[jct us101]

Does micro 4/3 mean only the sensor or even the mount has to be the 4/3 mount? If the mount is 4/3, then how can you use the K-mount lenses without an adapter and thereby losing any features?

Olympus created an adapter for it's Four Thirds lenses so that you could use them on the camera and still have autofocus (although it's very slow compared to the other lenses that are made for the system) so Pentax might be able to do that. Considering that most of Pentax's lenses are supported by in camera AF motors, I don't really see it being too much of a problem for them either.

You can do a search on my forum (a Micro Four Thirds forum started with the release of the Olympus E-P1) for Pentax lenses and how adaptable they are.

http://e-p1.net/index.php?action=search2;params=YWR2YW5jZWR8J3wxfCJ8YnJkfCd8...wnfHBlbnRheA==

Let me know if that link works for you.

[dnas]

I kind of like the idea of a pentax 4/3 k mount camera. It would small and perfect with the DA 40. Or think about all that telephoto reach you can get with the crop factor. Imagine the things you can do with your DA*50-135.

But it can't be a 4/3 K mount...... the 4/3 and micro 4/3 standard include the sensor size (within a given image circle), plus the standard 4/3 and Micro 4/3 mounts.

[RioRico]

If it's Micro 4/3 then yes that is the type of mount and all the lenses for the system will be universal, which might be an incentive for Pentax to go with it because it won't add as much pressure to them creating an entirely new lens series based on the Micro Four Thirds mount. I think that it would be interesting if they did though, considering they have a lot of great rangefinder style cameras to redesign in the Micro 4/3 mount.

M4/3 is not an open standard. Pentax-Hoya would need to license the technologies (optical and electronic) from Olympus and Panasonic, technologies vastly different than anything Pentax has ever produced. How much would Pentax-Hoya have to pay to be allowed to be a direct competitor of Olympus and Panasonic? If you were a senior bean-counter at Hoya, how much in the way of resources would you feel justified in diverting to this endeavour?

What rangefinders does Pentax have in its legacy to redesign? [Hint: None. Pentax has never ever produced a rangefinder camera.]

What pressures are upon Pentax-Hoya that would drive a move into the m4/3 realm? How significant are current m4/3 sales? What's the market share, now and projected in the near future? I suspect the costs of buying into and producing these new technologies would be rather large, not to say huge. Given that Hoya management seems to be very interested in making money NOW, why should ANYTHING be spent in going m4/3? How far off is the payoff?

[That's all my polite way of saying that I think you're spewing nonsense.]

[jct us101]

M4/3 is not an open standard. Pentax-Hoya would need to license the technologies (optical and electronic) from Olympus and Panasonic, technologies vastly different than anything Pentax has ever produced. How much would Pentax-Hoya have to pay to be allowed to be a direct competitor of Olympus and Panasonic? If you were a senior bean-counter at Hoya, how much in the way of resources would you feel justified in diverting to this endeavour?

What rangefinders does Pentax have in its legacy to redesign? [Hint: None. Pentax has never ever produced a rangefinder camera.]

What pressures are upon Pentax-Hoya that would drive a move into the m4/3 realm? How significant are current m4/3 sales? What's the market share, now and projected in the near future? I suspect the costs of buying into and producing these new technologies would be rather large, not to say huge. Given that Hoya management seems to be very interested in making money NOW, why should ANYTHING be spent in going m4/3? How far off is the payoff?

[That's all my polite way of saying that I think you're spewing nonsense.]

Ah, but this is actually something that I know stuff about (for once!). I meant it as Pentax could easily be corerced to start developing a camera for the Micro Four Thirds standard because Olympus and Panasonic are wanting more and more people to take it on so that they can get more market share (I know this for a fact from reading market reports from them on my forum, they now own 10% of the share together but want it to be closer to 20%, how do you do this? Add new people to your standard). But I meant it as Pentax might be tempted to join in and start developing the techology with the rest of the underdogs. Hoya might not be interested in that, but how do you know for sure? Micro Four Thirds has meant a ton of money for Olympus and Panasonic (so much that they have basically abandoned the normal Four Thirds system entirely).

On your note about Pentax not having any good rangefinder style cameras, I suppose it wouldn't have really been a rangefinder, but the Auto 110 series is the first thing that comes to mind. They recently made a digital point and shoot version of the camera, but seeing something like that in the Micro Four Thirds mount would mean a lot of money because I know that a ton of people would buy that without hesitating, just think about how awesome it would be for them to do it.

[dnas]

Hell, even the aspect ratio's outdated, since the 4:3 ratio (hence the name) which was specifically touted as "perfectly fitting computer monitors" has pretty much dropped off the face of the earth in favour of 16:9 and 16:10 widescreen.

The 4/3 standard is NOT named by the aspect ratio, it's named by the image circle diameter, which is 4/3" (4/3 of an inch). It's just coincidence that the aspect ratio is 4:3.

[jct us101]

The 4/3 standard is NOT named by the aspect ratio, it's named by the image circle diameter, which is 4/3" (4/3 of an inch). It's just coincidence that the aspect ratio is 4:3.

How do you know this? I was under the impression that it was because of the aspect ratio as well. What do you mean by the image circle diameter being 4/3 of an inch too?

