[dnas]

I hope I got the scaling right: Here's how the LX compares size-wise with the GF1 and the E-P1, and how a LX scaled by the crop factor of the K-7 sensor would compare to them:

I don't think the size is quite right on the bottom two. The 50mm F1.7 on the full size one on the right looks too small to me.

However, just to make sure, I can take a shot of Panasonic G1, GF1, a Pentax MX and a Pentax K10D next to each other, to compare directly without trying to scale them.

---

Last edited by dnas; 05-05-2010 at 03:43 PM.

[bobmaxja]

We should compare it with the K-X who is a lot smaller than K10

Here the size
K10 142x101x70
K-X 122x91x67
G1 124x84x45

The main difference is the thickness versus the K-X

[dnas]

We should compare it with the K-X who is a lot smaller than K10

Here the size
K10 142x101x70
K-X 122x91x67
G1 124x84x45

The main difference is the thickness versus the K-X

Ok, but I don't have a K-x !!!!

What about a *ist DL2, which I do have? The dimensions are 125x93x66, almost the same!!
I could also include a 4/3 DSLR as well, say the Olympus E-410, which was about the smallest DSLR.

[bobmaxja]

Ok, but I don't have a K-x !!!!

What about a *ist DL2, which I do have? The dimensions are 125x93x66, almost the same!!
I could also include a 4/3 DSLR as well, say the Olympus E-410, which was about the smallest DSLR.

Here the size
K10 142x101x70
K-X 122x 91x67
G1 124x 84x45
istDL2 125 x93x66
E-410 130x 93x53
No major difference execpt for the K10

[dnas]

Here the size
K10 142x101x70
K-X 122x 91x67
G1 124x 84x45
istDL2 125 x93x66
E-410 130x 93x53
No major difference execpt for the K10

Ok, I'll get onto that later, along with the GF1 (119 x 71 x 36.3)

[gazonk]

I don't think the size is quite right on the bottom two. The 50mm F1.7 on the full size one on the right looks too small to me.

However, just to make sure, I can take a shot of Panasonic G1, GF1, a Pentax MX and a Pentax K10D next to each other, to compare directly without trying to scale them.

No, in fact it's actually too BIG! About 5% it seems. If someone can confirm that the GF1 is 119 mm without the strap protrusions, I can upload a corrected version later.

Anyway, this exercise has convinced me that m4/3 has a too large lens mount, and this means that Pentax should rather make their own, smaller mount. It's better that they wait until they can make a camera that is significantly smaller than the GF1 but with a larger sensor.

[dnas]

No, in fact it's actually too BIG! About 5% it seems. If someone can confirm that the GF1 is 119 mm without the strap protrusions, I can upload a corrected version later.

Anyway, this exercise has convinced me that m4/3 has a too large lens mount, and this means that Pentax should rather make their own, smaller mount. It's better that they wait until they can make a camera that is significantly smaller than the GF1 but with a larger sensor.

I have these actual cameras, which I will take a photo of side by side!!!

[Laurentiu Cristofor]

I suppose by "quality compacts", you mean larger sensors, like on the Panasonic LX3, and the Canon G11? Or the even larger sensor on the Sigma DP1?

I'd like some better IQ and controls at an affordable price. I like the G11 controls, but I'd like something smaller and cheaper. The S90 is very nice, but it looses some of the G11 controls I'd like to have and it is also a bit expensive. Something with the style of I10 but that does more than look good.

I don't want a luxury item. Just something affordable I can carry around in a pocket without people asking me if I'm happy to see them.

The disadvantage would be the lack of ability to have a zoom of more than 4x - 5x.

I wouldn't mind if it only came with a prime. And a 28-140 zoom, like the S90 has would be more than enough.

The market in Japanese likes micro 4/3, but we have to attempt to understand why. Are people wanting to upgrade from P&S to interchangeable lens cameras, without the large size of a DSLR? The Panasonic G1/GH1/G2 are clearly styled as very small DSLR size and shape. But the Olympus E-P1, E-P2 and E-PL1, plus the Panasonic GF1 are small enough with pancake lens, to be pocketed in a coat pocket. So do people want the convenience of pocketing the camera, but with the option of fitting larger lenses when they want to?

They're not that small, even with a pancake lens. The cameras that are pocketable are not cameras I'd want to use and the ones I'd want to use are not really pocketable.

I am wondering if it wouldn't be a better and safer move for Pentax to just beef up their P&S offerings instead of attempting to get into something like m4/3. The P&S market is higher than the m4/3 and a strong product there would provide more benefits and might be cheaper to produce than a new line of cameras.

