Pentax Micro 4/3 cameras.

SunnyG. · 08-08-2017, 11:39 PM

If micro four thirds is equivalent to 110 film, then Pentax did make micro four thirds in film era! Pentax did it all! How amazing is that. I would love to pen one of those 110 Pentax cameras.

Steve.Ledger · 08-09-2017, 12:55 AM

Actually the Pentax Auto 110 was an SLR, so it was more equivalent to the 'Four Thirds' cameras rather than 'Micro Four Thirds' which are so called because they are mirrorless and have a much shallower flange distance hence the smaller body possible on M43.
It was unfortunate that they coined 'micro' because so many people still today are put off by that thinking is refers to a tiny sensor, which of course it does not.

timw4mail · 08-09-2017, 06:55 AM

Originally posted by Steve.Ledger

Actually the Pentax Auto 110 was an SLR, so it was more equivalent to the 'Four Thirds' cameras rather than 'Micro Four Thirds' which are so called because they are mirrorless and have a much shallower flange distance hence the smaller body possible on M43.
It was unfortunate that they coined 'micro' because so many people still today are put off by that thinking is refers to a tiny sensor, which of course it does not.

Well, compared to APS-C, or especially full-frame, it is a small sensor. 110 film is quite a bit smaller than 135 film.

Micro 4/3 is mirrorless, 4/3 is DSLR.

But yes, a Micro 4/3 camera can take lenses from the Pentax 110 camera, with an adapter, and a lack of iris, because the Pentax 110 camera had the iris in the camera, not the lenses.

lytrytyr · 08-09-2017, 07:59 AM

The way Pentax developed but then abandoned the four-thirds format prematurely,
missing all the success that (micro) four-thirds has been enjoying in recent years,
is a sad precedent for what now seems to be happening with the Q format.

Blacknight659 · 08-09-2017, 10:26 AM

The last few years we have been spoiled with new this and that out of Pentax, and suddenly we are in a dry spell only receiving the KP. I am thinking something big is coming.

Last year, I was thinking it would be nice if the next Q replacement was a Pentax M4/3 camera sharing the same mount as Olympus and Panasonic. This would open revenue for the company for all M4/3 users, especially since Pentax makes some of the best glass in town. There is a lot of room in this market segment, and I have wondered if Pentax would jump in with both feet.

Time will tell, but the fact that we arn't seeing a lot doesn't mean something cool isn't brewing.

**mikesbike** · 08-09-2017, 11:03 AM

The Olympus line has some quality products, for sure. I know someone who is into them and enjoying the smaller size. I was impressed with the small size of one fast zoom lens this friend uses. The equipment is not cheap- on the contrary, on the expensive side. From what I've read, there are some meaningful tradeoffs in photographic capability when going even smaller than APS-C. Whether the Pentax Q system and equipment is yet smaller than the Olympus system is also another matter, along with further tradeoffs, then there is that cost factor.

It would seem when more limitations are imposed due to smaller sensor-size compromises, the convenience factor that is gained, while desirable, puts the system in more direct competition with smart phones, etc. which share those limitations.

6BQ5 · 08-09-2017, 11:24 AM

Originally posted by mikesbike

The Olympus line has some quality products, for sure. I know someone who is into them and enjoying the smaller size. I was impressed with the small size of one fast zoom lens this friend uses. The equipment is not cheap- on the contrary, on the expensive side. From what I've read, there are some meaningful tradeoffs in photographic capability when going even smaller than APS-C. Whether the Pentax Q system and equipment is yet smaller is also another matter, along with the cost factor.

Ricoh would have a heck of a hard time getting into the u4/3 format. Olympus and Panasonic already make amazing cameras at various price points. Where would Ricoh/Pentax fit in without being a "me too" product? Panasonic's slant is video and Olympus is focusing on stills. Features like sensor shift, on-sensor PDAF, focus stacking, massive buffers, stupid-fast bursts, etc all exist in Olympus and Panasonic cameras.

