[dnas]

Panasonic with its deep pockets has done much to push the M 4/3 and 4/3 format.

Panasonic hasn't done that much to push the 4/3 format, as their DSLRs never made much market penetration, releasing only TWO DSLRs (2006 & 2007). Panasonic stated that they don't plan to release any more new DSLRs.
It was mainly Olympus that pushed 3/4.
Olympus developed the 4/3 standard with Kodak, not Panasonic.

Kodak has had a hand in developing the M4/3 and 4/3 format. That is enough to keep me away.

Kodak and Olympus may have developed the 4/3 standard, but Kodak had no part in the micro 4/3 standard, which was developed by Olympus & Panasonic.

Didn't an Olympus rep leak at a recent trade show that the company may heading back into the DSLR market?

Heading BACK into DLSRs?? Olympus have released a total of 14 DLSRs with the 4/3 standard since 2003, so there is no need to "head back" into the DSLR market. This is exactly the SAME number of DSLRs that have been released by Pentax!!!!!

[jct us101]

What he means is that Olympus hasn't released a normal DSLR in the four thirds format since the E-P1 was released almost a year ago. Coming from them releasing a new one every few months or so (sometimes even every month) that is a huge change for them to make. I think what they are saying is they want to get back to the Four Thirds system too.

[Winder]

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).

EP-2 and E-620 share the same sensor, same in-body IS, basically the same image processor.
EP-2 lacks the PD AF and OVF.

EP-2 is slower to focus than the E-620, and has a few more "art filters". Other than the smaller body there is not a huge difference between the two.

In an interview with Olympus explaining how technology was shared between 4/3 and m4/3 they pointed out all the features first used in the E-620 that found their way into the EP series. Some of these features have been refined on the newer EP bodies.

The current m4/3 bodies are seriously over priced for what you are getting. The lenses are average at best, and the AF still has a long way to go. I hope Pentax and other will join the 4/3 and m4/3 just to provide more options. The 4/3 HG and SHG glass is some of the best you can buy, but the 4/3 bodies are seriously lacking.

[markac]

I'm not that keen on elctronic viewfinders after owning a couple Fuji bridge cameras (S7000 and S9500/S9000). If Pentax wants to make EVIL cameras for a lower market segment, I'd rather it joined Samsung's NX camp and use APS-C. It would be nice if Sony did the same, but I guess that won't happen.

[dnas]

EP-2 and E-620 share the same sensor, same in-body IS, basically the same image processor.
EP-2 lacks the PD AF and OVF.

EP-2 is slower to focus than the E-620, and has a few more "art filters". Other than the smaller body there is not a huge difference between the two.

In an interview with Olympus explaining how technology was shared between 4/3 and m4/3 they pointed out all the features first used in the E-620 that found their way into the EP series. Some of these features have been refined on the newer EP bodies.

The current m4/3 bodies are seriously over priced for what you are getting. The lenses are average at best, and the AF still has a long way to go. I hope Pentax and other will join the 4/3 and m4/3 just to provide more options. The 4/3 HG and SHG glass is some of the best you can buy, but the 4/3 bodies are seriously lacking.

The AF on the Panasonic micro 4/3 cameras is very fast. I did some hands on tests, and the G1 AF is faster than the Pentax K-7, each with their standard kit lens.

And some of the Panasonic micro 4/3 cameras are not SO expensive in Japan. You can find a Panasonic G1 with two lens kit for around $700 USD, or the Panasonic G1 with kit lens (14-45mm) for around $400 USD. Panasonic GF1 with kit lens (14-45mm) for around $650 USD

[dnas]

I'm not that keen on elctronic viewfinders after owning a couple Fuji bridge cameras (S7000 and S9500/S9000).

The EVF on the G1 & GH1 is so different to those EVFs, and so much better that there is just no comparison.

[jct us101]

I'm not sure where you got that the E-P2 and the E-620 have the same sensor, they're totally different sensors for totally different formats. Sure the size of the sensor itself is still the same, but the one on the E-P1 and the E-P2 is not the same one. They're not even made by the same companies.

[dnaseigel]

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.

There is the unfortunate coincidence that the 110 negative and the four thirds sensors are pretty much the same size with dimensions of 13x17mm. I have no doubt that Pentax, er Hoya, could produce an interchangeable lens digital system that would be an obvious throw-back to the Auto 110. They would have a lens system in place, a recognized introduction piece with the Optio you mentioned and clearly there are manufacturers producing sensors that size. However with Olympus' stranglehold on the license for the four thirds and all the attendant mumbo-jumbo, it seems unlikely that Pentax would be able to easily make such a venture a reality. It's just a ginormous shame that Pentax can't make their own "digital specific" platform that would capitalize on all the elements that could make a truly compact interchangeable lens system...or could they???

