[RonHendriks1966]

maybe 110 lenses fit?

[Unsinkable II]

T
I just keep looking at the glass that is available for mirror-less and I am not currently interested.

Couldn't agree more. Anything at F2.0 is silly money, and provides the same DOF as well-priced APS-C F2.8 lenses.

[Pentaxor]

Anything at F2.0 is silly money, and provides the same DOF as well-priced APS-C F2.8 lenses.

really? :ugh:

[gazonk]

Couldn't agree more. Anything at F2.0 is silly money, and provides the same DOF as well-priced APS-C F2.8 lenses.

Almost, but not quite. To get the same FOV and DoF as my 35mm 2.8 ltd on an Olympus E-PL1, I would need a 27mm 2.2. The other way round: The 17mm f/2.8 Olympus pancake would correspond to a 22mm f/3.6 (so the 21mm Ltd is slightly better at f/3.2). On the other hand, the Panasonic 20mm/1.7 is in the ballpark of a 24-28mm f/2 - just what we're missing for Pentax!

[eddie1960]

Almost, but not quite. To get the same FOV and DoF as my 35mm 2.8 ltd on an Olympus E-PL1, I would need a 27mm 2.2. The other way round: The 17mm f/2.8 Olympus pancake would correspond to a 22mm f/3.6 (so the 21mm Ltd is slightly better at f/3.2). On the other hand, the Panasonic 20mm/1.7 is in the ballpark of a 24-28mm f/2 - just what we're missing for Pentax!

yep but to get the DOF and FOV of a f50 1.4 on the m4/3 i'd need a 35 0.95 or so, which would be enormous or insanely costly

[ogl]

Almost, but not quite. To get the same FOV and DoF as my 35mm 2.8 ltd on an Olympus E-PL1, I would need a 27mm 2.2. The other way round: The 17mm f/2.8 Olympus pancake would correspond to a 22mm f/3.6 (so the 21mm Ltd is slightly better at f/3.2). On the other hand, the Panasonic 20mm/1.7 is in the ballpark of a 24-28mm f/2 - just what we're missing for Pentax!

20/f1.7 is 27/f2.3 at APS-C
17/f2.8 is 22/3.7 at APS-C

to get the same FOV and DoF as 35/2.8 you need 26/2.1 on m4/3

[johnmflores]

Do people think that the target market for this small sensor Pentax EVIL know or care about DOF equivalence?

It's natural to look at all camera rumors and think about whether or not we will like the camera, but the simple fact is that not every camera is designed for us.

[Pentaxor]

Do people think that the target market for this small sensor Pentax EVIL know or care about DOF equivalence?

It's natural to look at all camera rumors and think about whether or not we will like the camera, but the simple fact is that not every camera is designed for us.

depends. if it's a small sensor, it would somehow a determinant that it would mostly target the common consumer in general, thereby they won't mind about sensor size or crop factor. although having affordable good lenses on them might be a tougher task.

[gazonk]

20/f1.7 is 27/f2.3 at APS-C
17/f2.8 is 22/3.7 at APS-C

to get the same FOV and DoF as 35/2.8 you need 26/2.1 on m4/3

Hmm, I used 1.53 crop (which the K20d and K-7 had), but I know see that the K-5 actually has 1.51 crop, so your numbers may be closer.

[RonHendriks1966]

Do people think that the target market for this small sensor Pentax EVIL know or care about DOF equivalence?

I don't think so. I was standing next to a guy at a concert who made photo's with his Samsung EX1, great little camera with a fantastic lens, and he said that since he bought it he never used his Nikon D300s anymore. The Samsung produced nice quality pictures and instead of his Nikon they where allways SHARP and not to worry about DOF or where to focus. Thats the kind of people who will buy a good system that promisses them to produce sharp images.

[Aristophanes]

Do people think that the target market for this small sensor Pentax EVIL know or care about DOF equivalence?

Some will, otherwise this thread would have far fewer posts!

Awesome website BTW.

[Stefan Carey]

DOF is very important to me. After seeing Samsung EX1, and realising that in macro it does have lovely DOF/bokeh I took the plunge, and decided the compromise was worth it, especially as one can now post process DOF (well perhaps not as well, but you can).

The benefit is an extremely sharp lens, no lenses to decide on and work-bag portability. And four dials, a marvellous design. And a myriad of shots I would not have taken otherwise. Sorry Pentax, your EVIL is a little too slow, but I will be keeping a close eye on what you release, as I have a great deal of faith in the Pentax product for usability and value for money. The itch always returns to scratch!

Do people think that the target market for this small sensor Pentax EVIL know or care about DOF equivalence?

It's natural to look at all camera rumors and think about whether or not we will like the camera, but the simple fact is that not every camera is designed for us.

[falconeye]

yep but to get the DOF and FOV of a f50 1.4 on the m4/3 i'd need a 35 0.95 or so, which would be enormous or insanely costly

Don't throw stones if in a glass house

yep but to get the DOF and FOV of a f50 1.4 on the APS-C i'd need a 31 0.95 or so, which would be enormous or insanely costly.

Some of us are old enough to remember that the good old 50/1.4 was intended for FF rather than APS-C, you know


(So, the m4/3 equivalent of a 50 "normal" actually is a 25mm f/0.7 lens)

[eddie1960]

Im more than old enough falconeye
And id be happy with an updated 31ltd that was f1.2

[Aristophanes]

The main problem of new player is to offer something more special than competitors.
m4/3 and NX has very good line of lenses. To catch up "the train of another mirrorless system" is very hard for any new player. The train goes, no stops...

Nonsense. Tell that to Hyundai. Or Apple with iPods (remember the Rio?). In 1970 everyone thought Olympus was crazy for bringing on the OM series of SLR's going up against Nikon, Canon, Pentax, etc.