I think lenses are cheap and plentiful. A Lumix 35-100mm f/2.8 can be had for $700-ish and the new Mk II goes for $1000-ish. I think the Lumix 12-35mm f/2.8 is about the same. Compare that to the K-mount 24-70mm f/2.8 and 70mm-200mm f/2.8. Primes litter the landscape like weeds. u4/3 lenses are typically really, really sharp - almost sterile in rendering. It wouldn't make sensor for Ricoh to add to the landscape unless they can come up with a new optical formula.

In good light my M10 is a champ and is almost indistinguishable from APS and FF systems. Low light and high ISO is what hurts u4/3 today. That will probably change with time as technology advances and all sensors improve their performance.

I'm not sure where Ricoh could develop a new whiz bang system or if they even need to. They could enter with a curved sensor or make another attempt at a mirrorless K-mount. A new Q sensor equal to a low end u4/3 sensor would be welcome and it won't fail over the long run but it won't dazzle the industry either.

Sorry, I don't want sound too negative ...

... Ricoh has a good thing going with the K-1. Add another FF one day and two or three APS bodies to the mix and that's plenty enough.

**boriscleto** · 08-09-2017, 12:08 PM

Originally posted by 6BQ5

Sorry, I don't want sound too negative ...

... Ricoh has a good thing going with the K-1. Add another FF one day and two or three APS bodies to the mix and that's plenty enough.

Someone needs to be negative. Because 4/3 is simply something Ricoh is not going to do.

Blacknight659 · 08-09-2017, 12:48 PM

Originally posted by boriscleto

Someone needs to be negative. Because 4/3 is simply something Ricoh is not going to do.

I don't think I am as sure about this as you are. I am hopeful, but I wouldn't put any money on it. Pentax/Ricoh heard users bellyache for years about FF and it finally happened. I wouldn't put nails in the coffin is all I am saying.

**boriscleto** · 08-09-2017, 12:56 PM

Originally posted by Blacknight659

I don't think I am as sure about this as you are. I am hopeful, but I wouldn't put any money on it. Pentax/Ricoh heard users bellyache for years about FF and it finally happened. I wouldn't put nails in the coffin is all I am saying.

Ricoh has done small sensor mirrorless and they won't do it again...

I wouldn't be surprised to see a FF GR before we see anything else...but I'm not holding my breath for anything mirrorless...

**limestonecowboy** · 08-09-2017, 01:48 PM

I'll be happy if they would just collaborate with Tamron and Sigma again to tap into the latest lenses from them. 16-300mm, 150-600mm etc.

Must fix my sig

Steve.Ledger · 08-09-2017, 01:57 PM

Originally posted by timw4mail

Well, compared to APS-C, it is a small sensor. .

Yes it's smaller than APS-C but not by a huge amount, and it's nothing like p'n's tiny or the truly micro smartphone sensors.
Also I find that the aspect ratio is better for cropping. Switching to m43 a little over 18 months ago I have found my photography to be far more enjoyable with much nicer results.

6BQ5 · 08-09-2017, 03:19 PM

Originally posted by Blacknight659

I don't think I am as sure about this as you are. I am hopeful, but I wouldn't put any money on it. Pentax/Ricoh heard users bellyache for years about FF and it finally happened. I wouldn't put nails in the coffin is all I am saying.

Here is a list of the companies in the u4/3 consortium.

Four Thirds | Contact | Supporting Companies

When you see Ricoh's name on that list then you'll know a u4/3 body is coming.

Originally posted by boriscleto

Ricoh has done small sensor mirrorless and they won't do it again...

I wouldn't be surprised to see a FF GR before we see anything else...but I'm not holding my breath for anything mirrorless...

With no EVF, of course.