[dnas]

What pressures are upon Pentax-Hoya that would drive a move into the m4/3 realm? How significant are current m4/3 sales? What's the market share, now and projected in the near future? I suspect the costs of buying into and producing these new technologies would be rather large, not to say huge. Given that Hoya management seems to be very interested in making money NOW, why should ANYTHING be spent in going m4/3? How far off is the payoff?

Perhaps the figures showing that Panasonic & Olympus micro 4/3 camera have captured 20% of the "DSLR" market in Japan. (the category for "DSLR" seems to be any larger sensor interchangeable lens camera)

Have a look 2 years ago, and you'd find that Panasonic & Olympus combined held around 2% of the DSLR sales in Japan. If this could be a way into better sales figures for Pentax, then perhaps they should take it!!!!!

And just think of it.... if they buy into micro 4/3, they will have all of the technical electronic details available to them. They could make Pentax DA - micro 4/3 adapter, with complete electronic control of Pentax DA lenses, opening up a whole new source of "compatible" lenses for micro 4/3.

[jct us101]

Perhaps the figures showing that Panasonic & Olympus micro 4/3 camera have captured 20% of the "DSLR" market in Japan. (the category for "DSLR" seems to be any larger sensor interchangeable lens camera)

Have a look 2 years ago, and you'd find that Panasonic & Olympus combined held around 2% of the DSLR sales in Japan. If this could be a way into better sales figures for Pentax, then perhaps they should take it!!!!!

And just think of it.... if they buy into micro 4/3, they will have all of the technical electronic details available to them. They could make Pentax DA - micro 4/3 adapter, with complete electronic control of Pentax DA lenses, opening up a whole new source of "compatible" lenses for micro 4/3.

It's 20% now? I guess you're right, it wasn't that long ago that I read that report that said they only had 10%. The market for the Micro Four Thirds cameras in Japan especially has been growing exponentially lately. Nobody can seem to get enough of them. You would be amazed at how many of my forum members are from Japan on E-P1.net too.

[wallyb]

m4/3 is seriously where the money is at currently. It's the largest expanding subset in hobby photography. If Pentax wants to try to get on the profit bandwagon again without ripping off its loyal users, joining the m4/3 coalition would be one of the best ways to do that.

[jct us101]

m4/3 is seriously where the money is at currently. It's the largest expanding subset in hobby photography. If Pentax wants to try to get on the profit bandwagon again without ripping off its loyal users, joining the m4/3 coalition would be one of the best ways to do that.

Exactly, and so far from what I've seen, the other attempts at doing the mirrorless systems without it being Micro Four Thirds (I only have Samsung's new NX series as a basis, but from what I can tell so far everyone hates it) have mostly failed and are not taking off at all. I suppose that Micro Four Thirds could be considered the Linux of the camera world, with Canon being Microsoft and Nikon being Apple, and Pentax being Ubuntu or something.

m4/3 is seriously where the money is at currently. It's the largest expanding subset in hobby photography. If Pentax wants to try to get on the profit bandwagon again without ripping off its loyal users, joining the m4/3 coalition would be one of the best ways to do that.

They'd been wise to go with Oly/Panny in the first place, but starting now, I'm afraid all they'd get is what drops off the table of the original coalition.

[jct us101]

They'd been wise to go with Oly/Panny in the first place, but starting now, I'm afraid all they'd get is what drops off the table of the original coalition.

I don't think so, there's so much left to do in Micro Four Thirds (there are absolutely no primes in this system worth buying except for the 20mm f/1.7, and Pentax is probably the best known brand for its primes ever. Can you imagine some Pentax limited lenses on the Olympus E-P1? Wow.

[RMabo]

A K-mount adapter with working autofocus would need an autofocus motor in the adapter. The Micro 4/3 mount has power contacts, but does not support in-camera AF. 4/3 system was from the start built for only electronic communication between body and lens, so all lenses has AF motors in the body.

A K-mount adapter with built-in AF motor to drive the AF Pentax lenses, would be quite expensive. But of course it can be done. Question is how many would be interested in paying the money for it.

[haoto]

I don't think so, there's so much left to do in Micro Four Thirds (there are absolutely no primes in this system worth buying except for the 20mm f/1.7, and Pentax is probably the best known brand for its primes ever. Can you imagine some Pentax limited lenses on the Olympus E-P1? Wow.

I don't think Pentax has any advantage at all in the lens front if they were to go m43. Imagine the DA40 as a 80mm equivalent, or the DA21 as a normal. Also, I'm not seeing people buying Pentax bodies if they can use the same lenses on the technically more advanced Panasonics. Hoya can't be that stupid.

[dnas]

A K-mount adapter with working autofocus would need an autofocus motor in the adapter. The Micro 4/3 mount has power contacts, but does not support in-camera AF. 4/3 system was from the start built for only electronic communication between body and lens, so all lenses has AF motors in the body.

A K-mount adapter with built-in AF motor to drive the AF Pentax lenses, would be quite expensive. But of course it can be done. Question is how many would be interested in paying the money for it.

The adapter for 4/3 - Micro 4/3 (e.g. Panasonic DMW-MA1) costs somewhere around $130-$150 USD, just to couple Olympus and Panasonic 4/3 DSLR lenses to a Micro 4/3 camera, but people still buy them. The adapter is about 20mm thick, so it's possible to incorporate the focus motor & an aperture stop down mechanism. If they could get it in under say $180-$200, I think a lot of Pentax users with some good lenses would see the advantages. Imagine using a limited 40mm or 70mm on a micro 4/3 camera.