[rvannatta]

No.
K D Torigoe and K Tatamiya of Pentax Imaging Business Corp said in an interview in March this year, published in D C Watch Impress Magazine, that the marketing department wanted them to make small bodies so they did that with the *ist D, DS and DL's - then they were very surprised about the bodies not selling well. Because of this, they no longer believes in what the marketing department tells and goes for bigger bodies with more features instead - which has proven to be a success. The large K100D and K10D have been much bigger successes than the small *ist's.

Bigger camera bodies is ok with me. I have very large hands and trying to hold the little ones
is a pain. There is also a matter of balance. If the lens is heavy proportionally to the camera body the combination is difficult to use. For example the DA* 16-50 is a relatively heavy lens and if you used it on a body as light as same the Pentax ME or MX you would have a lot of photos of your toes.

As another example, a lens that I have owned for years but not used that much has come off the shelf with the K10.--That's the 80-320 FA zoom Judging by the prices on EBAY it is not a loved or respected lens, but with the K10 it balances well, and with SR provides fairly decent results hand held providing a light, cheap, hand held extreme telephoto. zoom. I simply didn't like the lens with the light film bodies.

[thibs]

No.
K D Torigoe and K Tatamiya of Pentax Imaging Business Corp said in an interview in March this year, published in D C Watch Impress Magazine, that the marketing department wanted them to make small bodies so they did that with the *ist D, DS and DL's - then they were very surprised about the bodies not selling well. Because of this, they no longer believes in what the marketing department tells and goes for bigger bodies with more features instead - which has proven to be a success. The large K100D and K10D have been much bigger successes than the small *ist's.

I do not think Pentax should make small cameras.
I think Pentax should make ONE small camera. I don't care much if SR has to be thrown out if it needs to be.

[CSpronken]

Well if Pentax repeats their considerable success of 30 years ago camera bodies will get
smaller.

I don't really want a smaller camera than a K100D (have average sized hands). I think it is pretty compact already, make it much smaller and many people will get problems with the grip size. I held the K10D in the shop and even that one didn't feel overly large, I think for the average person the K100D and K10D are sized perfectly.

That's not to say that there would be no demand for an even smaller body, just that I wouldn't make it the main entry level camera. A bit like Olympus does it, you have the E-510 entry level, but you also have the e-410 for people who have small hands and/or just want a very compact camera. I'm not sure if there is a sound business case for Pentax to go down a similar path, I guess they would have other investment priorities at the moment, so for now I somewhat doubt it.

[ZaphodB]

I don't really want a smaller camera than a K100D (have average sized hands). I think it is pretty compact already, make it much smaller and many people will get problems with the grip size. I held the K10D in the shop and even that one didn't feel overly large, I think for the average person the K100D and K10D are sized perfectly.

That's not to say that there would be no demand for an even smaller body, just that I wouldn't make it the main entry level camera. A bit like Olympus does it, you have the E-510 entry level, but you also have the e-410 for people who have small hands and/or just want a very compact camera. I'm not sure if there is a sound business case for Pentax to go down a similar path, I guess they would have other investment priorities at the moment, so for now I somewhat doubt it.

I doubt it too but like Thibs I would like to see it happen in the future. It should be an option, rather than the only entry-level choice... in fact ideally its quality would be above entry-level; a serious dSLR which just happens to be small, rather like a modern MX.

I think I have average sized hands, and I find the K100d a little too compact, at least in terms of height... can't get all my fingers on the grip. The 35mm *ist I definitely find too small for extended use. I think the problem is in the combination of the small body, and the inclusion of a grip... it doesn't provide enough space for my fingers, but still tries to force them into a certain position anyway... with such a small camera I'd be happier without the grip, like on Pentax's older cameras.

Ideally I'd love to have a main body, along the lines of the K10d, and possibly beefed up even more... and a compact model, not only short but with a small profile, like Olympus did with the E-410... which could either be used with pancake lenses as the perfect compact camera... or would serve equally well as a light and small backup camera which would take up less space in the bag. To my mind this would be a great flexible combination. But like you said, I don't expect it to happen any time soon; just wishful thinking.

---

Last edited by ZaphodB; 11-28-2007 at 08:02 AM.

[benjikan]

He had an NDA malfunction.

I'll say.....

[TaoMaas]

Ideally I'd love to have a main body, along the lines of the K10d, and possibly beefed up even more... and a compact model, not only short but with a small profile, like Olympus did with the E-410... which could either be used with pancake lenses as the perfect compact camera... or would serve equally well as a light and small backup camera which would take up less space in the bag.

I agree with you. I think the pancake Limiteds are just begging for an equally pocketable DSLR body. Personally, I'd like that body to be shaped more like an ME than an MX, though.

[ZaphodB]

I agree with you. I think the pancake Limiteds are just begging for an equally pocketable DSLR body. Personally, I'd like that body to be shaped more like an ME than an MX, though.