SunnyG. · 08-10-2017, 03:01 AM

Originally posted by Steve.Ledger

Yes it's smaller than APS-C but not by a huge amount, and it's nothing like p'n's tiny or the truly micro smartphone sensors.
Also I find that the aspect ratio is better for cropping. Switching to m43 a little over 18 months ago I have found my photography to be far more enjoyable with much nicer results.

The actual size of micro four thirds sensor is 18 mm X 13.5mm but the photographic area is 17.3mm X 13mm

**Rondec** · 08-10-2017, 04:25 AM - **1 Like**

Doing a micro four thirds mount just doesn't make sense for Pentax. It would take them a long time to build a full lens line up for such a new mount and while folks could buy Olympus and Panasonic lenses in the meantime, that doesn't really do anything for Ricoh/Pentax. Beyond which, it really feels like if you are going to do mirrorless with a new mount, you need to make sure that it is full frame compatible. Even if you stick a smaller sensor in the camera, it is nice to know that as the price of full frame sensors comes down, that you can use those in your camera too.

I have a hard time believing that in another five or ten years that the flagship micro four thirds cameras will still be able to sell for close to 2000 dollars. Either way, it doesn't seem like it is in the cards for Ricoh to make such a camera (either mirrorless or smaller mount).

08-08-2017, 11:39 PM	#1
SunnyG. Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2017 Posts: 428	Pentax Micro 4/3 cameras. If micro four thirds is equivalent to 110 film, then Pentax did make micro four thirds in film era! Pentax did it all! How amazing is that. I would love to pen one of those 110 Pentax cameras.

08-09-2017, 11:03 AM	#6
mikesbike Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2016 Location: Southeastern Michigan Posts: 4,549	The Olympus line has some quality products, for sure. I know someone who is into them and enjoying the smaller size. I was impressed with the small size of one fast zoom lens this friend uses. The equipment is not cheap- on the contrary, on the expensive side. From what I've read, there are some meaningful tradeoffs in photographic capability when going even smaller than APS-C. Whether the Pentax Q system and equipment is yet smaller than the Olympus system is also another matter, along with further tradeoffs, then there is that cost factor. It would seem when more limitations are imposed due to smaller sensor-size compromises, the convenience factor that is gained, while desirable, puts the system in more direct competition with smart phones, etc. which share those limitations. Last edited by mikesbike; 08-09-2017 at 12:44 PM.

08-09-2017, 01:48 PM	#11
limestonecowboy Site Supporter Join Date: Aug 2016 Location: Newcastle upon Tyne Photos: Albums Posts: 151	I'll be happy if they would just collaborate with Tamron and Sigma again to tap into the latest lenses from them. 16-300mm, 150-600mm etc. Must fix my sig Last edited by limestonecowboy; 08-09-2017 at 01:51 PM. Reason: sig wrong

08-09-2017, 01:57 PM	#12
Steve.Ledger Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Far North Qld Posts: 3,301	Originally posted by timw4mail Well, compared to APS-C, it is a small sensor. . Yes it's smaller than APS-C but not by a huge amount, and it's nothing like p'n's tiny or the truly micro smartphone sensors. Also I find that the aspect ratio is better for cropping. Switching to m43 a little over 18 months ago I have found my photography to be far more enjoyable with much nicer results. Attached Images

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
For Sale - Sold: Panasonic Lumix 35-100 f/2.8 for Micro 4/3 cameras	UncleVanya	Sold Items	0	05-09-2017 05:52 PM
Cameras cameras cameras	Lurch	Pentax DSLR Discussion	16	04-14-2013 02:54 AM
Help us build the most diverse FAQ on Micro Four Thirds cameras!	jct us101	Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands	5	03-26-2011 09:41 PM
Is Pentax a viable alternative to micro four thirds cameras?	Regular guy	Pentax DSLR Discussion	25	02-27-2011 01:13 AM
Potential New 11mm Pinhole cap(?) for Micro 4/3 cameras	pxpaulx	Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands	3	01-28-2011 07:44 PM

08-09-2017, 12:55 AM	#2
Steve.Ledger Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Far North Qld Posts: 3,301	Actually the Pentax Auto 110 was an SLR, so it was more equivalent to the 'Four Thirds' cameras rather than 'Micro Four Thirds' which are so called because they are mirrorless and have a much shallower flange distance hence the smaller body possible on M43. It was unfortunate that they coined 'micro' because so many people still today are put off by that thinking is refers to a tiny sensor, which of course it does not.

