[kevinschoenmakers]

I think it would be a very smart move for Pentax to join µ43. EVIL is where the growth is at, and Pentax will want to be a part of it. If they were to develop their own proprietary mount I don't see how it could sell amidst all the competition. Joining µ43 would make Pentax a viable option for many constumers. Moreover, with Pentax's legacy of making small primes, they would create a big new market for their lenses.

The future will mainly consist of these 3 segments: cameraphones, EVIL/MILC and FF DSLRs. Pentax isn't in any of these yet.

[dnas]

Like many others I thought four-thirds does not have any real competitive niche but micro four-thirds could have potential: a decent sized sensor in a small package with interchangeable high quality lenses.

But the reality is a little different since the two companies are still struggling to produce a decent body, one that can provide excellent auto-focus and manual focus without having to jump through hoops. They seem trying to please too many people: those who want a viewfinder, those who want a flash. The result is a camera system sold as a fashion accessory. It's nifty, it's cool, it's tiny and cute. .

Well, Panasonic ALREADY produce micro 4/3 bodies that provide excellent auto-focus and manual focus without having to jump through hoops!!!!!

I have a G1, and the focus is very, very fast. I've tried it against the E-P1, E-P2 and it leaves them for dead. The E-PL1 is slightly better than those two, but still lags behind the G1, GH1, GF-1 and the new G2. That's fact.

I've tried the G1 against the Pentax K7.... with the standard kit lenses on each, the G1 focuses FASTER.

[dnas]

How does the micro 4/3 lenses compare to DSLR lenses? I like bird photography. Are there or will there be good teles for micro 4/3? A 300/4 to start with or 500/5.6?

Honestly, in my book, it doesn't matter!!!!

what's the point of buying a small body when you're going to hook it up to such a big lens?

One of the KEY things for me, is that micro 4/3 has no mirror, therefore it has a smaller flange distance(20mm).

So what's so good about that? Pentax has a flange distance of 45.5mm, so with an adapter, I can use ANY Pentax lens on my Panasonic G1. The bonus is that if I have a Pentax 300mm lens, the angle of view on a Pentax DSLR is equivalent to about 450mm, but it's equivalent to about 600mm on my G1 !!!!

And actually, I can use just about ANY OTHER lens on my G1.
For example, I bought an old Tokina AT-X 100-300mm F4, with an older Canon FD mount on it. It cost me the equivalent of about $30. That lens mount is DEAD so far as DSLR users are concerned, but I can use it with my G1 !!!!!!!!
YES, I have to manually focus, but it's EASY on a G1.

So there is a reason to hook up a big lens to a small body..... and the reasoning is that ANY big lens CAN be hooked up to the small body, because it has a small flange distance!!!!

[dnas]

I think it would be a very smart move for Pentax to join µ43. EVIL is where the growth is at, and Pentax will want to be a part of it. If they were to develop their own proprietary mount I don't see how it could sell amidst all the competition. Joining µ43 would make Pentax a viable option for many consumers. Moreover, with Pentax's legacy of making small primes, they would create a big new market for their lenses.

I agree. If Pentax joins micro 4/3, then the format WILL SURVIVE, because there would be a base of three supporting companies. And that will help Pentax to survive. They NEED to join micro 4/3.

The Samsung NX mount will probably die, because it's yet another proprietary mount. (combined with lack of market clout and visibility)

Sony will introduce it's own as well. Might be the same deal as well.

[dnas]

Thanks for the picture John, which rather proves my point. I am sure there are some for whom every bit of size is worth something, in fact I too am a proponent of smaller SLRs. But for me I would be giving up too much with m43. Consider that the EP-2 plus Panasonic 20/1.7 is over 1000 pounds sterling. And even 20mm is not that wide on this platform. Likewise f/1.7 is not that fast, in terms of DOF. One gives up a lot for the size differential. Though at half the price I'd consider it.

Anyway, I've had my say. I'm glad these cameras appeal to someone. Because they embody tech that is worth developing.

I'll agree that the micro 4/3 cameras are WAY TOO EXPENSIVE in SOME places.

However, here in Japan, I got a G1 with two lens kit (14-45mm & 45-200mm) a year ago for around the equivalent of $620!!!!

