Well, I suppose many are using Pentax limited lenses on a m4/3 camera already today with the adapter, it's just without AF.

EDIT: like for example here: https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/off-brand-camera-discussion-canon-nikon-e...ax-lenses.html

[dnas]

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?

From the Olympus site:

"Four Thirds is a reference to the size of the image sensor. The image sensor for Four Thirds cameras is what is commonly referred to as a 4/3 type or 4/3 type sensor. These describe the type of sensor not the actual size of the light sensitive area, which is normally much smaller
The sensor measures approximately 22.3mm diagonally, not four-thirds of an inch, which would be about 33.87mm. "

The Image circle is 33.87mm.



The image circle diameter is a bit bigger than the diagonal of the sensor.

As for the aspect ratio..... while it is true that it's nominally 4:3, the standard allows for different aspect ratios within the same image circle. For example, the Panasonic GH1 uses an oversized sensor with the aspect ratio capability of native 4:3, 16:9 and 3:2 image formats, without cropping the image as would be done by just using a standard 4:3 sensor like in the G1.

[dnas]

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.

But the difference is, if a Pentax owner had a collection of good Pentax lenses, but wanted a micro 4/3 camera because of size and convenience, they will buy a Panasonic or an Olympus ANYWAY. But if Pentax brought out a micro 4/3 body with a 14-50mm lens, and bundled it with a Pentax DA - micro 4/3 adapter(the electronic adapter with AF & aperture control for an extra $100), then why would you buy a Panasonic or an Olympus??

From the Olympus site...

Thanks, dnas. That was good information. I had never really checked the actual sensor size specs but believed the net's incorrect info according to which the sensor size (corner to corner) was that 4/3''.

[KjetilH]

Like the APS-C Samsung NX10, but with a different, more classic shape and look. And a support of some sort for K mount glass (the ins and outs of this have been discussed before).

Digital LX!!!1

[markac]

I can't really understand why the 4/3 group chose 4:3 as it's main aspect ratio when us folks in television are finally dumping it. I'd much rather use 3:2 myself or 16:9.

[Winder]

I think it would be interesting to see Pentax join m4/3, but I doubt they will.
Where will they buy sensors? Panasonic has not been able to make enough to keep up with demand for both Olympus and Panasonic. Fuji is a member of 4/3 already and it is rumored they will enter m4/3 so maybe they can provided sensors to Pentax. Kodak is also a member, and could provide sensors.

Cameras like the EP-2 are selling for more than the K-7, and all the EP-2 is nothing more than an E-620 in a different body. There is some serious margin right now in m4/3.

Right now the lenses for m4/3 are of average quality.

As far as 4:3 vs 3:2 it is a personal preference and will depend on how much you actually print. 4:3 enlarges to an 8x10 or 11x14 with very little cropping, where as the 3:2 you have to crop almost 20% of the image. I outsource all my large quantity printing and the cost to print standard 3:2 (8x12 or 10x15) is 2x the cost of 8x10 or 11x14. If you do your own printing and cut your own mats then it is not an issue. If you are going to display images digitally then it is not an issue.

I shoot with an Olympus E-3, Canon 5D, and Contax 645 and I prefer the 4:3 aspect ratio of the E-3 and Contax 645. I think most people who come from MF find the 4/3 to be a better format for composition most of the time. I often crop my 5D images down to the 4:3 format as it is just too wide for a lot of what I do. If I shot landscapes or wide angle a lot I might have a different opinion.

[kevinschoenmakers]

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.

Lenses bring in more profit than bodies do, so that's not a big problem. And, if Pentax could figure out a unique selling point within the M4/3 coalition (eg, a sensor with a 2:3 aspect ratio), they could ship some bodies too.

[johnmflores]

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.

I agree here - Pentax's existing lens lineup with an adapter would be little more than stopgap until Pentax can release new lenses optimized for M43. And then they would be supporting M43, APS-C, and MF, and potential FF in the future. That's a lot of lens lines for a small company to support.

One other option not mentioned here is working with other manufacturers not yet in the game to create an EVIL format based on APS-C. It's ashamed that Samsung went their own way, as it appears Sony is on the verge of doing. Who else is out there and a potential partner? Ricoh? Casio? Fuji? Kodak?

The problem with an EVIL format based on APS-C, however, is that the lenses will still be sized for APS-C and thus larger than equivalent M43 lenses, so any size savings from getting rid of the mirror won't mean much for someone wanting a compact travel system with a 5x or 10x zoom. Compare the size of a K-x plus a 17-70 vs a Panasonic GH1 with the kit 14-140. The Panasonic comes out longer, smaller, if a tad slower.

So which way forward? Each path has benefits and compromises so it is difficult to choose. I for one hope for an EVIL based off of the K-x with a fully functional adapter (AF, exposure, SDM, etc...) for existing K lenses plus mini-K versions of the 16-50/2.8 and 50-135/2.8 to start. Maybe reduce the size of the lenses by making them F3.2 or even F4 at the wide end and bank on the high ISO performance to pull through in low light.