08-09-2017, 06:55 AM	#3
timw4mail Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2017 Location: Driving a Mirage Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,670	Originally posted by Steve.Ledger Actually the Pentax Auto 110 was an SLR, so it was more equivalent to the 'Four Thirds' cameras rather than 'Micro Four Thirds' which are so called because they are mirrorless and have a much shallower flange distance hence the smaller body possible on M43. It was unfortunate that they coined 'micro' because so many people still today are put off by that thinking is refers to a tiny sensor, which of course it does not. Well, compared to APS-C, or especially full-frame, it is a small sensor. 110 film is quite a bit smaller than 135 film. Micro 4/3 is mirrorless, 4/3 is DSLR. But yes, a Micro 4/3 camera can take lenses from the Pentax 110 camera, with an adapter, and a lack of iris, because the Pentax 110 camera had the iris in the camera, not the lenses.

08-09-2017, 07:59 AM	#4
lytrytyr Pentaxian Join Date: Nov 2011 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 4,310	The way Pentax developed but then abandoned the four-thirds format prematurely, missing all the success that (micro) four-thirds has been enjoying in recent years, is a sad precedent for what now seems to be happening with the Q format.

08-09-2017, 10:26 AM	#5
Blacknight659 Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2013 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 731	The last few years we have been spoiled with new this and that out of Pentax, and suddenly we are in a dry spell only receiving the KP. I am thinking something big is coming. Last year, I was thinking it would be nice if the next Q replacement was a Pentax M4/3 camera sharing the same mount as Olympus and Panasonic. This would open revenue for the company for all M4/3 users, especially since Pentax makes some of the best glass in town. There is a lot of room in this market segment, and I have wondered if Pentax would jump in with both feet. Time will tell, but the fact that we arn't seeing a lot doesn't mean something cool isn't brewing.

08-09-2017, 11:24 AM	#7
6BQ5 Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2013 Location: Nevada, USA Photos: Albums Posts: 3,348	Originally posted by mikesbike The Olympus line has some quality products, for sure. I know someone who is into them and enjoying the smaller size. I was impressed with the small size of one fast zoom lens this friend uses. The equipment is not cheap- on the contrary, on the expensive side. From what I've read, there are some meaningful tradeoffs in photographic capability when going even smaller than APS-C. Whether the Pentax Q system and equipment is yet smaller is also another matter, along with the cost factor. Ricoh would have a heck of a hard time getting into the u4/3 format. Olympus and Panasonic already make amazing cameras at various price points. Where would Ricoh/Pentax fit in without being a "me too" product? Panasonic's slant is video and Olympus is focusing on stills. Features like sensor shift, on-sensor PDAF, focus stacking, massive buffers, stupid-fast bursts, etc all exist in Olympus and Panasonic cameras. I think lenses are cheap and plentiful. A Lumix 35-100mm f/2.8 can be had for $700-ish and the new Mk II goes for $1000-ish. I think the Lumix 12-35mm f/2.8 is about the same. Compare that to the K-mount 24-70mm f/2.8 and 70mm-200mm f/2.8. Primes litter the landscape like weeds. u4/3 lenses are typically really, really sharp - almost sterile in rendering. It wouldn't make sensor for Ricoh to add to the landscape unless they can come up with a new optical formula. In good light my M10 is a champ and is almost indistinguishable from APS and FF systems. Low light and high ISO is what hurts u4/3 today. That will probably change with time as technology advances and all sensors improve their performance. I'm not sure where Ricoh could develop a new whiz bang system or if they even need to. They could enter with a curved sensor or make another attempt at a mirrorless K-mount. A new Q sensor equal to a low end u4/3 sensor would be welcome and it won't fail over the long run but it won't dazzle the industry either. Sorry, I don't want sound too negative ... ... Ricoh has a good thing going with the K-1. Add another FF one day and two or three APS bodies to the mix and that's plenty enough.

