[howieb101]

Think in tradeoffs. While the screwdrive lenses can be noisy, they are also generally very small.

The FA 77mm for instance is tiny compared to a Sigma 85mm.

In controlled environments or where noise isn't a concern the FA 77 is a Godsend weightwise. The Sigma is great but also a heavy weight, literally.

[micromacro]

I was initially thrilled when I saw Canon releasing the 100D, but sadly they positioned it even lower than the current entry-level xxxDs, and clearly targeted at beginners. Yes, this camera is an excercise, maybe they come up with a new model that will be targeted at a different audience, but that hasn't happened yet.

You know I read that statement quite often form Canon users, but I can't understand in what exactly point 100D is lower than current entry-level?
What exactly so important it does not have that other entry-level have?
Personally I think 100D is great travel camera, but one major drawback- it's not Pentax

Here is low amateur level SL1 with kit STM lens. You know here is one major problem with Canon users, imo. They are the bunch of gear obsessed people.

[reh321]

Think in tradeoffs. While the screwdrive lenses can be noisy, they are also generally very small.
The FA 77mm for instance is tiny compared to a Sigma 85mm.

How much of that difference is manufacturer??

Considering difference in amount of zoom, there is virtually no difference between my Pentax-DA 18-55 screw-drive and my Pentax-DA 18-135 DC.

[UncleVanya]

How much of that difference is manufacturer??

Considering difference in amount of zoom, there is virtually no difference between my Pentax-DA 18-55 screw-drive and my Pentax-DA 18-135 DC.

I would wager that the delta is less for larger lenses. The smaller the lens the more penalty in percentage change you will pay for dc/sdm/plm vs screw drive. Essentially the motors have a minimum added space which is noticed more the smaller the starting point.

But your point is valid. My A* 85 1.4 dwarfed my FA 77 f1.8.

[Nicolas06]

How much of that difference is manufacturer??

Considering difference in amount of zoom, there is virtually no difference between my Pentax-DA 18-55 screw-drive and my Pentax-DA 18-135 DC.

In fact a lot because among other things you can't buy any possible design but must buy something that actually exist. There nothing else like DA70 or DA77. DFA100 macro is also small. DA50-135 is I think a unique offering in size/weight too as well as DA20-40 or DA35 ltd. I don't think there anybody else offering you a DA15 neither. The motor is not the big factor it should be when you compare 18-50 DC and 18-55 screw drive... or even the latest 55-300 with the previous one...

On the opposite, the DFA70-200 is the biggest 70-200 ever...

For me if one manufacturer can do it, all other with same constraints (registration distance...) can achieve the same, of course. But they may never decide to do it. And in some case, you'll never get an FA77 from Sony FE mount or a Fuji 23mm f/1.4 from K-mount with the same size/weight/quality parameters.

Design decision are made to target a market, some characteristics or vision. People adhere to it or not. Canikon focussed on silent motor, and very efficiant AF and it worked well for them. Pentax focussed (in the past) on small/light design that were a bit worse optically. That didn't work that well. Now the recent DFA are behemoh made for absolute optical performance. I don't know for AF... Theses are decision that mean I'll never buy a DFA70-200 at any price for example but will stay with the brand that has lenses like FA77, FA31 or DA15...

[roti]

You know I read that statement quite often form Canon users, but I can't understand in what exactly point 100D is lower than current entry-level? What exactly so important it does not have that other entry-level have? Personally I think 100D is great travel camera, but one major drawback- it's not Pentax Here is low amateur level SL1 with kit STM lens. You know here is one major problem with Canon users, imo. They are the bunch of gear obsessed people.

Autofocus is poorer in 100D. But I agree there isn't much difference between 100D and other entry-level Canons. My complaint was with 100D beeing in the entry-level league, instead of the middle-class xxDs.
I don't know how gear obsessed canonians are, but to me this looks like a wild generalization. There's nothing wrong in being picky with your equipment. I purchased my Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 VC without too much study, and ended up regretting my decision a little bit, as the non VC version would have been better. I took great pictures with it, and am not using it because of the size/weight, not because it's not as sharp as the non VC version.

[micromacro]

Autofocus is poorer in 100D.