[Angevinn]

If M4/3 is such a great success for Olympus why is it that Olympus is only bringing out two lenses in 2010? Olympus is hinting at four more lenses for 2011 but nothing has been shown or exactly confirmed.



Panasonic with its deep pockets has done much to push the M 4/3 and 4/3 format.
Kodak has had a hand in developing the M4/3 and 4/3 format. That is enough to keep me away.

Didn't an Olympus rep leak at a recent trade show that the company may heading back into the DSLR market?
Olympus confusion: “‘We still plan to develop full size DSLRs” | Photo Rumors

If Pentax develops an EVIL or another type of mirrorless camera system I would like to see it use a FF sensor. Samsung is working on a FF sensor and claims that its next round of image sensors will be extremely efficient and use very little power (Perfect for EVIL).

All in all I'd rather have a K-Mount Full Frame Pentax DSLR for a number of reasons.
These are just a few:
- Nothing beats having a focusing prism.
- Bright sunlight always makes the electronic screens on my point and shoot cameras and cell
phone disappear.
- Legacy glass (has both pros and cons)

I have more but have to run, Ciao!

[jct us101]

I think it would be interesting to see Pentax join m4/3, but I doubt they will.
Where will they buy sensors? Panasonic has not been able to make enough to keep up with demand for both Olympus and Panasonic. Fuji is a member of 4/3 already and it is rumored they will enter m4/3 so maybe they can provided sensors to Pentax. Kodak is also a member, and could provide sensors.

Cameras like the EP-2 are selling for more than the K-7, and all the EP-2 is nothing more than an E-620 in a different body. There is some serious margin right now in m4/3.

Right now the lenses for m4/3 are of average quality.

As far as 4:3 vs 3:2 it is a personal preference and will depend on how much you actually print. 4:3 enlarges to an 8x10 or 11x14 with very little cropping, where as the 3:2 you have to crop almost 20% of the image. I outsource all my large quantity printing and the cost to print standard 3:2 (8x12 or 10x15) is 2x the cost of 8x10 or 11x14. If you do your own printing and cut your own mats then it is not an issue. If you are going to display images digitally then it is not an issue.

I shoot with an Olympus E-3, Canon 5D, and Contax 645 and I prefer the 4:3 aspect ratio of the E-3 and Contax 645. I think most people who come from MF find the 4/3 to be a better format for composition most of the time. I often crop my 5D images down to the 4:3 format as it is just too wide for a lot of what I do. If I shot landscapes or wide angle a lot I might have a different opinion.

I'm sorry, the E-P2 is just an E-620 in a different body? I think you are very misinformed if you believe that, the E-P2 has so many more improvements that you wouldn't even be able to find anything on the E-620 that the E-P2 has. The external viewfinder being added also really helps the E-P2 from the E-P1, although I still like the E-P1 more (although that might be because my forum is named after it).

[lurchlarson]

the E-620's AF is WAY faster than the EP-2.

[jct us101]

the E-620's AF is WAY faster than the EP-2.

Damn, you got me there.

I was mostly talking about the features of the camera itself though, but you definitely are right about the autofocus still not being that good on the E-P1 and E-P2 (the E-PL1 has much faster autofocus but I don't like it that much because it's too point and shoot style).

[kevinschoenmakers]

If M4/3 is such a great success for Olympus why is it that Olympus is only bringing out two lenses in 2010? Olympus is hinting at four more lenses for 2011 but nothing has been shown or exactly confirmed.



Panasonic with its deep pockets has done much to push the M 4/3 and 4/3 format.
Kodak has had a hand in developing the M4/3 and 4/3 format. That is enough to keep me away.

Didn't an Olympus rep leak at a recent trade show that the company may heading back into the DSLR market?
Olympus confusion: “‘We still plan to develop full size DSLRs” | Photo Rumors

If Pentax develops an EVIL or another type of mirrorless camera system I would like to see it use a FF sensor. Samsung is working on a FF sensor and claims that its next round of image sensors will be extremely efficient and use very little power (Perfect for EVIL).

All in all I'd rather have a K-Mount Full Frame Pentax DSLR for a number of reasons.
These are just a few:
- Nothing beats having a focusing prism.
- Bright sunlight always makes the electronic screens on my point and shoot cameras and cell
phone disappear.
- Legacy glass (has both pros and cons)

I have more but have to run, Ciao!

All nice and dandy. But:

FF - niche, no money to be made
MILC (mirrorless interchangeable lens camera) - big upcoming market, lots of money to be made

[yeatzee]

Just like the iPhone on Verizon, not gonna happen.

The difference being, Iphone on verizon is a good idea.... a pentax 4/3rds camera not so much.