[junyo]

Canon working on smaller DSLRs to compete with mirrorless/EVILs - 1001 Noisy Cameras

So it seems that everyone has to acknowledge the existence and impact on the market of m4/3... except Pentax of course. So when Canon sets up camp on the outskirts of that whole 'small bodies and primes' niche that Pentax fanboys seem to think is perpetually viable, what then? FF, and try and pull lenses and a pro support network out of their ass? Oh wait, used, legacy glass will make it work. Or try to jump into the EVIL market ("Treason! Heresy!" hiss the fanboys)? Or simply the acceleration of the slide to obscurity?

[Parallax]

This is not Pentax news or rumor. Moved to off-brand.

[Adam]

You should post this on Mirrorless Camera Forums once we launch it

[Blue]

Canon working on smaller DSLRs to compete with mirrorless/EVILs - 1001 Noisy Cameras

So it seems that everyone has to acknowledge the existence and impact on the market of m4/3... except Pentax of course. So when Canon sets up camp on the outskirts of that whole 'small bodies and primes' niche that Pentax fanboys seem to think is perpetually viable, what then? FF, and try and pull lenses and a pro support network out of their ass? Oh wait, used, legacy glass will make it work. Or try to jump into the EVIL market ("Treason! Heresy!" hiss the fanboys)? Or simply the acceleration of the slide to obscurity?

News flash, Pentax has trended toward smaller SLR and dSLR bodies from the beginning. Go look at the dimensions of the *istD (129 x 95 x 60mm). Then go take a look at the dimensions of the K20d (141.5 x 101 x 70mm) and K200d (133.5 x 95 x 74mm) and compare them to the newer K-7 (130.5 x 96.5 x 72.5mm). Then tell me that Pentax isn't paying attention to size. If the 4/3 were film, it would be 110 so one could argue that those bodies are huge.

There is this big fat myth that rangefinders are smaller than dSLR. That may very well be true if you are talking about the typical Nikon slr/dSLR body or Canon. However, Pentax has been pushing for smaller bodies from the beginning including the Asahiflex or the Asahi Pentax 'AP' body in 1957 which is actually smaller than the fixed lens rangefinders of the day. My Ricoh Five-One-Nine is huge and heavy compared to my K and both came out about the same time (~1958).

Some comparisons:

Canon 7d 148.2 x 110.7 x 73.5mm
Canon Mk III 156 x 159.6 x 79.9mm
Canon Rebel T2i 128.8 x 97.5 x 75.3mm

K-7 130.5 x 96.5 x 72.5mm
Pentax K-x 122 x 91.4 x 68.6

*istD 129 x 95 x 60mm (2003)
*istDS2 125 x 92.5 x 66mm (2005)
K20d 141.5 x 101 x 70mm (2008)
K200d 133.5 x 95 x 74mm (2008)
K100d 129.5 x 92.5 x 70mm (from 2006)

I wonder what took Canon so many years to figure this out?

[Blue]

Maybe canon should hire Pentax/Hoya to help them figure out how to make their dSLR bodies smaller. Pentax has some areas of improvement, but size is definitely one area where they are kicking ass and taking names.

[tuco]

Are you forgetting Pentax is working on getting their digital medium format spread around the world? They're not big enough to tackle too many fronts.

[junyo]

News flash, Pentax has trended toward smaller SLR and dSLR bodies from the beginning. Go look at the dimensions of the *istD (129 x 95 x 60mm). Then go take a look at the dimensions of the K20d (141.5 x 101 x 70mm) and K200d (133.5 x 95 x 74mm) and compare them to the newer K-7 (130.5 x 96.5 x 72.5mm). Then tell me that Pentax isn't paying attention to size. If the 4/3 were film, it would be 110 so one could argue that those bodies are huge.

There is this big fat myth that rangefinders are smaller than dSLR. That may very well be true if you are talking about the typical Nikon slr/dSLR body or Canon. However, Pentax has been pushing for smaller bodies from the beginning including the Asahiflex or the Asahi Pentax 'AP' body in 1957 which is actually smaller than the fixed lens rangefinders of the day. My Ricoh Five-One-Nine is huge and heavy compared to my K and both came out about the same time (~1958).

Some comparisons:

Canon 7d 148.2 x 110.7 x 73.5mm
Canon Mk III 156 x 159.6 x 79.9mm
Canon Rebel T2i 128.8 x 97.5 x 75.3mm

K-7 130.5 x 96.5 x 72.5mm
Pentax K-x 122 x 91.4 x 68.6

*istD 129 x 95 x 60mm (2003)
*istDS2 125 x 92.5 x 66mm (2005)
K20d 141.5 x 101 x 70mm (2008)
K200d 133.5 x 95 x 74mm (2008)
K100d 129.5 x 92.5 x 70mm (from 2006)

I wonder what took Canon so many years to figure this out?

:sarcasm:

Thanks for the trip down memory lane.

Now how is any of that relevant?

The size of the K1000, the Spotmatic, the Kx, the *istD, the K10, and/or the K20 don't matter. Pentax currently has nothing as small as one of the micro formats. And the saving grace, the stated unique advantage of Pentax today, with their current lineup of bodies, is their small size SLRs and primes. Ignore the lack luster AF, the poor high ISO performance (except in the crippled base model), the low sync speed, the lack of affordable new glass, the lack of third party support, etc because if you want small(ish) bodies and primes, it's the only game in town.

