one very fast lens and a couple of fun special lenses, for instance a fish-eye and a dual lens for 3D.

[froeschle]

Mirrorless Rumors

At Photokina 2010 Zeiss announced that they would release CP+ lenses with m43 mount. And today Zeiss officially announced that they will join the m43 group.

[juu]

Given how Cosina, SK and Zeiss have recently joined m43, I hope it might mean they have lowered the entry criteria / licensing costs. Which would increase the chance that Pentax could/would join.

[Aristophanes]

I'm sorry, but this statement is absurd.

BEFORE micro 4/3, both Panasonic and Olympus had DSLR cameras with 4/3 sensors. The 4/3 sensors have the same size (4/3" image circle) as micro 4/3, and they also have the 4:3 ratio. (4/3 doesn't mean the ratio, it means the image circle size of 4/3") The Panasonic GH1 & GH2 have a sensor with ratio of 16:9 still within the 4/3" image circle.

Since both Panasonic and Olympus already had DSLR cameras with 4/3 sensors, saying that they went to micro 4/3 to reduce costs, in manufacturing 4/3 sensors, is absurd. So the advent of micro 4/3 was NOT to "reduce costs through sensor manufacture at a 4:3 ratio", because they already had a 4/3 sensors in cameras!!!!

In 2008, Panasonic and Olympus had 3.8% of the DSLR market share. In 2010 between them, they had 15% of the interchangeable lens camera market in Japan, while Sony had 8.2%. In 2010, 4/3 DSLRs made up less than 0.1% of this market segment.

It's clear that they didn't invent micro 4/3 to reduce sensor costs, but to produce a new product that had some chance of capturing a bigger market share. And they were successful!!!!!!!

Oly was doing very poorly with the 4/3 sensor size. It's IQ was not keeping up despite excellent Zuiko lenses. The whole point of smaller sensors was cost efficiency back when new market penetration relied on keeping costs down.

They've tried to leverage the sunk costs of M4/3 into a mirrorless system partnering with Panny on the fly. That's all. The sensor is still at a disadvantage for IQ and its cost advantage is almost non-existent.

In the short term being first to market with mirrorless has worked. In the long run they will be locked into a system with an inferior sensor compared to rivals who may come in with larger sensor and legitimately state "these,make better photos". Which horse do you want to bet on? Hint: This is not a sprint.

And the whole concept that mirrorless is cheaper does not seem to be deterring the "traditional" market from continuing to make entry-level mirror systems and selling well at price points lower than M4/3. Today Canon introduced yet another entry-level DSLR and one 2 steps above. Where's their mirrorless? The Canikon silence and patience is very interesting. They are not stupid companies and they have clearly sussed the mirrorless market and see issues with the PanOly approach. Also, the tepid reaction to Sony's NEX shows problems with entirely new lens mounts and aftermarket sales. PanOly may be a minor marketing success, but one with short legs.

The key for Pentax and Canikon may be to find a way to leverage existing users' lens arrays through backward compatibility. I expect these systems will NOT be "entry-level" at first because they will first go or higher-end users already vested in their respective systems. To do that they need sensors that match the IQ of the exiting lens investments by their user base. That's more likely to be APS-C than anything else, especially M4/3 because that means paying PanOly for rights as M4/3 is a closed system.

Also, M4/3 struggles with wider angle for many valid reasons stated elsewhere. The M4/3 sensors rate poorly at higher ISO's and in lower light. The body is cool, but the IQ is lacking. If you're in a marathon, you need lungs and legs for endurance, not printing. We shall see.

P.S. One very intersesting item is the buzz around Fuji's new beast for its fixed lens, retro feel, mirrrorless innovation, APS-C sensor, and, most importantly, its price point. People can blather on about market share, but margins are where it's at.

[ghelary]

Oly was doing very poorly with the 4/3 sensor size. It's IQ was not keeping up despite excellent Zuiko lenses. The whole point of smaller sensors was cost efficiency back when new market penetration relied on keeping costs down.

They've tried to leverage the sunk costs of M4/3 into a mirrorless system partnering with Panny on the fly. That's all. The sensor is still at a disadvantage for IQ and its cost advantage is almost non-existent.

In the short term being first to market with mirrorless has worked. In the long run they will be locked into a system with an inferior sensor compared to rivals who may come in with larger sensor and legitimately state "these,make better photos". Which horse do you want to bet on? Hint: This is not a sprint.