I'd like, of course, to have Pentax provide a new system and tiny new little Limited lenses for it, but I just don't think it is realistic for them to maintain more than three different categories of products (P&S, DSLR, 645D).

[Mistral75]

Anyway, this exercise has convinced me that m4/3 has a too large lens mount, and this means that Pentax should rather make their own, smaller mount. It's better that they wait until they can make a camera that is significantly smaller than the GF1 but with a larger sensor.

Of course an APS-C mirrorless mount could be smaller than the μ4/3 mount.

Just think about the Leica M mount, which is a 24x36 mirrorless mount.

[dnas]

Here are a few shots. I will see if I can post a few with the older film Pentax MX tomorrow. Sorry about the lighting, but it's night here!!!

From the front the Panasonic GF1 and the Pentax *ist DL2 (similar size to the Pentax K-x) look not too different in size:


This is misleading, but it is the view of the cameras that we see the most.

However, if you look from an angle:




Or from above, you can see that the DSLR is a lot bigger:


The two cameras have the standard kit zoom lens on, in the shortest configuration and I've lined up the front of the two lenses.

[gazonk]

Or from above, you can see that the DSLR is a lot bigger:

Still, the m4/3 cameras are much, much larger than they need to be. I just visited a new camera store near my work today, and they happened to have the GF1, the E-P1, the K-7 and the K-x and K-m very close on display, and even the K-7 looked just slightly larger.

I think and hope that when Pentax enters this market, they will use APS-C and and a much smaller mount than either m4/3 or the nx10 mount. 28 mm Ø should be more than enough. Even if "kit zooms" still have to be close to the m4/3 zooms in size, the camera body can be made much smaller than the m4/3 bodies can ever be (because of the large mount), and with a pancake in the 24-35 mm range, you can have a really small combo.

[aliquis]

Or from above, you can see that the DSLR is a lot bigger:


The two cameras have the standard kit zoom lens on, in the shortest configuration and I've lined up the front of the two lenses.

The red parts of the GF1 there are so beautiful.

I also think the olive k-x looks amazing =P, white isn't too bad either

[johnmflores]

I've posted this before, but just to add to this discussion of relative size...



If you accept the idea that the MX in the middle is about as thin as they come, you can see that modern dSLR have gained some girth due to the added electronics of the sensor, LCD, circuitry, etc... Here's another, more telling view - small film camera vs. small dSLR, K-mount side down:




With some clever re-arrangement of components and a strict diet, Pentax might be able to develop a dSLR that rivals the size of current EVIL cameras without the need for a new mount or adapter for existing lenses.

[dnas]

I've posted this before, but just to add to this discussion of relative size...



If you accept the idea that the MX in the middle is about as thin as they come, you can see that modern dSLR have gained some girth due to the added electronics of the sensor, LCD, circuitry, etc... Here's another, more telling view - small film camera vs. small dSLR, K-mount side down:




With some clever re-arrangement of components and a strict diet, Pentax might be able to develop a dSLR that rivals the size of current EVIL cameras without the need for a new mount or adapter for existing lenses.

There's no doubt that the MX is thin. Considering the film is almost at the back of the camera, it's not surprising.

The flange on Pentax is a limiting factor, at 45.5mm. I've just measured mine, and the "thin" part of the MX is about 34mm, and the part with the lens mount is about 17mm, total is around 51mm, so they only "waste" 5.5mm, which is remarkable!!! The K-x is 68mm.

If Pentax can cleverly re-arrange components and electronics, then Panasonic & Olympus should be able to do the same. The flange on micro 4/3 is 20mm. My GF1 is about 35mm thick. The limiting factor for Pentax is that the lens cannot encroach on the mirrorbox area.

The is no such constraint for micro 4/3. On the GF1, the shutter is a full 10mm from the flange, and another 10mm to the sensor. (this includes about 2.5mm for the sensor filter). So the electronics takes up another 15mm.

The Panasonic 20mm F1.7 is 25mm deep. The Olympus 17mm F2.8 is 22mm deep. If they could build a lens that RETRACTS 10mm into the body, then they could make a pancake that is only extends 10mm out of the body when not in use. Couple that with shaving 7-8mm off the body, and you could be looking at a body and lens that is only 38mm thick.

If you did the same with a Pentax, using the 40mm F2.8 Limited, shaving 13mm off the body (down to 55mm) you would still end up with a total thickness of 70mm

[eigelb]

i think its possible to made a DSRL thin like an MX LX even with a FF sensor.
Leica has done it with there rangfinders