Me too actually... I was just thinking of an example of a small body. I wouldn't want as many angles and protrusions as an MX... something really designed to be carried under a jacket or in a large pocket... basically like the Olympus E410 but with an even smaller profile (of course to some extent this is limited by lens mount spacing)... I do think it's odd that Olympus have a great compact body but no pancake lenses, and Pentax have great pancake lenses but no (really) compact body... maybe we can persuade them to join forces and take over the world

[Arpe]

Lots of people seem to like the big bodies, but it's one of the reasons (amongst others of course) that I was never really keen to move onto a 100 or 10 camera, they are bigger than my istDs, which is a terrific size (and it's size is also one of the reasons I bought it over the 300D and D70). So I like small cameras! There, I said it. And I'm not a small person, bigger than average I would say.

[creampuff]

Me too actually... I was just thinking of an example of a small body. I wouldn't want as many angles and protrusions as an MX... something really designed to be carried under a jacket or in a large pocket... basically like the Olympus E410 but with an even smaller profile (of course to some extent this is limited by lens mount spacing)... I do think it's odd that Olympus have a great compact body but no pancake lenses, and Pentax have great pancake lenses but no (really) compact body... maybe we can persuade them to join forces and take over the world

Join forces with Olympus??? Are you serious? The 4/3 system is on the verge of an evolutionary digital dead end. They may make small DSLRs, but who wants a crappy small tunnel like viewfinder and a sensor with pretty limited dynamic range and noisy at high ISOs at that. Plus their telecentric lenses don't come cheap and small in size. Moreover with the small sensor, limited DOF shots are pretty much useless.

limited DOF shots are pretty much useless.

Have you ever tried the camera to afirm that? I think that they have lenses long and fast enough to limit the DOF

[Duplo]

Lots of people seem to like the big bodies, but it's one of the reasons (amongst others of course) that I was never really keen to move onto a 100 or 10 camera, they are bigger than my istDs, which is a terrific size (and it's size is also one of the reasons I bought it over the 300D and D70). So I like small cameras! There, I said it. And I'm not a small person, bigger than average I would say.

I cn definitely understan what you are saying...

Then again I am not a big person,, but prefer cameras as big as they can get (well almost)... Because I handle them wearing gloves 8 month a year and believe me, when working in very cold weather wiht gloves on, you do not want compact, you want something you can grab and with resonably large buttons and dials...

[mattdm]

Join forces with Olympus??? Are you serious? The 4/3 system is on the verge of an evolutionary digital dead end. They may make small DSLRs, but who wants a crappy small tunnel like viewfinder and a sensor with pretty limited dynamic range and noisy at high ISOs at that. Plus their telecentric lenses don't come cheap and small in size. Moreover with the small sensor, limited DOF shots are pretty much useless.

Their lenses tend to be a stop faster than the typical competition, so that renders the DOF and high ISO about equal. (The faster lens allows lower ISO, and combined with the increased DOF from the small sensor, seems to be about a wash.) As you noted, you do pay for it, though.

As for the viewfinder, the E-3 has 100% frame coverage and 1.15× magnification. Compare to the K10D's 95% coverage and 0.95× magnification, corrected for the sensor size, and that works out to be approximately the same size as the K10D's viewfinder.

I don't think it's a dead end, either. If everyone else goes all full-frame, that leaves 4/3s with a lock on the (relatively) small-light category. (I think Pentax will stay 1.5× for the immediate future, though.)

[thibs]

Their lenses tend to be a stop faster than the typical competition, so that renders the DOF and high ISO about equal. (The faster lens allows lower ISO, and combined with the increased DOF from the small sensor, seems to be about a wash.) As you noted, you do pay for it, though.

If we limit to rough calculations, the 1 stop advantage of Olympus just come about the level of APS-C sensor competitors.
To have a DOF equal to a f/2.8 lens on a FF sensor Pentax should bring f/2 lenses to market. Olympus should bring f/1.4 lenses to market.

As for viewfinder, comparing the E3 to a K10D is not exactly fair, those are not from the same generation (E3 is 1 year later, comparing against K20D would be fairer) neither are they from the same market segment (but here there's no "K2D" to compare with E3).

[creampuff]

Have you ever tried the camera to afirm that? I think that they have lenses long and fast enough to limit the DOF

Yes I have tried out a few of the Olympus DSLRs and the increased DOF is definitely noticeable, even when compared to an APS-C camera. This is well and good for landscapes and similar images where you want foreground and background to be sharp but for portraits, it just doesn't work for me, even factoring the 2x crop factor. Oly may have long and fast lenses but they certainly don't come cheap.

Yes I have tried out a few of the Olympus DSLRs and the increased DOF is definitely noticeable, even when compared to an APS-C camera. This is well and good for landscapes and similar images where you want foreground and background to be sharp but for portraits, it just doesn't work for me, even factoring the 2x crop factor. Oly may have long and fast lenses but they certainly don't come cheap.

They are molto expensive but you can achieve limited DOF. It is a pity that the lenses were that expensive cos they are damn good.