[Pål Jensen]

Olympus has failed twice. And now they have locked themselves into a format that will not allow for larger sensors. Once full frame gets down to 1500 dollars, cameras like the OM-D will be a no-go. Not that Olympus can't make it, but who would pay 1000 dollars for such a camera? The same is probably true for APS-C. It will stick around for low end and middle end cameras, but semi pro APS-C is probably going to vanish over time as well..

Obviously, FF will increase its share with lower prices but smaller sensors will only increase in relevance with improved sensor technology. Smaller formats are formats in their own right.

[ogl]

Why? So that Pentax can go bankrupt? So that their customers have to replace ALL their gear? They might as wel switch systems instead then.

The only reason for going to a new mount is if SR wouldn't be possible on the existing K-mount.

New mount = more money. More money = life of Pentax.

Pentax has only 6 lenses for 35 mm now. I don't see any logical connection between K-mount and FF.
95% of lenses are for APS-C.

[Blue]

New mount = more money. More money = life of Pentax.

Pentax has only 6 lenses for 35 mm now. I don't see any logical connection between K-mount and FF.
95% of lenses are for APS-C.

I am guessing you don't see any logical connection of F mount to FF or for that matter, EOS and FF.

[ogl]

I am guessing you don't see any logical connection of F mount to FF or for that matter, EOS and FF.

I don't understand why you like Nikon so much...

[Blue]

I don't understand why you like Nikon so much...

That isn't it. The F mount has similarities to the K-mount including its dimensions.

[gazonk]

Sony and Pansonic were down graded to Junk status earlier in the Month

But I think that in both those cases the camera divisions belong to the vital and innovating parts of the corporations.

[Blue]

But I think that in both those cases the camera divisions belong to the vital and innovating parts of the corporations.

They do but the rest of the Corporations are so far in the toilet. Perhaps the camera divisions will get sold off. I don't know what Oly will do though because Sony bailed them out following the scandal.

[rangercarp]

If the K mount was originally designed for 35mm, why will it be less than optimal for full frame digital?

[IchabodCrane]

Sony and Pansonic were down graded to Junk status earlier in the Month and Sony bailed out Oly. Pentax is in better shape than those guys at present. Pentax still exists. Hoya and now Ricoh needed them to make Pentax.

Panasonic is a $100 billion company. Any comment about their corporate health may be totally irrelevant to their camera business which can only be a tiny portion of the overall enterprise.

[cali92rs]

If the K mount was originally designed for 35mm, why will it be less than optimal for full frame digital?

The k-mount itself is fine for full frame digital.
Where you run into problems is that the newer DA/DA* lenses have a smaller image circle which were designed to cover the APS-C crop sensor. If you use this lenses on a full frame camera (or a film camera) you run the risk of vignetting. Some definitely will...some will vignette only slightly...some may or may not vignette at all (there is a long thread on this very subject).
Currently, the only lenses in production that are designed with an image circle meant to cover full frame are the FA Limiteds, and the DFA 100mm macro (and maybe the 50mm macro as well, is that still in production?).

[northcoastgreg]

Operations like Canon, Nikon or Sony are entirely based on selling huge volumes of kit over all parts of the market. It is this which allows the development of the high-end stuff for "The Serious" (a collective noun for photography enthusiasts, perhaps)

I seriously doubt that that's true. The margins on the high end stuff are almost always much greater than the low-end stuff. Companies make little, if any money selling kit lenses and entry level cameras. The margins are on the mid- and high-level stuff. It's fairly well acknowledged, for example, that Fuji is making money on their X series of cameras, particularly the pricey X-pro (along with the pricey X lenses). Olympus probably makes money on the E-M5; but I have seriuos doubts about their entry level Pens, some of which are being dumped on the market at prices below what compact P&S cameras sell for. In economics, there is theory known as "perfect competition," where all products are pretty much alike and no company enjoys special monopoly advantages. Under such a market, nobody makes profits. The low-end markets approach the conditions limned by the perfect competition theory. Competition is so intense that none of the smaller players can make any money in that market. So for example we find Pentax deciding to go without any entry level camera for the nonce. Why would they do this? Well, maybe their entry level cameras weren't making any money.

But writing off MILCs is kind of crazy in my view. They are a serious business even if they are not for you or I and they may turn out to be the key business over the next decade because they are the best vehicle for bringing new technology to the broad mass of the market.

If I've left the impression that I'm writing of MILCs, then I've been misread. As a matter of fact, I regard m4/3 as a very promising format for those who want a compact system. I also have a lot of respect for the Fuji X system and the Ricoh GXR. I merely believe that predictions holding that compact MILCs will replace DSLRs are misguided. People who make such predictions are guilty of concentrating way too much on cameras, rather than the system (and particularly the lenses) that is built around the camera. While it is true that many consumers rather doltishly buy the camera first and then buy into the system later on, no real commitment to a brand takes place until the photographer begins investing into lenses, flashes, and other expensive accessories. And it's by having people commit to your brand (i.e.,buy a lot of expensive stuff that can't be used with other brands), that companies make the bulk of their profits. Nikon and Canon produce the best system camera; and that's why they're the most profitable brands. DSLRs are better system cameras than MILCs (it's not even close); and because larger cameras are needed to balance the larger lenses and powerful flashes favored by most serious photographers, DSLR systems are likely to be superior as systems to other formats for many years to come. Putting android in cameras is not going to change that. On the contrary, it strikes me as a rather desparate gesture on the part of companies who aren't making money on their products because they still haven't figured out how to make a great system camera.