I can't agree with that. Focus tracking works like a charm in my camera. The ratio out of focus/in focus is low. The biggest drawback of SL1 is high ISO noise, and DR, but again, it's decent for that range camera. It's not that bad travel entry level camera, and convenient to use. Ergonomics is pretty good in that model, imo.
But that "dry" very loud shutter sound drives me crazy, and plastic cheapo finish is so Canon thing.
As for Pentax, for the same price, or nearly the same price there are more advanced cameras than Canon offers.

[roti]

I can't agree with that. Focus tracking works like a charm in my camera. The ratio out of focus/in focus is low. The biggest drawback of SL1 is high ISO noise, and DR, but again, it's decent for that range camera. It's not that bad travel entry level camera, and convenient to use. Ergonomics is pretty good in that model, imo.
But that "dry" very loud shutter sound drives me crazy, and plastic cheapo finish is so Canon thing.
As for Pentax, for the same price, or nearly the same price there are more advanced cameras than Canon offers.

What I mean by poorer autofocus is the fact that in 100D only the central focus point is cross-type. But I have to confess, I'm not very educated on this topic, so I don't really know how important this is. I just know I miss having more focus points on my current 500D (for real, not just as a feature junkie). My initial dissapointment was the fact that having 100D placed in the entry level area means that it is not guaranteed to cover all your needs in a reasonable time span in the future as you evolve as a photographer. I'm sure it's a great camera, and any skilled photographer can make little wonders with it, but there is a chance that you get to feel its limits, miss a shot or two. It's essentially the difference between "good" or "quite good" and "the best you can get".

That beeing said, I can't but recognize the value Canon (and others as well) is bringing by making such affordable cameras. If you could measure a ratio of features/price, I'm sure that the entry level cameras rule here. You get something like 50% - 70% capablilitiies of a top of the line camera (my own rough estimation) at 10%-20% of the price. It's the same as buying a used K500, because you will get more for your money, even though you will not get as much as with K300. This is even more dramatic in the phone industry, where essentially a couple of overpriced flagships are financing research and move the industry forward, while all mid-range or low-end phone buyers just enjoy the benefits at a low price (and later or with fewer features). So, evil marketing machine or not, Canon makes good cameras quite affordable, which can't be a bad thing (same with Nikon I guess). There is now even the concept of "affordable full frames". Quite impressive, if you ask me.

When you say "drawback is high ISO noise" you compare with what exactly? Pentax? I think Canon sensors are the same in all models, just that entry levels use older generations.

---------- Post added 10-26-16 at 08:36 AM ----------

Dear Pentaxians,

Thank you very much for your replies. It is much more than I expected. I decided to make portability as my main requirement from a camera, and weather sealing as my second. And by portability I mean more size than weight. So in the Pentax land, the K70 would be my choice. However I decided to wait a little more, and see what Canon is doing. 100D was an experiment in size, maybe there is a successor planned, maybe even targeted at more experienced users. Reading your replies and looking up your references also made me decide on staying in DSLR land, and not venture into Mirrorrless kingdom. Fuji is really tempting, but it still failed to convice me that it's not going the apple way.
I just hope the three major players in DSLR are still fully committed to the cause and also recognize portability as a need for some users.

Cheers,
roti

[UncleVanya]

K-S1 is smaller and lacks weather sealing. No longer available new as far as I know.

[photoptimist]

I am a little bit skeptical about the shake reduction feature. It's a nice to have, but does it come with a compromise? Fuji does not have in body image stabilization because it is incompatible with the lens mount (there is no space for the sensor to shift without compromising image quality, see here: “Our highest priority is always image quality”. Interview with Takashi Ueno and Shusuke Kozaki from Fujifilm Japan. | FUJI LOVE). How does Pentax do it, especially since they are using an old lens mount design? Fuji made a brand new mount and decided not to have in body stabilization. Pentax may have forced it into the body to have a competitive advantage over Canikon. In addition to that, stabilisation will help only partially in poor light conditions.

