[andi]

It says m4/3 STYLE camera, I hope it's a Pentax mount.
They already have small lenses, why to reinvent the wheel?
Just release a small GF1-like camera with a Pentax mount and combining
it with the pancake lenses you have a winner.
I was considering GF1 but the lack of the available small lenses killed it
to me. They only have one pancake - 20 f1.7 coming up, on m4/3 it's a 40mm lens.
There is even a bigger problem with wide lenses on m4/3 than on a 1.5x camera...

[krypticide]

EP-1 was surprisingly big to me when I saw it over the weekend.

If Pentax can do a rangefinder with at least APS-C-sized sensor, I think I would be all over that.

[redpigeons]

That is good news!

by the way other then both being japanese ... what is the connection bw Pentax and Olympus?

they share the same booth at B&H and Adorama, and almost always when I am talking to a salesman about cameras he would mention the two brands in the same sentence.

[MikePerham]

As much as this all sounds interesting, I think it's nuts.

1) Was 110 a success? I suspect it wasn't. Very cool camera but had a small following. A small camera would have an internet and magazine buzz for 3 weeks and then fade away with the newest 24x36 body offered by someone else.
2) how many posts/ reviews/ comments etc on the internet do you see demanding smaller cameras with smaller sensors? Vs 24x36 sensor cameras. Sure the people that want and will actually buy a more expensive 24x36 sensor camera are also a limited number but a far greater number than an entirely new mount comact rangefinder camera. Particularly since they couldn't use their K mount lenses on it.
3) does Pentax have the store front space and the ad budget to even have something like this noticed? Nope. This isn't 1970 when they were competing at the top of the pile and could command shelf space with retailers and had advertising budgets to support the brand/model/concept. Heck there aren't any retailers left now and the magazines are all bias toward Canikon.

For a company with limited resources I think this is completely insane. Interesting but insane. They could develop a camera and a series of lenses for it to try and boost lens sales. This is a finacial weakness (for Pentax) of the backwards compatable K mount. Or they could make the mount 4/3 compatable and only sell bodies. Body only sales are a money looser and not worth the R&D time and expense.

All this while the APSc owners still want holes in the K mount lens line filled, a better flash unit added, more accesories needed for upper end users and a 24x36 body.

If you haven't noticed, we've recently lost quite a few very good shooters from just our forum alone. All of them have opted for a 24x36 camera body. Why? They are getting paid for their work and need better high ISO ablity and low light focus. The K-7 is better at the focus thing but APSc will never compete with 24x36 at high ISO's. I've often considered this myself and keep waiting. Someday I won't wait any longer. I can't risk it or afford to.

Peter, as much as I respect your opinion, I think you may be wrong on this one. No doubt we have lost a few Pentaxians to other brands offering 24X36 sensors, but in the overall scheme of things, I doubt that has had any perceptible impact on sales. As has been discussed to death on this and other forums, Pentax can not go head to head with Nikon and Canon, and they need to increase market share to provide the ROI that Hoya is looking for. Since the market for 24X36 sensor camras amount to only about 5% (this number I have seen quoted several times), and the major section of the market is currently APS-C, that is were they should be.

I suspect the EVIL style camera will make inroads into the DSLR market as it has appeal to those looking for a more compact camera and the many P&S shooters looking to upgrade but do not want the bulk of a DSLR. The Micro 4/3 Olympus PEN E-P1 and Panasonic DMC-GF1 have created quite a stir and received a lot of press. If Pentax were to expand outside the APS-C market with a system camera, I believe they could succeed with an EVIL style camera, but unlikely to do as well competing with the big boys in the 24X36 sensor market.

One reason for this is that the 24X36 would have to be supported with a lot more glass and accessories than would an EVIL offering because of the target markets to whom they cater. Also, the potential market for the EVIL concept is, I would think, far far greater. The big question is should a venture like this use the 4/3 or APS-C sensor. At present only Leica and Sigma have shown an APS-C compact but neither with interchangeable lenses. Only time will tell, but I would not be surprised to see the major expansion in system cameras move toward the EVIL concept ...talking growth in sales volume and market share here, not IQ and other factors.

[falconeye]

As much as this all sounds interesting, I think it's nuts.

1) Was 110 a success? I suspect it wasn't.

It was success enough to make the updated "Super" version 5 years after release. But the small format was of course limited by how film performed at this small size.

As FourThirds have demonstrated, image quality from 22mm now can be excellent.

This is the progress which has happened over 30 years.

Unfortunately, as electronic skills improved, mechanical and optical skills degraded (or at least it seems so).


Combine the mechanical and optical skills of Pentax (Auto 110) with a current 22mm sensor, remove the mirror and add a 2000dpi OLED VF and WR and you have a killer machine sending the competition to their drawing boards immediately.

Either that, or finalize the FF project asap.