[hangman43]

New mount = more money. More money = life of Pentax.

Pentax has only 6 lenses for 35 mm now. I don't see any logical connection between K-mount and FF.
95% of lenses are for APS-C.

How would a new mount =more money all I see is it costing money with no guarantee of making money I do not know of a single person that has not bought Pentax because it used K-mount but know quite a few that have stayed with Pentax because of the K-mount. Why can there not just be new lens with the K-mount what purpose would changing mounts serve would it draw new customers because the mount is different? The only way a mount change would effect Pentax is if they were able to use a Canon or Nikon mount so you could use their lens which will never happen.

[IchabodCrane]

I seriously doubt that that's true. The margins on the high end stuff are almost always much greater than the low-end stuff. Companies make little, if any money selling kit lenses and entry level cameras. The margins are on the mid- and high-level stuff. It's fairly well acknowledged, for example, that Fuji is making money on their X series of cameras, particularly the pricey X-pro (along with the pricey X lenses). Olympus probably makes money on the E-M5; but I have seriuos doubts about their entry level Pens, some of which are being dumped on the market at prices below what compact P&S cameras sell for. In economics, there is theory known as "perfect competition," where all products are pretty much alike and no company enjoys special monopoly advantages. Under such a market, nobody makes profits. The low-end markets approach the conditions limned by the perfect competition theory. Competition is so intense that none of the smaller players can make any money in that market. So for example we find Pentax deciding to go without any entry level camera for the nonce. Why would they do this? Well, maybe their entry level cameras weren't making any money.



If I've left the impression that I'm writing of MILCs, then I've been misread. As a matter of fact, I regard m4/3 as a very promising format for those who want a compact system. I also have a lot of respect for the Fuji X system and the Ricoh GXR. I merely believe that predictions holding that compact MILCs will replace DSLRs are misguided. People who make such predictions are guilty of concentrating way too much on cameras, rather than the system (and particularly the lenses) that is built around the camera. While it is true that many consumers rather doltishly buy the camera first and then buy into the system later on, no real commitment to a brand takes place until the photographer begins investing into lenses, flashes, and other expensive accessories. And it's by having people commit to your brand (i.e.,buy a lot of expensive stuff that can't be used with other brands), that companies make the bulk of their profits. Nikon and Canon produce the best system camera; and that's why they're the most profitable brands. DSLRs are better system cameras than MILCs (it's not even close); and because larger cameras are needed to balance the larger lenses and powerful flashes favored by most serious photographers, DSLR systems are likely to be superior as systems to other formats for many years to come. Putting android in cameras is not going to change that. On the contrary, it strikes me as a rather desparate gesture on the part of companies who aren't making money on their products because they still haven't figured out how to make a great system camera.

I agree with much of what you write. Regarding cameras being dumped onto the market at low prices (m4/3 as you cite), those are almost always out of production models being cleared. By the same token, a very highly regarded DSLR is also being dumped at incredibly low prices -- the K-5. I suppose we could add an APS-C MILC to the list -- the K-01. I guess my point is what's being cleared out is not necessarily an indicator of the technology it's based on.

I believe DSLRs will continue to dominate the mid-level and especially the high-level of the camera market until technology enables another approach. When on-sensor focusing equals or exceeds PDAF, that will be the change (IMHO). Anyone paying $1500 to $6000 for a camera is going to demand the fastest focusing in the lowest light. Without going through everyone's specs, let's say the K-5 II and D4 set the bar for what can be achieved in focusing speed and low light. Why would someone paying a big chunk of change want to compromise in that area?

So if we use the current benchmark of -3 EV for low-light AF capability, what stops the market to moving to MILC if that can be duplicated on sensor? We already know Olympus can achieve very fast focus speeds so that part of the equation shouldn't stand in the way. Yes, an EVF will be resisted by some (I'm not wild about them myself but do recognize the info overlay advantage) but it's reasonable to think they will keep getting better. At some point, most likely won't have an ax to grind over that -- just a hunch.

[Deiberson]

I liked my Pentax system....but after reading through years of these threads, I'm glad I had enough courage to jump ship and go FF.

[northcoastgreg]

Once full frame gets down to 1500 dollars, cameras like the OM-D will be a no-go

Here again I think we're making the mistake that consumers of cameras all want the same thing. When has this ever been true? The OM-D is much smaller than an FF camera. And, even more important, the m4/3 lenses are much smaller as well. You can fit an m4/3 zoom lens in a pocket. What Nikon or Canon zoom lenses are pocketable?

Some photographers really like small cameras that produce excellent quality. Some photographers want bigger cameras that handle easier and can support bigger lenses and accessories. And some photographers appreciate both small and large cameras, and use whatever camera best fits a given task. It would be foolish for camera companies to address only the preferences of some of their consumers at the expense of all the rest.

As to the $1,500 FF camera: well, perhaps that falls under the category: "be careful what you wish for." We're getting close to the $1,500 mark with the D600, and it's not clear it's an altogether auspicious development for FF. Perhaps it's nice for FF consumers in the short-run; but is it really going to be the game changer anticipated by the FF-ophiles? Maybe not. What we're seeing with the D600 is a softening of demand. Nikon was not able to maintain a price for the camera with healthy margins for more than a couple months. In most cases, when a camera begins dropping in price only two months after it's release, that's a sign that it's underperforming in the market. Perhaps the market for a sub $2,000 FF is much smaller than the FF-ophiles have assumed. Perhaps many photographers are agnostics about sensor size, and merely wish to have the camera that works best with the glass they have invested in.