And the whole concept that mirrorless is cheaper does not seem to be deterring the "traditional" market from continuing to make entry-level mirror systems and selling well at price points lower than M4/3. Today Canon introduced yet another entry-level DSLR and one 2 steps above. Where's their mirrorless? The Canikon silence and patience is very interesting. They are not stupid companies and they have clearly sussed the mirrorless market and see issues with the PanOly approach. Also, the tepid reaction to Sony's NEX shows problems with entirely new lens mounts and aftermarket sales. PanOly may be a minor marketing success, but one with short legs.

The key for Pentax and Canikon may be to find a way to leverage existing users' lens arrays through backward compatibility. I expect these systems will NOT be "entry-level" at first because they will first go or higher-end users already vested in their respective systems. To do that they need sensors that match the IQ of the exiting lens investments by their user base. That's more likely to be APS-C than anything else, especially M4/3 because that means paying PanOly for rights as M4/3 is a closed system.

Also, M4/3 struggles with wider angle for many valid reasons stated elsewhere. The M4/3 sensors rate poorly at higher ISO's and in lower light. The body is cool, but the IQ is lacking. If you're in a marathon, you need lungs and legs for endurance, not printing. We shall see.

P.S. One very intersesting item is the buzz around Fuji's new beast for its fixed lens, retro feel, mirrrorless innovation, APS-C sensor, and, most importantly, its price point. People can blather on about market share, but margins are where it's at.

I agree mostly with what you say, apart from th backward compatibility thing. M4/3 and generally miroless cameras are for people moving up from compact and afraid by the bulk of SLR. On low end, what is important is to have a compact kit lens and a super zoom.

The Fuji and the Leica X1 are different beast for lower volumes of sales. Even if they are very successfull in their own niche, the average soccer mom wouldn't be happy with a Leica X1 (or sigma DP2)

[Art Vandelay II]

Oly was doing very poorly with the 4/3 sensor size. It's IQ was not keeping up despite excellent Zuiko lenses. The whole point of smaller sensors was cost efficiency back when new market penetration relied on keeping costs down.

They've tried to leverage the sunk costs of M4/3 into a mirrorless system partnering with Panny on the fly. That's all. The sensor is still at a disadvantage for IQ and its cost advantage is almost non-existent.

Also, M4/3 struggles with wider angle for many valid reasons stated elsewhere. The M4/3 sensors rate poorly at higher ISO's and in lower light. The body is cool, but the IQ is lacking

I put the blame on Panasonic's sensor development for this. The pixel density is very close between 16mp APS-C and 12mp 4/3's. It stands to reason that if Sony were making 4/3's sensors m4/3's would have fairly clean ISO3200. So while I'm a bit let down by 4/3's IQ at the moment, I know some day the IQ will be better. Besides, I look at as a system, and the image sensor is just one part of the system. As of now m4/3's has two companies making bodies, and five making lenses (Zeiss just announced they are joining m4/3's today). Even if APS-C systems currently have higher IQ, it's going to be tough to choose one over m4/3's.

That said, I'm still hoping for a full frame or APS-H mirrorless from Pentax. While APS-C and 4/3's are close enough not to make me care much one way or the other, the IQ and DOF control 24x36 gives you would be a big enough step up to make me buy into a single manufacturer system. I want a $2000 camera that can challenge the Leica M9...but I'm not going to hold my breath on that one.

[johnmflores]

The M4/3 sensors rate poorly at higher ISO's and in lower light.

ISO1600









In just over a month of ownership, the Panasonic GH2 has been the equal of my K20d in all things but AF, where it kicks the K20d to the curb. Oh, and video too.









So if an M43 sensor can match a well-regarded APS-C sensor from just a couple of years ago, what will prevent an M43 sensor in 2013 from matching the performance of the K-5?

Yes, APS-C will always be a step ahead of M43. Likewise FF vs. APS-C and MF vs. FF. The physics doesn't go away. But the technology does improve, and someday soon M43 will be more than good enough for the majority of casual and amateur photographers. Based on my experience with the GH2, it already it.

[juu]

Oly was doing very poorly with the 4/3 sensor size. It's IQ was not keeping up despite excellent Zuiko lenses. The whole point of smaller sensors was cost efficiency back when new market penetration relied on keeping costs down.

