[wjjstu]

Ummmm.....no they don't:

Compact Camera Meter

Find a different farmer.

That was tongue in cheek. Go back a few years ago when some people expressed a desire for Pentax to pursue a smaller mirrorless system which used the same design language and principles as their K DSLR system, or Pentax value system as you call it, and a very common retort by others would be that there was no size advantage to be had so it made more sense to stick with K-mount for reasons. The K-01 was the answer they said. /rolleyes

As if someone who bought lenses like the 15/4, 21/3.2, or 43/1.9 would for reasons start buying 2.8 zoom lenses for a mirrorless camera. Bollocks. It was always a red herring tossed out here by the people who were the most resistant to change.

The issue isn't depth of field, it is performance. iso 200 on a micro four thirds camera will perform like iso 800 on a K-1 with regard to noise and dynamic range. This in spite of the fact that Olympus has over a stop difference in iso inflation, with DXO Mark measuring their stated iso of 1600 at iso 720 on the PEN F.

The point isn't that micro four thirds cameras aren't good, it is that they need faster lenses to achieve the same performance in the field. As I stated earlier, if you don't need high iso performance, high dynamic range at base iso, then these cameras will be fine, but they aren't pushing the extremes of camera performance at all. A K3 with a Sigma 18-35 f1.8 should be able to get close to a K-1 with a 24-70 f2.8 in performance, albeit with a more limited range of focal lengths.

Back in the early days I wasn't wowed by the image quality coming from the smaller micro 4/3 cameras but the moment they switched to Sony with their 16 megapixel m43 sensor was a game changer. Not good enough is it? It's significantly better than the ubiquitous 6 megapixel sensor used in DSLR's for many years (including the Pentax DSLR I started out with) and I'm more than happy with the improved results.

Could it be better? If they could squeeze maybe 1 or 2 more stops of high ISO performance out of the sensor, I'd even be 100% happy with the low light output. Is the 20 megapixel sensor m43 better in that regard? I don't know I haven't looked at it. But the point is, it's close to the point where the differences between m43 and K-1 sized sensors won't matter to most people unless you look at paper all day.

[monochrome]

That was tongue in cheek. Go back a few years ago when some people expressed a desire for Pentax to pursue a smaller mirrorless system which used the same design language and principles as their K DSLR system, or Pentax value system as you call it, and a very common retort by others would be that there was no size advantage to be had so it made more sense to stick with K-mount for reasons. The K-01 was the answer they said. /rolleyes

As if someone who bought lenses like the 15/4, 21/3.2, or 43/1.9 would for reasons start buying 2.8 zoom lenses for a mirrorless camera. Bollocks. It was always a red herring tossed out here by the people who were the most resistant to change.



Back in the early days I wasn't wowed by the image quality coming from the smaller micro 4/3 cameras but the moment they switched to Sony with their 16 megapixel m43 sensor was a game changer. Not good enough is it? It's significantly better than the ubiquitous 6 megapixel sensor used in DSLR's for many years (including the Pentax DSLR I started out with) and I'm more than happy with the improved results.

Could it be better? If they could squeeze maybe 1 or 2 more stops of high ISO performance out of the sensor, I'd even be 100% happy with the low light output. Is the 20 megapixel sensor m43 better in that regard? I don't know I haven't looked at it. But the point is, it's close to the point where the differences between m43 and K-1 sized sensors won't matter to most people unless you look at paper all day.

How does the IQ at 6400 ISO compare to a modern dSLR like KP?
.

[wjjstu]

How does the IQ at 6400 ISO compare to a modern dSLR like KP?
.

I have the first generation of the 16mp Sony m43 sensor so it's a few steps behind. However the pixel pitch of a 16mp m43 sensor and a 24mp APS-C sensor is virtually identical with a very slight edge to the APS sensor (less than ~0.0002mm/pixel if I did my math right) so all things equal technology-wise they should perform almost identically.

Really though in the market it won't matter. The resolution, the ISO performance, what have you is enough for most people. Having a marginally better ISO 10,000 on a slightly bigger sensor isn't going to move the needle much for a company in Pentax's position. The slightly larger and technically better 1/1.7" and 1/2.3" sensors in compact cameras didn't save them from the inferior 1/2.6" and 1/3.0" sensors in the high-end and not-so-high-end smartphones.

[Fcsnt54]

How does the IQ at 6400 ISO compare to a modern dSLR like KP?
.

