Benjikan 'predicted' these :
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/general-photography-industry/196133-my-li...rediction.html
Sounds nice enough to me as a K5 replacement.
Fuji Xpro1 like ISO performance and sharper w/o an AA filter.
The Sony 24mp aps-c sensor has not been showing good high iso performance on the D3200, A77, NEX7.
Perhaps a new sensor algorithm and no aa-flter can 'buy' back one or more stops of this high iso performance.
Originally posted by MCR I have K-5 with all FA Limited. Great gears, I know... but since I bought Fuji X100 (4 months ago) I never use Pentax. Why? Because X100 is smaller, lighter and X100 is always with me. I try Pentax Q (is not a substitue of DSLR), K01 (I have to have a EVF or OVF). Few weeks ago I try OM-D and in my opinion it is a great solution: size similar to X100 but with many lens. If Pentax don't show something like OM-D (what about great GXR with K-mount?) I sell all of my pentax gear and I change to Olympus. I don't want to FF (I use 5DMkII for 5-6 months too) and for me the most important things are: size, weight and few good, small lens. Why not X-Pro1 with M-mount? Because Fuji hasn't Focus Peaking. That's why.
C'mon Pentax, give me small version of my ME-F...
Coming from a m4/3 user (G3), I'd suggest you weigh your needs.
Yes, the m4/3s seems to be at this fine balance between performance, size, weight and even provides some amount of DOF control.
I sometimes wonder if its good enough from me to just sell off my Pentax stuff.
But then, when I do stuff that needs the best IQ (eg. for large printing) like landscapes where there is lots of pulling/pushing of the pixels, the o/p from the K5 still shines way above m4/3.
Then there is also the versatility of the K5 advanced amateur body for fast operation, low chroma noise, DR and high iso performance in all situations (be it in dimly lit temples; a dark alley; night markets, etc).
Conclusion from me, just keep both, and keep the m4/3 relatively cheap, light, but good (eg. 14/2.5; 20/1.7; 45/1.8 and no more).
Originally posted by starbase218 None of the current Pentax mirrorless models make sense to me. The K-01 has no viewfinder and could just as easily contain a mirror, which would allow it to be more advanced (phase-detect AF for example). It's just full not good enough for what it is, IMHO. The Q is better as a concept, and could be fun, but still... interchangeable lenses on such a small sensor make little sense to me.
I think I'd much rather buy a Lumix GX1 than any of these. I think the mirrorless ship has sailed and Pentax is not aboard.
The K-01 does what it does. Taking good quality photos in a pns like way of use. Don't forget that its a ver1/.0 product for Pentax with lots of styling queues from Mark Newton. A future product will certainly be an improvement, just like what other makers have achieved. (eg. EP1, EPL1 AF was horrible; initial NEX3 had lousy interface and poorer sensor o/p and no peaking, etc)
Q is not just a concept, and interchangeable lenses on a small sensor can be a good thing indeed.
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-q/194467-pentax-q-real-world-user-review.html Originally posted by philbaum
There's been too many design mistakes and pratfalls with the APS sized mirrorless to consider that ship sailed, IMO. Fuji's XPro1 is priced as high as the rumour'ed D600 FF and lacks good focusing systems, e.g. no focus peaking and AF is slow i think. if one believes everything they read on dpreview
Sony's Nex cameras in general lack a UI that is easy to understand. The UI in their DSLRs and RX100 is reportedly much better. Also, the Nex7 has color casts with some wide angle lenses - not sure exactly what that is all about.
In short, i think Pentax still has a chance to board the APS mirrorless ship prior to the next sailing.
I don't think the Q mount and K01 are going to be around long term and I worry about Pentax's viability with just the K mount. It doesn't seem very amenable to fast focusing design techniques. Here's a chance for Pentax to design a new mount with the kind of features in current demand. A diversified range of products is the best way to ensure survival over the next 10 years.
Post script: Mirrorless is here to stay as a category. Some companies are already working on phase focusing with hardware embedded in the sensor.
Agree to this.
The 'lucky' part is that no-one seems to have the 'killer' MILC to date. The OMD is perhaps the closest to one though.
But for APS-C MILC, no-one has it all right.
Xpro1 : quirky interface and awful AF and lag; expensive
NEX : short of a good range of v. good fast primes; flange distance seems to be giving issues for native WA lenses on higher MP sensors; Big lens/small body form factor
Samsung : perhaps the best aps-c MILC offering if not for its lack of marketing and not that awe inspiring sensor (and perhaps a few other quirks : v. large RAW file; slow write times; so-so AF).
Nikon : A half hearted attempt; no fast lenses.
Canon : Another half hearted attempt, though they may turn this around with an advanced model above the EOS-M
Pentax still has a chance to make it to the boat for APS-C MILC offerings.
Last edited by pinholecam; 09-04-2012 at 10:21 PM.