[Winder]

I'm not sure where you got that the E-P2 and the E-620 have the same sensor, they're totally different sensors for totally different formats. Sure the size of the sensor itself is still the same, but the one on the E-P1 and the E-P2 is not the same one. They're not even made by the same companies.

The sensor in the EP-1, EP-2, GF1, G1, E-620, & E-30 are all the same. They are all made by Panasonic and are all Live-MOS sensors. Actually all 4/3 and m4/3 sensors are the same with the exception of the GH1 and the E-3.

There is some difference in the AA filter used by each, and the image processors are different to support some different features, but they are all the same core sensor.

GH1 has the most modern sensor and it is a very good sensor that matches the Canon 7D sensor is almost every way. I am hoping the E-3 replacement will use an improved version of this sensor.

Who did you think was making the sensors?

[Blue]

There is the unfortunate coincidence that the 110 negative and the four thirds sensors are pretty much the same size with dimensions of 13x17mm. I have no doubt that Pentax, er Hoya, could produce an interchangeable lens digital system that would be an obvious throw-back to the Auto 110. They would have a lens system in place, a recognized introduction piece with the Optio you mentioned and clearly there are manufacturers producing sensors that size. However with Olympus' stranglehold on the license for the four thirds and all the attendant mumbo-jumbo, it seems unlikely that Pentax would be able to easily make such a venture a reality. It's just a ginormous shame that Pentax can't make their own "digital specific" platform that would capitalize on all the elements that could make a truly compact interchangeable lens system...or could they???

I have state similar things in a couple of threads about the 110! It would be very cool if they would come out with a digital 110 that had lenses. The little 110 look alike Pentax is coming out with should start hitting the street next month or June?

[joele]

Heading BACK into DLSRs?? Olympus have released a total of 14 DLSRs with the 4/3 standard since 2003, so there is no need to "head back" into the DSLR market.

And how long since they released or announced a new lens for 4/3??They didn't release any in 2009 (or announce any for that matter)...

They have said already that 4/3 was on hold until u4/3 got going so it is relevant to say they are 'heading back' to 4/3 considering prior statements.

[RioRico]

It's just a ginormous shame that Pentax can't make their own "digital specific" platform that would capitalize on all the elements that could make a truly compact interchangeable lens system...or could they???

Ah, another standard! One shared with and exploited by nobody else! The marketing and production might of PenHoya will shove this down consumers' throats, and all will fall before the mighty P* (P-STAR, the new brand) !! Yes, I can see it all now! Ansel, be a good boy and reload my opium pipe please, I am scheduled to have another vision! Ahhhh..."

[johnmflores]

7 out of the top 30 cameras sold on Amazon are either 43 or M43, so I'd say that Olympus and Panasonic were wise to establish the standard. Without it, I'd guess they'd be selling much fewer cameras.

Pentax ain't doing that badly either, with 3 in the top 30 and 7 in the top 45 - all K-x and K-7 in various kit configurations. So well done to Pentax as well.

And for those that think that Pentax needs to go full frame or risk market failure? The Sony A900 is at #99..

If Pentax wants to make EVIL cameras for a lower market segment, I'd rather it joined Samsung's NX camp and use APS-C. It would be nice if Sony did the same, but I guess that won't happen.

I wonder if you know that the coming Sony EVIL will use APS sensor, although not NX mount.

Ultra-compact camera with interchangeable lenses : Sony

[jct us101]

The sensor in the EP-1, EP-2, GF1, G1, E-620, & E-30 are all the same. They are all made by Panasonic and are all Live-MOS sensors. Actually all 4/3 and m4/3 sensors are the same with the exception of the GH1 and the E-3.

There is some difference in the AA filter used by each, and the image processors are different to support some different features, but they are all the same core sensor.

GH1 has the most modern sensor and it is a very good sensor that matches the Canon 7D sensor is almost every way. I am hoping the E-3 replacement will use an improved version of this sensor.

Who did you think was making the sensors?

I thought that it was by Matuista while the other sensor was by Sony, guess I was wrong though, oh well thanks for correcting me. Either way though, the results from all of those sensors (kind of like how the old 6.1 megapixel sensor was the same on every camera yet every camera had totally different results from having it on there) are all totally different. I don't know if it's really fair to even compare them because of how good and bad things are affected by them.