[eurostar]

What current Pentaxian wants the equivalent of Olympus 14-35 f2 zoom only realize that for all its size and expense, it is just a 28-70 f4 because the sensor is compromised?

That's not true. It could be for minimum depth of field, but for exposure it is "really" f/2.

I bet there are much more people that look at aperture for the shutter-values it allows, than for thin depth of field.

[gazonk]

I bet there are much more people that look at aperture for the shutter-values it allows, than for thin depth of field.

Well, when I talk to m4/3 users, some of the seem obsessed with fast lenses, probably because standard lenses really doesn't give you much in terms of smooth bokeh on m4/3.

When I used a film SLR, f/1.7 was really mostly for the times I needed faster shutter times, I preferred to use f/2.8 whenever I could - to avoid the extremely thin DOF.

[junyo]

That's not true. It could be for minimum depth of field, but for exposure it is "really" f/2.

I bet there are much more people that look at aperture for the shutter-values it allows, than for thin depth of field.

There's a reason big aperture glass is called "fast" and not "shallow".

[uccemebug]

I bet there are much more people that look at aperture for the shutter-values it allows, than for thin depth of field.

I'd be one. Actually, I've found my appreciation of the look I get from a lens has little bearing on its maximum aperture capability. I rarely shoot wide open and it's almost always while I'm in sketchy lighting.

There's a reason big aperture glass is called "fast" and not "shallow".

Nicely said.

Well, when I talk to m4/3 users, some of the seem obsessed with fast lenses, probably because standard lenses really doesn't give you much in terms of smooth bokeh on m4/3.

Gazkonk, is bokeh somehow dependent on sensor size?

[Fogel70]

That's not true. It could be for minimum depth of field, but for exposure it is "really" f/2.

I bet there are much more people that look at aperture for the shutter-values it allows, than for thin depth of field.

That is only true if you expect to use same exposure independent of sensor size. But most users know that you need to use different exposure for same images on different sensor size. F-numbers only say anything if used on same sensor size, just like ISO do.

25mm f/0.95 1/50s ISO100 on mft is equal to 50mm f/1.9 1/50s ISO400 on FF. (equal in FOV, DOF, aperture size and image noise). If anything, a bigger sensor has a speed advantage as it is easier to find lenses with bigger apertures for them.

[gazonk]

Gazkonk, is bokeh somehow dependent on sensor size?

Of course, if you have infinite DoF, how can you have any bokeh?
My iPhone gives me OOF backgrounds only when at its minimum focus distance.

[uccemebug]

Of course, if you have infinite DoF, how can you have any bokeh?
My iPhone gives me OOF backgrounds only when at its minimum focus distance.

Aha! Thank you.

[Aristophanes]

That's not true. It could be for minimum depth of field, but for exposure it is "really" f/2.

I bet there are much more people that look at aperture for the shutter-values it allows, than for thin depth of field.

A long time quest in photographic optics has been shallower DOF since that is more difficult to achieve and allows for greater creative latitude. It's as relevant as the exposure variant though individual buyers have their own preferences. The two traits cannot be isolated.

All the m43 smaller sensor does is move the goalposts further from that dynamic. Yes, exposure is relative between "fast glass" and sensor size. But why should Pentax downgrade on that range of DOF to stay the same with what it has now? It is still a net loss no matter which way you look at it, as are the m43's diminished DR and ISO low-light capabilities.

Back to the OP: it's the sensor size forcing the DOF compromise compared to the current Pentax set-up. Bigger sensors have advantages. m43 is the smallest of the DSLR range: m43, APS-C, APS-H, and FF.

It's a poor tradeoff for Pentax and anyone who currently owns Pentax glass downgrading to m43 and paying Olympus for the right to compete against them. Dumping your installed base and paying your competitor to do so is simply poor business. If Pentax does feel a licensed lens mount to facilitate mirrorless is more economical, then NX or E are far more likely, but I strongly doubt Sony would play. Samsung is a mystery. It may be as cost-effective for Pentax to go a proprietary route. It won't cost them customers like moving to m43 would.

[mattdm]

A long time quest in photographic optics has been shallower DOF since that is more difficult to achieve and allows for greater creative latitude.

It's true that many people like that, but it's more a recent fad than a "long time quest". Historically, greater depth of field has been prized.

[PentaxMom Felua]

I am so glad it isn't forbidden to use aps-c and m43 both .....
Still sometimes dreaming of a digital spotmatic ..... wished I had one.
Would it not have been wonderful to know how to prepare glass plates and make truly large format glass negatives .....
To use a tool, to delight in using it, to anticipate what it can do for you, how thát tool specifically enables you to do just thát. Yeah, thank you pentax for all you faulty k5's, I now ALSO have a real panasonic gf1. Still waiting for a healthy k5 though.
M43 smaller sensor to me means more different iq than lesser iq.

[Aristophanes]

That's not true. It could be for minimum depth of field, but for exposure it is "really" f/2.

I bet there are much more people that look at aperture for the shutter-values it allows, than for thin depth of field.