08-09-2017, 12:08 PM	#8
boriscleto Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: North Syracuse, NY Photos: Gallery Posts: 16,475	Originally posted by 6BQ5 Sorry, I don't want sound too negative ... ... Ricoh has a good thing going with the K-1. Add another FF one day and two or three APS bodies to the mix and that's plenty enough. Someone needs to be negative. Because 4/3 is simply something Ricoh is not going to do.

08-09-2017, 12:48 PM	#9
Blacknight659 Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2013 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 731	Originally posted by boriscleto Someone needs to be negative. Because 4/3 is simply something Ricoh is not going to do. I don't think I am as sure about this as you are. I am hopeful, but I wouldn't put any money on it. Pentax/Ricoh heard users bellyache for years about FF and it finally happened. I wouldn't put nails in the coffin is all I am saying.

08-09-2017, 12:56 PM	#10
boriscleto Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: North Syracuse, NY Photos: Gallery Posts: 16,475	Originally posted by Blacknight659 I don't think I am as sure about this as you are. I am hopeful, but I wouldn't put any money on it. Pentax/Ricoh heard users bellyache for years about FF and it finally happened. I wouldn't put nails in the coffin is all I am saying. Ricoh has done small sensor mirrorless and they won't do it again... I wouldn't be surprised to see a FF GR before we see anything else...but I'm not holding my breath for anything mirrorless...

08-09-2017, 03:19 PM	#13
6BQ5 Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2013 Location: Nevada, USA Photos: Albums Posts: 3,348	Originally posted by Blacknight659 I don't think I am as sure about this as you are. I am hopeful, but I wouldn't put any money on it. Pentax/Ricoh heard users bellyache for years about FF and it finally happened. I wouldn't put nails in the coffin is all I am saying. Here is a list of the companies in the u4/3 consortium. Four Thirds \| Contact \| Supporting Companies When you see Ricoh's name on that list then you'll know a u4/3 body is coming. Originally posted by boriscleto Ricoh has done small sensor mirrorless and they won't do it again... I wouldn't be surprised to see a FF GR before we see anything else...but I'm not holding my breath for anything mirrorless... With no EVF, of course.

08-10-2017, 03:01 AM	#14
SunnyG. Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2017 Posts: 428 Original Poster	Originally posted by Steve.Ledger Yes it's smaller than APS-C but not by a huge amount, and it's nothing like p'n's tiny or the truly micro smartphone sensors. Also I find that the aspect ratio is better for cropping. Switching to m43 a little over 18 months ago I have found my photography to be far more enjoyable with much nicer results. The actual size of micro four thirds sensor is 18 mm X 13.5mm but the photographic area is 17.3mm X 13mm

08-10-2017, 04:25 AM - 1 Like	#15
Rondec Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Gladys, Virginia Photos: Gallery Posts: 27,653	Doing a micro four thirds mount just doesn't make sense for Pentax. It would take them a long time to build a full lens line up for such a new mount and while folks could buy Olympus and Panasonic lenses in the meantime, that doesn't really do anything for Ricoh/Pentax. Beyond which, it really feels like if you are going to do mirrorless with a new mount, you need to make sure that it is full frame compatible. Even if you stick a smaller sensor in the camera, it is nice to know that as the price of full frame sensors comes down, that you can use those in your camera too. I have a hard time believing that in another five or ten years that the flagship micro four thirds cameras will still be able to sell for close to 2000 dollars. Either way, it doesn't seem like it is in the cards for Ricoh to make such a camera (either mirrorless or smaller mount).