[Urkeldaedalus]

Looking at the quote from the Pentax rep, it sounds like Amateur Photographer specifically asked if Pentax is thinking about doing a M4/3 style camera, and the rep didn't confirm or deny that they were. It sounds similar to what Pentax has said when asked about full frame.

(paraphrase)

"Well...we're not planning on it at this time...because you'd need a line of lenses to support it..."

Shutting the door, but not quite all the way, on the possibility.

In other words, I'm not sure how much credibility you can give to the statements at this juncture, although it is interesting that he would admit that they have been considering it. Wasn't there a rumor about Ricoh working with Pentax on a camera? Maybe that's tied in with this. Ah, here's the link:

(k3) Ricoh is working on a compact camera based on… | k-rumors

One thing that seems clear to me is that based on the success of the K-7 and K-m, all Pentax DSLRs are going to be small and getting smaller from now on, regardless of format or function. This is my fearless prediction

[Samsungian]

There's no problem with ultrawide imaging on m4/3 or 4/3 cameras.

Panasonic already makes available a 7-14mm f4 that crops out to 14-28mm f4:

Panasonic 7-14 f4 arrived - FM Forums

Panasonic's new to this Game and they already have a straight aperture ultrawide zoom. I guess it would compare to Pentax 12-24mm f4? Well except the Pentax crops out to 18-36mm. Pentax does have a fisheye 10-17mm that crops out to 15-35mm but its a fisheye & not rectilinear design.

Olympus (also) has one for 4/3 mount, a bigger version and designed 7-14mm f4.

Both are Highly Regarded

So with either micro 4/3 or 4/3 you're one lens purchase away from covering ultrawide imaging.

Then lets say you buy a GH1, and it comes bundled with a 14-140mm HD & Image Stibilized lens. So a person buys one additional lens, the 7-14mm f4 and for many this is a very complete set up. Two lens one camera, HD capture, multiple format choices covering a 14mm-280mm perspective.

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0905/09051503panasonicgh1preview.asp


So now Pentax wants to consider entering in m4/3~like arena. I've said it before with vapore~ware Samsung NX, this race started in September 2008 when G1 launched. Panasonic already has glass, color choices and Samsung and Pentax, well they have plans and ideas.

Digital Camera Timeline: Digital Photography Review

One year later ,after G1 launch, Panasonic has THREE interchangeable mount m4/3 digitals.

Here's GH1 Review, which replaced the "preview"

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonicdmcgh1/

It says m4/3 STYLE camera, I hope it's a Pentax mount.
They already have small lenses, why to reinvent the wheel?
Just release a small GF1-like camera with a Pentax mount and combining
it with the pancake lenses you have a winner.
I was considering GF1 but the lack of the available small lenses killed it
to me. They only have one pancake - 20 f1.7 coming up, on m4/3 it's a 40mm lens.
There is even a bigger problem with wide lenses on m4/3 than on a 1.5x camera...

---

Last edited by Samsungian; 09-16-2009 at 09:18 AM.

[Caat]

Sure, but that would mean a line of Pentax APS-C EVIL sharing its mount and sensors with Samsung but not its flash system? Well possible but very weird IMO.

Not totally weird but I see what you mean. I somewhat misunderstood your original post

[Art Vandelay II]

I consider the microFT to be a failure. Not market-wise (it opens a new market segment for expansion and "drives the market"). But technology-wise: it is aimed to bring SLR image quality into the pocket camera market but doesn't. Even the newest E-P1 with all its sacrifices is way too bulky for this.

Pentax has shown that it really can deliver on such promises.

I would expect great things from a mirrorless 22mm sensor camera from Pentax. Something which would make the competion pale to gray.
...

I don't think the E-P1 or the new GF1 are failures in any way. They may not be as small as you want, but both are exceedingly popular around the interwebs. For example, on Flickr already twice as many people are using the E-P1 as they are the K-7. And even though both the EP1 and Canon 5D Mk II reviews are now old news on DPR the EP1 review is still getting more traffic then the most popular full frame camera on the planet (2.1% vs 1.7%). And you must wear extremely tight pants if you can't manage to fit an E-P1 with pancake lens into your pocket. No, it's not as small as a P&S, but it is hardly a problem. I have no problems at all carrying it around. Plus, the larger size may not be quite as portable as a Optio A40, but it's sure nicer to use. Some cameras are simply too small.

IMHO, Pentax shouldn't even think about going alone. Their only course of action should be joining Micro Four Thirds. The image quality is close enough to APS-C and the smaller sensor will allow for smaller bodies and lenses. Plus, I'm more likely to use the system with many options from many manufacturers then I am someone using more propriety BS. Having the freedom to use bodies from other brands without selling off my glass is a huge bonus. As far as TTL flash systems, who cares as long as the lens mount is the same. While it would be nice for all micro four thirds manufactures to use the same flash system, it's hardly a deal breaker.

[nostatic]

showing up fashionably late to a party only works if you're really hot chick (or if everyone else is already drunk). If Pentax is only now "investigating" then by the time it hits the market PanOly will be on 3rd gen versions of theirs. Not a great way to elbow into a market.