It's true that many people like that, but it's more a recent fad than a "long time quest". Historically, greater depth of field has been prized.

Granted for the Adams zone theory adherents (and anyone involved in macrphotography) this is true.

Candid, street, low-light, concert, and some portrait photography, no. There's a reason Leica's lenses are what they are on FF, and why they command a premium. And why Pentax FA Ltd's still command a premium and go like snap on this forum.

It's been more of a technical challenge including economics. Finding a lens without f/22 is easy. Finding one with f/1.2 is extremely difficult. Why the extreme market demand for the latter? It's largely illuminance, and partly that DOF headroom. Move to a smaller sensor and you irrevocably lose that latter option and the market share that goes with it. If they have the $$$ they go or have already gone FF. In any case, it's moot for Pentax...it's a downgrade for current Pentaxians to go to m43. There is no business case to do so both finaincially and technically. It's a lose/lose option.

[tram57]

What would really make it, in my opinion, would be pentax k-3 mount and design so that the sensor is in the very back of the camera body allowing use of APS-C lens without an adapter; preferrably APS-C sensor size. Then everyone with a pentax DSLR would get one when minimal size is a must.

[uccemebug]

I am so glad it isn't forbidden to use aps-c and m43 both .....

Not yet, anyway. Well said! 8^)

If they have the $$$ they go or have already gone FF. In any case, it's moot for Pentax...it's a downgrade for current Pentaxians to go to m43.

What I see among the photog's I speak to is an exhaustion with bulky/heavy and complex cameras. Some, like me, have largely returned to film. The majority are moving to smaller cameras. I've got two long-time SLR-using friends who have ditched Nikon and Olympus SLR's for their iPhones. Time and again people have told me that the µ43 cameras have made them re-evaluate what they want to accomplish and how much they're willing to carry. It's not even a question of "good enough", it's "those things do everything I want and the size and shape are exciting". Not a lot of people seem to think about how they'll preserve the use of their current lenses; they just trade in whatever they've got. I don't think anyone's treating it as logically as you're making it seem.

There is no business case to do so both financially and technically. It's a lose/lose option.

Well, all right. With the exception of the MF products, Pentax is a small player operating in fields heavily dominated by their competitors. If this were purely a logical decision, I'd have to wonder how much longer Hoya could imagine they'd continue with the imaging division.

[juu]

Not a lot of people seem to think about how they'll preserve the use of their current lenses; they just trade in whatever they've got. I don't think anyone's treating it as logically as you're making it seem.

I think there certainly are people who would say "Pentax, either you fully support my existing lenses in your upcoming EVIL or I will boycott your products from now on". However, they are a distinct minority and not all will actually follow through on this.

This forum also isn't quite representative of the average Pentax user, as there are way more advanced users, pros and serious enthusiasts here, with extensive lens collections, for whom the issue of backwards compatibility is very important.

Which means that despite some here presenting it as a matter of utmost importance, Pentax may not necessarily view it that way and might view attracting new users to the brand as more important (hence doing a less-than-APSC sensored EVIL).

[Aristophanes]

Not yet, anyway. Well said! 8^)



What I see among the photog's I speak to is an exhaustion with bulky/heavy and complex cameras.

Prove it. DSLR sales are still an increasing market in sales volumes, including m43, but DSLR's in aggregate have sold increasing #'s year YOY.

Anecdotally there is little evidence to back this up. My own local camera store disputes this. Everyone makes it sound like smaller always wins and even the historical record is against that. Olympus went all small in the 1970's did quite well, but never above #5. In fact, large-body Minolta became the star with the X700. There are boundaries for personal preferences, but as a general statement, your theory is simply not borne out by sales data. The "big" DSLR's have both gotten more compact, lighter, and have sold extremely well. The last 5 years have been a total Golden Age of the SLR despite this "size" impediment. It's a very large, competitive market and at no time has a single body size or type ever come to dominate. Ever. We'll probably see Fuji X100 knock-offs sub-$300 in 5 years sold to the same guy who owns a pellicle and an iPhone 8. The hope is Pentax can get some of those sales.

from juu, Which means that despite some here presenting it as a matter of utmost importance, Pentax may not necessarily view it that way and might view attracting new users to the brand as more important (hence doing a less-than-APSC sensored EVIL).

If Sony (Pentax's prime supplier for sensors) and Samsung have gone APS-C for mirrorless, and with Nikon and Canon also likely to go APS-C at some point for mirrorless, then Pentax will not offers its loyal, installed base a chance to jump to those brands. Pentax can get all it needs from APS-C without forcing brand loyalists into downgrading.

Keep the loyal Limited buyers or pay Olympus for its inferior sensor technology? Not a tough business decision at all.

P.S. I do not discard the notion that an EVIL small sensor system like Auto 110 is also a possibility for Pentax and/or Nikon. Neither compete well in the high-end compact market, nor superzooms, and an EVIL here may kill 2 birds with 1 stone, like Auto 100 tried to do. These could very well be the "pocket" 2nd system for many.