I dont have first hand experience with the kp, but as far as the m43 depending on the situation i would have no issue with the iq using it at 6400 iso and printing it on an 8x10 photo. Maybe even a little bit larger as well.

[Ian Stuart Forsyth]

I hate to bring it up, but those aren't equivalent lenses. The equivalent lens to a 16-50 f2.8 on APS-C would be a 12-37 f2 lens on Olympus, which would basically be the same size. We see this all of the time. A 50-135 f2.8 on APS-C is actually the same size as a 70-200 f4 on full frame and will have almost exactly the same performance.

+1

The fact that you can make slow lenses small is nothing new. But I'm not sure how big a seller a constant 24-70 f5.6 lens would be on a K-1.

They are not that popular but a variable 24-70 was, something like the 24-90 F3.5-4.5 and comes in under 400 g, another nice FF lens for light travel was the 28-70 F4 that was under 300g.
Their is nothing preventing pentax from adding something along the lines above that would make FF a very nice travel kit.

[biz-engineer]

The vast majority of the photo and video world doesn't not have a home PC

PP fast becoming the "dirty phrase" of the photographic industry, something that turns even core consumers off.

It was the same when compact cameras were popular and DSLR were very expensive. I mean, 15 years ago, the digital camera market was split 80% compact with jpeg output ( without mirror... :-) ) and mostly pre-set shooting modes.
At the time, I had a Fuji 24x36 film camera with build in zoom (prints developed by lab), after that I had a Nikon Coolpix , then Canon , mostly taking photo, I did not do any PP, I printed the OOC JPEGs. At that time, DSLR was very expensive, not to mention full frame DSLR that did not even exist, then the first full frame DSLR were very expensive. So, back 15 years ago, the market size for D-SLR was worst than now, the first FF D-SLR were selling at a loss, although it was supposed to be growing losses were allowed.

The situation that you describe is correct in the way that the camera market goes back to were it was 15 years ago, but there will likely still be a market for high-end cameras (looks like Nikon making a D850 and Fuji making of GFX...), what's new however is that high end cameras are now way more complex than they used to be , and the R&D budget is, I suppose, way higher than it used to be 15 years ago, which means that once companies able to grab enough of the smaller market (market share) can make a profit. Classic management often says that a company should grab as much market share as it can when the market is growing in order to be able to survive when the market slows down, while other companies not having collected enough market share during the growing part of the cycle cannot survive when the market comes to maturity. As per classic management theory, Canon and Nikon should survive and all others should die. However, theory is theory, look at Nokia, they used to dominate the mobile phone market, not anymore, according to theory Nokia should be the only survivor. Lets replace "camera market" by "the market of image making", there could be a new trend on how to take photos, Canon could be out, and some other players could be in. Guess what Leica talking about making their own smartphone. Guess what, Ricoh Imaging making and developing the 360° system. So, it's kind of a moment of redefinition of the imaging market, and no one know what will come out of it, so there is no point to worry, the only thing we can do is to use what's available now. In the future, the tools may be different, we will buy something else then.

[Ian Stuart Forsyth]

The point isn't that micro four thirds cameras aren't good, it is that they need faster lenses to achieve the same performance in the field

If you want to do this with micro four third most of the time you wind up not saving anything in weight or cost and most of the time it winds up costing you more with the smaller format
You have to look no further than Pentax D FA 150-450mm F4.5-5.6 ED DC, if you want something similar in performance its going to cost you 90-250mm 1:2.8 at $6000 and nearly twice the weight.
Even with the pentax 70-200 F2.8 you really never save anything going with a smaller format when you compare the Olympus Zuiko Digital ED 35-100mm 1:2.0, its slower and not much cheaper or lighter
If pentax comes out with a 70-200 F4 you would be further ahead with weight and cost to the 35-100mm

[biz-engineer]

If you want to do this with micro four third most of the time you wind up not saving anything in weight or cost and most of the time it winds up costing you more with the smaller format

Yes, max system performance is limited by the lowest performance element in the chain (see, Theory Of Constraints). The analogy of mounting a faster lens on a smaller sensor would be mounting a 400 HP engine into an Austin mini without changing the tires, or mounting F1 tires onto an Austin mini eco engine, it would not be able to perform like a F1. Although, I think, mecrox refer to his own expectations in terms of image quality being that average is good enough for him, i.e taking photos for printing A4 or posting on web doesn't require any large sensor camera. The confusion comes from the fact that everyone of us have different expectations with regards to image quality, viewing and printing size. I print 50x75cm and larger. I've found that K5 does well but at the limit of the optical low pass filter stacked on its sensor, K3 prints very good at that size, and K1 is excellent and can print larger without any concern, m43 printed large does not look blotchy when walking a few meters back before looking at the prints.