[andi]

There's no problem with ultrawide imaging on m4/3 or 4/3 cameras.

Panasonic already makes available a 7-14mm f4 that crops out to 14-28mm f4:

Panasonic 7-14 f4 arrived - FM Forums

Sorry, but this lens is useless to me - doesn't accept filters. And it's huge which
is a contradiction to m4/3 philosophy being a small system...
It all sounds OK on paper, but I think K-7 and a set of pancakes is a much stronger
small system available now. I compared a K-7 side-by-side with EP1
and it's surprising how similar the size is. EP1 is also very awkward to hold...
K-7 has all the advantages of a serious camera and it's not really that much bigger.
And when you add pancakes to K-7 and stuff like 7-14 to EP1/GF1, the size
advantage switches to K-7

[Caat]

It was success enough to make the updated "Super" version 5 years after release. But the small format was of course limited by how film performed at this small size.

As FourThirds have demonstrated, image quality from 22mm now can be excellent.

This is the progress which has happened over 30 years.

Unfortunately, as electronic skills improved, mechanical and optical skills degraded (or at least it seems so).


Combine the mechanical and optical skills of Pentax (Auto 110) with a current 22mm sensor, remove the mirror and add a 2000dpi OLED VF and WR and you have a killer machine sending the competition to their drawing boards immediately.

Either that, or finalize the FF project asap.

What would be truly market changing is if Pentax could be the first to cram a FF sensor into an MX sized body.

There are huge obstacles to this of course:

1) Financial
2) Sourcing a FF sensor
3) Engineering such a device

and so on and so on.

I know the challenges of fitting any sensor into a traditional film SLR shell is partly to do with:

1) The depth of a sensor and its supporting electronics being that much greater than film and its winding and support mechanism

and

2) Energy density of batteries and finding the space for them

But the Leica M9 is actually the same depth as the M7 - so taking this into account I don't see why Pentax couldn't create an digital MX in theory....

The shrinking of the registration distance allows m4/3s cameras to be pretty thin but I think the MX is a desireable size and certainly small enough. A D-MX would cleary be a very different beast to these but with a FF sensor would be a great niche product along the lines of Leica. Plus it could take all of Pentax's current lenses (fitting in an autofous motor might be a challenge though...)

[Art Vandelay II]

showing up fashionably late to a party only works if you're really hot chick (or if everyone else is already drunk). If Pentax is only now "investigating" then by the time it hits the market PanOly will be on 3rd gen versions of theirs. Not a great way to elbow into a market.

I totally agree with this as well. Which is why I think their best bet is joining Panny and Olympus (if they let them). I for one would love to have some Pentax glass for my E-P1 if nothing else...and from talking to other E-P1 users most would as well. Their first gen m4/3's body may not be up to Panasonic's 3rd gen, but those Panasonic users would jump all over Pentax m4/3's limited lenses. Hell, I'd buy the whole set the day the announced them.

As much as I like Pentax I'm not going to sell off all my m4/3's gear to jump ship from a well established system with dozens of lens options to an unproven start up.

[Art Vandelay II]

Sorry, but this lens is useless to me - doesn't accept filters. And it's huge which
is a contradiction to m4/3 philosophy being a small system...
It all sounds OK on paper, but I think K-7 and a set of pancakes is a much stronger
small system available now. I compared a K-7 side-by-side with EP1
and it's surprising how similar the size is. EP1 is also very awkward to hold...
K-7 has all the advantages of a serious camera and it's not really that much bigger.
And when you add pancakes to K-7 and stuff like 7-14 to EP1/GF1, the size
advantage switches to K-7

Sounds like something more like the upcoming Panasonic 14mm f/2.8 is more up your alley then the 7-14mm zoom.

Panasonic announced their Micro Four Thirds lens roadmap for 2010 | Photo Rumors

If they can make a 14mm f/2.8 prime that small I don't see them having too much of a problem making a 10mm f/4 one day to trump the Pentax DA 15mm Limited (trump as far as size goes that is). The bottom line is if size is important, no DSLR, not even the K-7 with Pancakes can match m4/3's. Two years from now I'll be able to put a m4/3's body in one pocket and a 14mm, 20mm, and perhaps even a 40mm prime all in the other pocket and go out on a photo walk without a bag. No DSLR, not even the K-7 has that ability.

[nosnoop]

this race started in September 2008 when G1 launched. Panasonic already has glass, color choices and Samsung and Pentax, well they have plans and ideas.
One year later ,after G1 launch, Panasonic has THREE interchangeable mount m4/3 digitals.

Sure, that's because Panasonic has effectively abandoned 4/3, and thrown all their resources into m4/3. And to be honest, they don't have a choice, as their 4/3 attempts were basically all commercial flops. Pentax, OTOH, is still profiting from their DSLRs line, and they are not forced to make risky move such as switching to a new mount/lens system.