[MSM]

Yes, but the difference is that the Sony DSLRs doesn't have the word "CyberShot" printed on the pop-up flash. Bravia TVs also have the name Sony as a main name on the front. If you look on a Panasonic camera it's almost as if Lumix is the main brand and if you look closer you might find the "sub-brand" Panasonic somewhere on the camera.

As if they were ashamed of the name or something...

/Tommy

I think Panasonic's original intent was to link themselves as close to Leica as possible. Panasonic was known for toasters, ect. Leica known for great German cameras. Notice that all Lumix cameras have a nice scripted letter 'L' usually on the front bottom of the p&s. To me it looks amazingly similar to the 'L' in Leitz (ie Leica). I also doubt there is a coincidence that Lumix and Leica both have 5 letters in their name. Also, I have heard it said that in marketing a brand there is something about keeping the name to 5 letters and trying to incorporate the letter 'X'. Famous examples include: Rolex, Timex, and what most Pentax users need about now is Xanax (yes the double X.) Note the XANAX tradename takes it to a whole nother level - it is a true palindrome!

Looking at Panasonic's rise in P&S I doubt anyone is ashamed.

[Jonson PL]

Samsung aims for two-digit market shares in their key markets, like mobiles or photo (10%). With the declining sector of P&S, Samsung must succeed in the higher than P&S markets. In that respect, the cooperation with Pentax was nothing but a complete failure for Samsung (1% DSLR market share).

Samsung is making great money everytime a Pentax is sold with Samsung sensor inside. Besides they own the market in their own country, a country of 45 million people. The deal was with Pentax, to split up markets, as to not compete directly, and put negative pressure.

But I do agree that with the business model Samsung has of conquering markets, it is a good partner. They have done well in the extremely competitive digicam market.

That doesn't make any sense. You said the tele-factor advantage was what made you prefer APS-C. I said a FF sensor with the same pixel density as an APS-C sensor makes it possible to keep the tele-factor advantage that you like. Then you said that you only want a FF sensor that would make you lose the tele-factor advantage. Maybe something is getting lost in translation.

I have a preference for APS-C, as I generally like a lighter weight package, since it can be used for mountain ascents, or others times where I do not want the bulk of FF.
What would lean me towards FF, is the remarkable high Iso of e.g. Nikon 700. When e.g. on safari at night, it could really come in handy. Hence a Eos 5DmarkII or A900 doesn’t really interest me, as I hardly get what I would like from a FF; the great high Iso.

35mm was perfect for SLR. When it comes to DSLR, the APS-C pretty much captured the market, and has provided very good IQ. Plus, as wildlife photography interests me, a 200 mm lens, acts like a 300 mm.
So with same pixel density, and the ability to crop a FF image; then FF is too expensive and too bulky. Here I will remain with crop sensor.
Should the FF cam be with more reasonable MP, then I will be tempted; as it brings great high Iso. Still it will not change APS-C crop as being my preferred choice, since it gives great weight vs, IQ ratio.
FF would be a second choice for me, a back-up for special application.


I do not want to hijack the thread, or change direction. People are allowed to want FF. But my opinion is that the telefactor cannot truly be neutralized; without extreme cost.

A 200 mm lens on FF, when taking photos of animals in a distance, present the animals in just a small percentage of the ViewFinder. You’re way more up close and personal with a 200 mm on APS-C DSLR. The Field of View is narrower, and it is easier to see when would be the right moment to grab the shots.
Though I later can crop the FF to fit APS-C, I cannot see with same certainty when exactly to hit the trigger on FF. Though the Viewfinder is bigger, the animal is just a small dot in the bigger Viewfinder, whereas a 200 on crop, though not as good Viewfinder, I can make it more fill the frame and know when to squeeze the trigger and use the precious RAW buffer.

Besides, e.g. the Eos 5D only has 0.71x magnification, and 96% frame coverage.
Whereas the D2Xs has Viewfinder magnification of 0.86x, and 100 % frame coverage.
And the D300 has 0.94x Viewfinder magnification, and 100% frame coverage.
(And the Eos 1D Mark II is 0.72x magnification, and 100 % frame coverage.)

The new Eos 5D Mark II has magnification of 0.71x, and 98% frame coverage.

An increase in VF magnification on FF and that it is some mm bigger, does not help the more limited Field of View reproduction.

(This is not against FF per se, as I would also welcome the wide-angle ability; but FF will not replace APS-C for me. But would just be an add-on instead. And primarily for low light action, where the higher Iso would come in handy).

[BrendanPK]

To me it makes sense with Samsung entering 24x36 and micro APS-C, leaving Pentax with APS-C and medium format digital. By concentrating on different markets, they an position there cameras to different consumers and avoid competiting with the same customers with essentially the same products.

Things like imaging processors, autofocus and metering systems, live-view technology, flash systems etc. could still be co-developed and used by the two partners.