[Ian Stuart Forsyth]

Yes, max system performance is limited by the lowest performance element in the chain (see, Theory Of Constraints). The analogy of mounting a faster lens on a smaller sensor would be mounting a 400 HP engine into an Austin mini without changing the tires, or mounting F1 tires onto an Austin mini eco engine, it would not be able to perform like a F1. Although, I think, mecrox refer to his own expectations in terms of image quality being that average is good enough for him, i.e taking photos for printing A4 or posting on web doesn't require any large sensor camera. The confusion comes from the fact that everyone of us have different expectations with regards to image quality, viewing and printing size. I print 50x75cm and larger. I've found that K5 does well but at the limit of the optical low pass filter stacked on its sensor, K3 prints very good at that size, and K1 is excellent and can print larger without any concern, m43 printed large does not look blotchy when walking a few meters back before looking at the prints.

Even when a K3 and K1 images are scaled to a 6mp you can see a difference and this does not include the use of lifting any shadows.

Viewing Images based on 2005 camera resolutions and able see a difference is more than enough for going with FF 36mp body

[mecrox]

If you want to do this with micro four third most of the time you wind up not saving anything in weight or cost and most of the time it winds up costing you more with the smaller format
You have to look no further than Pentax D FA 150-450mm F4.5-5.6 ED DC, if you want something similar in performance its going to cost you 90-250mm 1:2.8 at $6000 and nearly twice the weight.
Even with the pentax 70-200 F2.8 you really never save anything going with a smaller format when you compare the Olympus Zuiko Digital ED 35-100mm 1:2.0, its slower and not much cheaper or lighter
If pentax comes out with a 70-200 F4 you would be further ahead with weight and cost to the 35-100mm

So the answer is to stop worrying about equivalence and check out what is available. Does it pass one's personal test, both lens and sensor performance? If so, no problems.

Panasonic 35-100mm f2.8 vs Pentax D FA* 70-200mm f2.8 = 357g vs 2030g
Panasonic 100-400mm f4-6.7 vs Pentax D FA 150-450mm f4,5-5.6 = 985g vs 2325g
Olympus 300mm f4 vs Canon 600mm f4 = 1270g vs 3920g

That's what's available to use, today. The same calculations apply to any other format. Of course the smaller format isn't going to do some things as well as the larger one. That is a given. But does the smaller one cut it for whatever one's own interests are? In many cases, a large saving in cash won't go unappreciated either at long focal lengths. The Olympus 300mm costs just over 2000 notes. The Canon 600mm is about 10,000 notes.

In answer to a couple of other posts, my guess is that today camera-makers may well be asking themselves of many models not how the result looks in print but along the lines of "Will this look fantastic on a 4K monitor or TV and is the video great?" If the answer is yes, job done. For the overwhelming majority of images, that's already a higher bar than they'll ever be subjected to.

[Rondec]

So the answer is to stop worrying about equivalence and check out what is available. Does it pass one's personal test, both lens and sensor performance? If so, no problems.

Panasonic 35-100mm f2.8 vs Pentax D FA* 70-200mm f2.8 = 357g vs 2030g
Panasonic 100-400mm f4-6.7 vs Pentax D FA 150-450mm f4,5-5.6 = 985g vs 2325g
Olympus 300mm f4 vs Canon 600mm f4 = 1270g vs 3920g

That's what's available to use, today. The same calculations apply to any other format. Of course the smaller format isn't going to do some things as well as the larger one. That is a given. But does the smaller one cut it for whatever one's own interests are? In many cases, a large saving in cash won't go unappreciated either at long focal lengths. The Olympus 300mm costs just over 2000 notes. The Canon 600mm is about 10,000 notes.

In answer to a couple of other posts, my guess is that today camera-makers may well be asking themselves of many models not how the result looks in print but along the lines of "Will this look fantastic on a 4K monitor or TV and is the video great?" If the answer is yes, job done. For the overwhelming majority of images, that's already a higher bar than they'll ever be subjected to.

The Pentax Q 06 zoom is 90 gram and is a 80-200 f2.8 lens (I guess). Clearly it is the winner here.

