Originally posted by Angevinn If Pentax does produce an EVIL camera I hope that the camera will have an APS-C sensor or for something truly awesome; a FF digital sensor.
I would steer clear of Kodak (one of the creators of the 4/3 format) and the Micro 4/3 sensor. Kodak has a track record of flops, (Disc Film, Film Processing Kiosks, APS film). I know Kodak is producing the sensor for the new Leica M9, but it is a CCD sensor. Kodak shut down its own CMOS development department. Even Stefan Daniel of Leica acknowledged that video and Live View are not possible with the Kodak FF sensor. Panasonic and Olympus are able to achieve both video and Live View with their M 4/3 sensor though. Partnering with Samsung on the NX would be a better idea because the sensor is a CMOS APS-C; a similar sensor to what is in the Pentax K-7.
There was a shoot out/review of the Sigma DP2 versus the Panasonic GH1 with the Olympus M. Zuiko 17mm f/2.8 lens. The Sigma drank Panasonic's milkshake.
The review is here:
Sigma DP2 Shootout Pt. 2 - Detailed Scene
I believe the Sigma clobbered the Panasonic on two fronts. The Sigma features an APS-C sized sensor but it also appears that the Sigma has the better lens.
A Pentax EVIL system would be cool, just not a Micro 4/3 sensor based system.
Keep in mind that the 17mm pancake is pretty much the weakest (optically speaking) of the m4/3 lenses so far, along with perhaps the 45-200. The 20mm is expected to be quite a bit better.
That said, where did you get the conclusion that the DP2 "drinks the Panasonic's milkshake"? The first set of crops (which could have led to this belief) shown was provided merely to show differences in results due to different processing. Scrolling down to the ACTUAL test crops, the Panasonic has clearly better performance in the center, while the DP2 does better in the corners. Stopped down, they're about the same on the edges.
All this says is that the 17mm is a mediocre piece of glass and that the GH1 has potential for better resolution than the DP2. Add the faster operation and better high-ISO performance of the Panasonic and we seem to be reversing the direction of that draaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaainage...
Seriously, there's no real IQ advantage to APS-C over 4/3 anymore. The wider fov for adapting old glass IS a big deal, though, and if I were looking for a mirrorless system for adapting old glass, I certainly would prefer APS-C.
For the record, your basic premise that the Sigma DP2 has better IQ than the GH1 because it has an APS-C sized sensor is flawed; here are the sizes:
GH1 (4/3) sensor: 18.00 x 13.50 mm, 2.43 cm²
Sigma DP2 sensor: 20.7 x 13.8 mm, 2.85 cm²
APS-C sensor: 23.6 x 15.8 mm, 3.72 cm²
The DP2 sensor is actually closer in size to 4/3 than APS-C.