Does that sound more like the sort of price they should be??

[johnmflores]

I'll agree that the micro 4/3 cameras are WAY TOO EXPENSIVE in SOME places.

However, here in Japan, I got a G1 with two lens kit (14-45mm & 45-200mm) a year ago for around the equivalent of $620!!!!

Does that sound more like the sort of price they should be??

Yes, the pricing strategy of M43 has until now baffled me, placing them at a price disadvantage to entry-level dSLRs and at a feature disadvantage to the mid-level dSLRs that they are priced against. I'm not a camera designer, but I can't see the extra cost in the parts that make up the camera.

When you think about it, it's really amazing that until just recently you could still see the Nikon D40 - a seven hundred year old dSLr! - still on Amazon's top seller list. Why? The price was right.

My guess is that PanOly are making margins while they can, and to fund the cost of continued development. They will, in due time, drop their prices to the entry level. The E-PL1 is the first foray into that direction, featurewise if not pricewise.

[rparmar]

Well, Panasonic ALREADY produce micro 4/3 bodies that provide excellent auto-focus and manual focus without having to jump through hoops!!!!!

Now as soon as they add IS in body they'll have something. Or there's Olympus with IS but not the other Panasonic advantages. Together it takes both companies to come close to matching Pentax.

And yes, those Japanese prices look a lot nicer. Better sushi than in Europe, too.

[Laurentiu Cristofor]

Ok, all of this assumes that APS-C SLR and FT SLR will die eventually, with EVIL (APS-C/µFT) and FF SLR being the survivers. I do so. I won't be surprised if Hoya shares this assumption.

Your points are interesting, but I'm doubting the idea of Evil/FF being the only survivors. Most of the DSLRs sold today are APS - are you expecting most of their users to move to m4/3 and some to FF?

FF sounds like a holy grail today particularly for Pentax users (you always want what you can't have), but the way I see it, this is just because companies try to maintain FF resolution in APS models and they end up messing the IQ at high ISO. FF cameras will always be a niche because of size and higher prices.

m4/3 cameras are interesting for portability, but I can't see them replace a bulkier camera, because it's really much nicer to handle a body you can hold firmly in your hands and that's never going to be the case with an m4/3 camera. They have some potential, but it's not yet fulfilled.

If there is a format that risks dying, it would be m4/3, not APS. It could be argued that m4/3 needs support from other companies more than other companies need to get into the business of making m4/3 cameras. I also think that someone coming up with a cheap compact camera with a good sensor along the lines of S90 is a big threat for the MILC market.

[Aristophanes]

I think it would be a very smart move for Pentax to join µ43. EVIL is where the growth is at, and Pentax will want to be a part of it. If they were to develop their own proprietary mount I don't see how it could sell amidst all the competition. Joining µ43 would make Pentax a viable option for many constumers. Moreover, with Pentax's legacy of making small primes, they would create a big new market for their lenses.

The future will mainly consist of these 3 segments: cameraphones, EVIL/MILC and FF DSLRs. Pentax isn't in any of these yet.

FF is far too small a market share.

APS is 14x the market share of the other 2 combined, with a vast array of digital lenses entrenched in the market.

M4/3 lenses are no smaller than K-mount digital. In fact, some are larger. That leave a slightly smaller form factor body housing a teensy sensor. These are not pocket cameras, and you need some body bulk to balance the lenses. DSLR or EVIL or whatever you call it, they are still optical systems first and foremost.

[Corros]

It would be great if Pentax will join the m4/3 standard. EVIL camera's are not the new dSLRs but are a new market. Profs will use dSLRs as do the enthusiastic. But what about people using a compact and struggling with the low quality of their photographs?

Than will be de EVIL camera is the answer. The photography market was split into compact, dSLR's and some special camera's (Leica M* etc)

Now there will be a new compartment between the first two. Pentax than has to make an adapter to fit the K lenses on the MFT mount.

FF is great, but has a small market share with less increase than the EVIL camera's. Also for FF are less lenses available. with MFT people can use lenses from different makes.

[falconeye]

FF cameras will always be a niche because of size and higher prices.