Fuji is simply wrong on many levels. First, an SR system could have fit with the Fuji mount without compromising image quality had Fuji wanted it -- the camera would have been somewhat larger but image quality would not have been affected. Second, one could argue that a lack of SR compromises image quality more because the photographer is forced to use higher ISO settings to maintain a high shutter speed. Third, one can readily use SR to enhance image quality at all light levels such as through selective use of the anti-aliasing simulator, pixel shift (a huge boost to image quality for many types of scenes), astrotracer, composition adjust, automatic horizon leveling, etc.

There is only one minor condition where SR might seem like it degrades image quality and that occurs when the camera's motion is large enough that sensor is shifted quite far from the center. The further the sensor is moved form the center, the more that one or two corners of the image are pushed into the outer edge of the lens' image circle which often has less sharpness and more vignetting. The effect varies with the lens and body -- it's never a problem with a full-frame lens on an APS-C body but can happen with full-frame-on-full-frame or APS-C-on-APS-C. But if the motion is that large, then a non-SR camera would have gotten a blurry image or been forced to use high ISO so that the non-SR image would be worse than the SR image overall.

SImply put: SR aids image quality.

[UncleVanya]

In my opinion the short flange focal distance of the Fuji system contributes to their objections to sensor movement based stabilization. The narrow mount plus the short distance and the lens image circle likely cause this to be non-viable for them. But it is obviously workable for Pentax, Sony, Olympus, Panasonic (newer bodies) etc.

[normhead]

@pathdoc, what exactly do you mean by "autofocus is Pentax' weak spot"?

Other camera companies make cameras with faster AF systems, for a lot more money. Dollar for dollar, Pentax systems do just fine.

I am a little bit skeptical about the shake reduction feature. It's a nice to have, but does it come with a compromise?

The shake reduction feature works awesome. And Pentax execs also have image quality as their priority. Stabilization works every where. The analysis of un-stabilized images will show motion blur right up to 1/1000s if you don't use a tripod. Honestly, Fuji can say whatever they want. They are under absolutely no obligation to be honest.

I am somewhat surpised to hear that Pentax image quality is second to none. What makes it better? It is my impression that many top professional photographers choose Canikon, rather than Pentax. So I expect their image quality to be the best. Yes, lower end models are stripped down and there's a lot of marketing involved there, but the sensons are the same. At most they are one generation older and/or smaller in size.

Two of the more serious shooters I've talked to in the past year, have switched Canon to Nikon, for more detail and more Dynamic range, and they are both still gushing about the detail and extra dynamic range. These are long time Canon users. Canon still hasn't produced a camera with the Dynamic Range of a 6 year old Pentax K-5 or Nikon D7100. Talking about Canon and Nikon/Pentax/Sony, no, the sensors aren't the same. And as far as I can tell Canon put all their R&D into organic sensor technology, which has really never panned out.

No one cares if an organic sensor could have a dynamic range of 20 EV in theory, if they can't put one in a camera. Canon has gone all Windows on us, promising new technology is coming just down the line that will make their product competitive, but really, their edge is equipment for shooting pro-sports. If you don't do that, their run of the mill stuff, is just that, run of the mill, and in many ways not as capable of producing good images as most of their competition. But it's good enough that good photographers can make it work.

[photoptimist]

In my opinion the short flange focal distance of the Fuji system contributes to their objections to sensor movement based stabilization. The narrow mount plus the short distance and the lens image circle likely cause this to be non-viable for them. But it is obviously workable for Pentax, Sony, Olympus, Panasonic (newer bodies) etc.

I would agree with that if Fuji was using a pre-existing mount with a fixed narrow throat diameter. But they designed the mount and lenses, too, and could have designed those for SR.

A short flange focal distance doesn't preclude sensor-based stabilization especially in a mirrorless design. Sony seems to have no problem adding SR to the A7 and it's flange focal distance is only 0.3mm larger than Fuji's (18mm v.s 17.7mm).

[Kunzite]

Fuji is simply wrong on many levels.

What they're saying is that their (Fuji's X) mount is too small to accommodate in-body stabilization without impacting image quality. Even if true, this should not be extended to Pentax K and SR, which is a proven technology.

By the way, Pentax K is both larger and has a longer registration distance than Fuji X. Indeed, Fujifilm decided they don't want larger sensors and in-body image stabilization systems.

We can arrange some ad-hoc "workshop", and have Roti try it.