Yes, Samsung has stated all along they want to be different from pentax and produce some unique products. So far thinks like their Wi-Fi grip havent gone to production (PMA 08 show-off) but they also just reorganized the camera/imaging division as a "seperate but equal" company
Samsung also wants to go after Sony like a hungry cat after a juicy mouse, their goal of 20% market share has been postponed but I do not doubt that they will start pushing for it by the end of this year (recession should be less by than hopefully)
As for some systems, they will probaly continue to work with Pentax to Improve (FPS Shutter, Processor and AF accuracy/speed)
Body design IMHO doesnt need to really change, they may "fuse" the grip onto a FF "pro" model to make it look like the big-boys of C+N, or add a few features like Sony's. Maybe add a a 3"LCD and a ISO/WB pannel like Nikon has on the back of the pro bodies too, but besides this, the Design for a while I think is set with only a few tweeks needed to fit various componets.
I see Pentax starting to really Nitch the entry market with some "new" ideas like the colored cameras, I hope they come back out with Silver Lenses too for the High-end stuff too. They will stick mostly to their current 3.5 (entry models with color is a .5) line up improving the mid and top end to be competive with say the D90 and D300 range, and allowing a 645D to be their "pro solution" for now (If they come out with one)

[deejjjaaaa]

Tamron, Sigma? I think they should get a license for K mount and start making bodies on there on.

Sigma has FF lenses for K mount right now... with or without license... so why do they need another one for bodies ?

[Tommy]

Looking at Panasonic's rise in P&S I doubt anyone is ashamed.

True, but they would have sold more toasters if the cameras were called "Panasonic" instead of "Lumix"

/Tommy

[awo425]

Sigma has FF lenses for K mount right now... with or without license... so why do they need another one for bodies ?

Maybe because KAF mount is protected by patent?

[thibs]

Maybe because KAF mount is protected by patent?

Yes, indeed.

K and KA varieties are not anymore. Newer versions are covered by patents.

[ewalk]

In Korean forum I see that K30D
will have 3" LCD, VF 100% х 1.00, 1080 video, CMOS sensor.
I think better LV.

I doubt 17 MP APS-C.

What about new AF system ?

Interesting. That VF sounds great...

[deejjjaaaa]

Yes, indeed.

K and KA varieties are not anymore. Newer versions are covered by patents.

Sigma does AF lenses for Pentax... so K(af) mount is not an issue for them...

[whatever7]

Sigma does AF lenses for Pentax... so K(af) mount is not an issue for them...

Sigma pay for the licensing fee. No everybody can make AF lens for modern mounts. Zeiss/Cosina would have made AF lens for their new ZE lenses if Canon let them.

Plus even one does come out, it would sell much worst than the Pentax version anyway. See the different version of the Tamron 18-250mm under different skins.

[glanglois]

They kind of can't buy Olympus, it's a privately owned company... buying Pentax while it's in the midst of a major reorganization following its purchase by Hoya also seems to not make much sense.

Mergers and acquisitions are funny things, often hard to figure out, even from inside the companies.

First, almost every company is for sale under certain conditions. Even a 50-year-old, family-owned company will be for sale when the principal gets bad medical news and the next generation is not, at heart, all that passionate about running the company. Or isn't all that good at it. Or someone just gets tired of the stress and wants to paint in Tahiti.

Second, spin-offs are pretty common after an acquisition. Let's say Hoya were most interested in the other Pentax imaging lines. They may be pleased to spin the camera business off, in whole or part (joint venture), to Samsung with a set of deals in place to cross-license technology, supply parts, transfer trade and service marks, etc. From here, that makes a lot of sense.

And I entirely agree that a combination of some sort, even in product planning, could produce some fine results.

Isn't this a fun game to watch ??

Sigma pay for the licensing fee. No everybody can make AF lens for modern mounts. Zeiss/Cosina would have made AF lens for their new ZE lenses if Canon let them.

Plus even one does come out, it would sell much worst than the Pentax version anyway. See the different version of the Tamron 18-250mm under different skins.

Sigma DOESN'T pay to license stuff in general unlike Tamron or Tokina that do pay royalties to mount owners. S(t)igma reverse engineers the mounts and not only (flash protocols too for example).

Radu

* I don't know/care about Canon mount but what I said apply to K mount stuff from Sigma.

[thibs]

* I don't know/care about Canon mount but what I said apply to K mount stuff from Sigma.

It applies to all mounts except Sigma mount of course. This is why (verified by multiple retailers) that Sigma has a a big return to RMA because of compatibility problems (not taking into account performance or construction here). A lot higher than other third pary brands.

[thePiRaTE!!]

Sigma pay for the licensing fee. No everybody can make AF lens for modern mounts. Zeiss/Cosina would have made AF lens for their new ZE lenses if Canon let them.

Plus even one does come out, it would sell much worst than the Pentax version anyway. See the different version of the Tamron 18-250mm under different skins.

Quote from wikipedia

Third-party lenses compatible with EOS electronics are manufactured by Sigma, Tamron, Tokina, and Carl Zeiss. The manufacturers of these lenses have reverse engineered the electronics of the EF lens mount. The use of these lenses is not supported by Canon. Sometimes compatibility problems arise, as no third party has access to Canon's specifications for camera-body communication. It is not accurate to call these lenses EF mount, as that term is reserved by Canon for its own lenses exclusively.

Also, ZE are part of the manual focus line of lenses along with ZF, ZS, ZK. Canon's permission has nothing to do with their being AF or not. They differ in appearance because the Canon mount is of a different standard (53mm) to Nikon/Pentax (46mm, with 2.5mm variation in registration difference to Canon).

The only 35mm camera company to partner with Zeiss to create new (AF) lenses is Sony, and those designs are exclusive to them.


K.

[thibs]

Sure Wikipedia is reference I would avoid, but maybe that's just me...