I don't think it's the sensor size which is the primary problem. GH1 and GH2 have decent sensors. It's just that Oly is still using what is essentially the EP1 sensor for their m43 cameras, and it is getting quite old.

When the next generation of 4/3 sensors come out it could be that they are quite competitive with APSC (although not fully due to smaller size).

The sensor is still at a disadvantage for IQ and its cost advantage is almost non-existent.

It could be that there is a cost advantage, only Pana/Oly have decided that since theirs is the only complete mirrorless system around right now they can afford to charge the same as Sony.

In the short term being first to market with mirrorless has worked. In the long run they will be locked into a system with an inferior sensor compared to rivals who may come in with larger sensor and legitimately state "these,make better photos". Which horse do you want to bet on? Hint: This is not a sprint.

There are advantages to smaller sensors, such as smaller lenses and camera bodies. That advantage is critical for mirrorless, for which compactness is one of the main selling factors.

Today Canon introduced yet another entry-level DSLR and one 2 steps above. Where's their mirrorless? The Canikon silence and patience is very interesting. They are not stupid companies and they have clearly sussed the mirrorless market and see issues with the PanOly approach.

Canon's mirrorless is probably being frantically designed while they try to come up with something good, and unique, while being last to the market.

I'd argue that they have been quite stupid and have basically ignored mirrorless for too long, betting on their established DSLR lines and trying not to cannibalize those. They might produce a low-end mirrorless product in order to have them "complement", not replace, their DSLRs - to their own detriment.

Also, the tepid reaction to Sony's NEX shows problems with entirely new lens mounts and aftermarket sales.

Not so tepid, at least in Japan.

PanOly may be a minor marketing success, but one with short legs.

The legs only appear to be getting stronger so far. If you look at Amazon (US and UK) top 100 lenses list then m43 lenses are the only non-Canikon ones near the top. And more lens manufacturers are getting onboard. If anything, m43 seems to be gathering momentum.

The key for Pentax and Canikon may be to find a way to leverage existing users' lens arrays through backward compatibility. I expect these systems will NOT be "entry-level" at first because they will first go or higher-end users already vested in their respective systems. To do that they need sensors that match the IQ of the exiting lens investments by their user base.

I think some of the three will add mirrorless as the low-end option and with a smaller sensor than APSC.

Also, M4/3 struggles with wider angle for many valid reasons stated elsewhere.

That's pure FUD. My m.Zuiko 9-18mm works fine. How does it struggle?

[Art Vandelay II]

But the technology does improve, and someday soon M43 will be more than good enough for the majority of casual and amateur photographers. Based on my experience with the GH2, it already it.

I agree. Those of us that say m4/3's IQ isn't good enough are in a small minority. I'd estimate for 95% of people m4/3's is more than good enough as is. I never had any serious IQ issues with my E-P1 two years ago, and I'm sure the GH2 is much better. I'm already recommending the E-PL2 to family and friends when they ask me which camera they should buy. I know they will be pleased with it.

[juu]

Exactly. I'm sure K-5 has better IQ than my GF1.

However, given the choice between carrying my 520g GF1+9-18 kit vs. a 1180g K5+12-24 kit up the mountain I prefer the GF1 (it costs half as much too and I can use a lighter tripod). I don't expect everyone else feel the same way, especially not here though .

[marcinski]

Thom Hogan says on his website that Pentax mirrorles will have 2.7 crop sensor. Sounds better than 5.6 but who knows if this is his speculation, or he actually knows something.

[blende8]

I have heard the rumor that Nikon's mirrorless has 2.5x crop factor.

[bobmaxja]

Could it be that Nikon and Pentax are getting the same sensor? Will not be the first time

[ogl]

I have heard the rumor that Nikon's mirrorless has 2.5x crop factor.

12.80 * 9.60 mm - 1" = crop 2.7.
~ 14.05 * 10.40 mm - crop 2.5

[Supernaut]

Thom Hogan says on his website that Pentax mirrorles will have 2.7 crop sensor. Sounds better than 5.6 but who knows if this is his speculation, or he actually knows something.

I have heard the rumor that Nikon's mirrorless has 2.5x crop factor.

Sounds like a nice crop factor for making something really compact.

If the sensors are from Sony, it could easily challenge the m43 sensors although smaller in size.