Laurentiu, you express a valid point of view. Nobody knows the future

However, this single sentence I quoted above can't hold true. Because FF cameras have been the main stream before the advent of digital, despite, as you say, size and prices. With the price of the sensor becoming a negegible part of overall system cost (has happened already with APS-C and all smaller sizes, is currently going to happen with FF) I don't see the niche aspect. I rather see APS-C crushed in between two main movements: miniaturization (size) and image quality.

I not only predict the death of APS-C. I even predict that FF will eventually be less expensive than high quality µFT. Because FF requires much less sophistication in the lens department (for a given image quality). And optical mechanics is what is going to be expensive. Not electronics.

[dnas]

M4/3 lenses are no smaller than K-mount digital. In fact, some are larger. That leave a slightly smaller form factor body housing a teensy sensor. These are not pocket cameras, and you need some body bulk to balance the lenses. DSLR or EVIL or whatever you call it, they are still optical systems first and foremost.

This is just not correct. Take the standard kit zooms:

Pentax 18-55mm (27-82mm equiv): 68mm long (flange to front), 65mm diameter.

Panasonic 14-45mm (28-90mm equiv): 60mm long (flange to front), 57mm diameter.



Front to back with kit zoom lens on:

Pentax K-x: 138mm.

Panasonic G1: 115mm.



And more to the point, the sensors on micro 4/3 are not "teensy".

Both APS-C and 4/3 sensors are more similar in size to each other than they are to FF sensors:

[Aristophanes]

You just made my points!

The difference between the lenses for APS-C and EVIL and the sensor size makes no case for "miniaturization". They are marginally smaller, and APS-C has an enormous installed base and lens systems, from amateur to pro. Take out the viewfinder for an EVF and you can drop an APS-C form factor considerably. With the M4/3 format they have reached a point of diminished returns (and terrible wide angle lenses, which is the new"in" thing).

I like the M4/3 concept, but let's face it, these things look dumb when attached to a longer or wider lens. Their real appeal is with video.

FF struggles to gain market share because it is priced high deliberately, but also because of lens production issues. The diminishment of the professional photography sector because so many amateurs are in the game is directly attributable to the massive success of APS-C. And current FF cameras are quite large. The theory is if someone "buys up" to FF, one needs all the "pro" FF features. So you get a higher-end model.

Economically,it's a winning formula for camera-makers with the largest growth in the industry since the 1960's. The price, quality, backwards compatibility, and form factor hits an economically "good enough" sweet spot to keep the market happy and profitable.

This is just not correct. Take the standard kit zooms:

Pentax 18-55mm (27-82mm equiv): 68mm long (flange to front), 65mm diameter.

Panasonic 14-45mm (28-90mm equiv): 60mm long (flange to front), 57mm diameter.



Front to back with kit zoom lens on:

Pentax K-x: 138mm.

Panasonic G1: 115mm.



And more to the point, the sensors on micro 4/3 are not "teensy".

Both APS-C and 4/3 sensors are more similar in size to each other than they are to FF sensors:

[dnas]

You just made my points!

The difference between the lenses for APS-C and EVIL and the sensor size makes no case for "miniaturization". They are marginally smaller, and APS-C has an enormous installed base and lens systems, from amateur to pro. Take out the viewfinder for an EVF and you can drop an APS-C form factor considerably. With the M4/3 format they have reached a point of diminished returns (and terrible wide angle lenses, which is the new"in" thing).

I like the M4/3 concept, but let's face it, these things look dumb when attached to a longer or wider lens. Their real appeal is with video.

You just finished saying the micro 4/3 sensor was "teensy", and now you're saying that they are "marginally smaller" than APS-C??? C'mon, it can't be both!!!!

The Panasonic G1 has NO VIDEO. It's appeal for me is the fact that I can attach just about ANY LENS from the last 50+ years to it. It's got nothing to do with video.

[Aristophanes]

You just finished saying the micro 4/3 sensor was "teensy", and now you're saying that they are "marginally smaller" than APS-C??? C'mon, it can't be both!!!!

The Panasonic G1 has NO VIDEO. It's appeal for me is the fact that I can attach just about ANY LENS from the last 50+ years to it. It's got nothing to do with video.

You get 20% less sensor for about 20% more money.

Relatively speaking, that's a teensy (and dumb) ROI.