I understand the argument of "good enough." It can be used for any camera from a smart phone to micro four thirds to entry level full frame. If your current gear is good enough then you don't need new gear. It is clear that the ILC market as a whole is slowing down. None of the companies are selling at the rates they used to. I still don't know what will sell cameras going forwards. You say small size. Aristophanes says killer video. But I don't think we know, nor do the folks with the major brands. What they are doing is just trying to release the best cameras they can for a given price and hope they stick in the market place.

[Kunzite]

That it the kind of comparisons you'll see in Olympus' marketing materials... technically correct (from their point of view), but also wrong. Since it's basically "let's make weight the most important criteria, then start looking at heavy FF lenses".
You don't do that in practice. In the first place, you have more freedom of acting, because every FF DSLR line is part of a system comprised of both FF and APS-C, with lenses of all categories. You have a choice - and you don't choose FF because it's lighter and smaller.
So if you need a narrow angle of view but can't carry much, APS-C with its higher pixel densities and a shorter, lighter lens is a better choice. The "equivalent" for an Olympus 300mm f/4 is... a 300mm f/4, more or less.
And that's if weight is the most important criteria; it often isn't.

[mecrox]

The Pentax Q 06 zoom is 90 gram and is a 80-200 f2.8 lens (I guess). Clearly it is the winner here.

I understand the argument of "good enough." It can be used for any camera from a smart phone to micro four thirds to entry level full frame. If your current gear is good enough then you don't need new gear. It is clear that the ILC market as a whole is slowing down. None of the companies are selling at the rates they used to. I still don't know what will sell cameras going forwards. You say small size. Aristophanes says killer video. But I don't think we know, nor do the folks with the major brands. What they are doing is just trying to release the best cameras they can for a given price and hope they stick in the market place.

No one knows what will sell going forwards. All I'm saying is that if something meets someone's personal goals, then it will sell to them. For all we know, in ten years there may be a market for 2-3 million FF cameras from a couple of outfits and that's all - the rest is smartphones. I'd have thought Aristophanes' key point isn't video particularly, but the implications of taking out "workflow" and PP because for the vast majority of people everything has moved to mobile devices. Output has to be good enough to move straight from camera to 4K or more K, or at least on a monitor, with minimum additional input required unless special effects - colour grading, grunge/retro, lens effects, etc - are wanted. This also means better comms, of course.

In answer to another post, I don't care for marketing materials and very rarely look at them ... because they are marketing materials.

In my view, Ricoh are in a stronger position than many think because they already have a big in with the Theta, if they want to stay in consumer-type devices at retail. Now Ricoh have established a presence it would be easier for them to expand it with other new devices. They've obviously got some clever folks on board who are thinking carefully about a world post conventional box-type cameras. Pentax is the legacy brand, I'd imagine, so they won't be the vehicle for any very advanced new fireworks.

[Rondec]

With wi fi connections, getting your image from your camera to your smartphone is very easy. Snapseed is a very cheap editor and Instagram has a multitude of filters that you can drop on to impress your friends (I guess). Most cameras (at least on the low end) have built in filters you can drop on your images too.

The problem I have with all of that is that no matter how good your jpeg engine is, you can typically get an extra 20 to 25 percent boost in image quality by post processing. Selective sharpening, dodging and burning, bumping shadows -- these are the sorts of things that aren't easily done on the tiny screen on the back of a camera. I understand that no one wants to waste time in post processing, but that doesn't mean there isn't a benefit to it and probably will continue to be in the future.

[mecrox]

With wi fi connections, getting your image from your camera to your smartphone is very easy. Snapseed is a very cheap editor and Instagram has a multitude of filters that you can drop on to impress your friends (I guess). Most cameras (at least on the low end) have built in filters you can drop on your images too.

The problem I have with all of that is that no matter how good your jpeg engine is, you can typically get an extra 20 to 25 percent boost in image quality by post processing. Selective sharpening, dodging and burning, bumping shadows -- these are the sorts of things that aren't easily done on the tiny screen on the back of a camera. I understand that no one wants to waste time in post processing, but that doesn't mean there isn't a benefit to it and probably will continue to be in the future.

I agree, and in any case I like PP and enjoy doing it. But few do, I'd imagine. The answer may lie in sophisticated automatic PP behind the scenes using scene recognition perhaps allied to the user's own preferences. The user never needs to know it's been done or in what way. They are just presented with the final jpeg image. This is sort of what already happens but only very crudely with camera jpeg output anyway. Adobe might not be happy about it if LR is rendered old hat but I guess Apple, Google, Samsung and co are calling the shots anyway. Those who want full control will no doubt still have it, but probably both the camera and the software will cost more than they do today, not to mention the PC equipment.