Until another, larger company comes along and starts making small SLRs. And you've got nothing in the tank but 'same old, same old'. I see nothing from Pentax or it's most vocal supporter but calling back to past glories and coasting on the goodwill of the user community. Active hostility to any hint of change or innovation. If you don't like it, get out.

Are you forgetting Pentax is working on getting their digital medium format spread around the world? They're not big enough to tackle too many fronts.

After how many years of delays, rolled out over a couple of years, with one lens,with potential sales in the thousands? Sounds like a life saver.

I think Pentax's 'fans' have talked them into committing suicide.

[nosnoop]

I wonder what took Canon so many years to figure this out?

They have it all figured out - after all, they have been the top selling brand for so many years! They figured that the size of their camera is fine with majority of the users.

But now with their own EVIL probably many months away before being ready, they are coming up with "something" for their marketing department to counter the mirrorless onslaught. Relatively "cheap" for them and shouldn't be hard at all.

In the end, it does not matter, big camera, small camera.... slap the Canon brand on it, and it will sell.

[Alfisti]

Thanks for the trip down memory lane.

Now how is any of that relevant?

The size of the K1000, the Spotmatic, the Kx, the *istD, the K10, and/or the K20 don't matter. Pentax currently has nothing as small as one of the micro formats. And the saving grace, the stated unique advantage of Pentax today, with their current lineup of bodies, is their small size SLRs and primes. Ignore the lack luster AF, the poor high ISO performance (except in the crippled base model), the low sync speed, the lack of affordable new glass, the lack of third party support, etc because if you want small(ish) bodies and primes, it's the only game in town.

Until another, larger company comes along and starts making small SLRs. And you've got nothing in the tank but 'same old, same old'.

Amen!!!!! The one and only reason i shoot pentax is size, if someone throws a small format at me that I like ... look out i'm out.

[Urkeldaedalus]

Junyo, I don't know what fan boys you're talking about. It seems like most of the people on several Pentax forums I've visited want Pentax to do one of three things -- if not all three things:

1. Full frame
2. EVIL or some form of mirrorless system
3. Better autofocus

Personally I wish they would come out with a full frame camera, but I clearly don't call the shots. I wouldn't mind a EVIL micro 4/3 camera from them either because I think that is something Pentax could actually do pretty well based on both their past history and current strategy.

You're right about the fact that if Canon and Nikon are finally making small cameras that threatens Pentax's appeal in that area, but that doesn't mean they should stop doing what they are already good at. I don't see anybody telling Panasonic they should stop making micro 4/3 just because the big dogs decided to join the game.

[junyo]

Amen!!!!! The one and only reason i shoot pentax is size, if someone throws a small format at me that I like ... look out i'm out.

What you shoot is again, irrelevant. The faithful won't keep pentax viable forever, and I don't see the vast majority of new shooters coming to Pentax if there's a Canon/Nikon alternative.

Junyo, I don't know what fan boys you're talking about. It seems like most of the people on several Pentax forums I've visited want Pentax to do one of three things -- if not all three things:

1. Full frame
2. EVIL or some form of mirrorless system
3. Better autofocus

Personally I wish they would come out with a full frame camera, but I clearly don't call the shots. I wouldn't mind a EVIL micro 4/3 camera from them either because I think that is something Pentax could actually do pretty well based on both their past history and current strategy.

You're right about the fact that if Canon and Nikon are finally making small cameras that threatens Pentax's appeal in that area, but that doesn't mean they should stop doing what they are already good at. I don't see anybody telling Panasonic they should stop making micro 4/3 just because the big dogs decided to join the game.

1. Everyone's screaming for FF and a)it's a stupid idea that b) is not going to happen. Sure a FF camera would be nice, but in Pentax's current state (a ragged lens lineup, no real pro accesories, no real pro support network) it would be boutique camera for a handful of the faithful who have a full stable of legacy glass. Pentax needs tons of support infrastructure in place before a full frame camera would be a viable upgrade for the target user, the pro, who they would have to have to have a shot at making it profitable or at minimum an advertising/marketing tool.

2. https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-news-rumors/105649-japan-evil-~30%...r-over-yr.html

Several pages of the faithful pooping on the very idea of a Pentax EVIL.

3. Almost every thread I read where someone complains about the AF ends with "then buy a Canon".

I admire the heck out of Panasonic, because they recovered from their failed attempt at being an SLR maker, and took the fight right back to the big boys. Panasonic isn't getting out of the game, because now it's their game. Actually they went out and invented a new game, and thus are the market leaders in their segment. They're forcing Canon/Nikon react and play the newcomers.

Pentax is battling right in the middle of heavily contested markets with "me too, only slightly different and with less options" products instead of innovating. The 645d is a step in the right direction, but it's such a small, timid, slow step. When you're the underdog, small, slow, and timid aren't luxuries you can afford.

[tuco]

1. Everyone's screaming for FF and a)it's a stupid idea that b) is not going to happen. Sure a FF camera would be nice, but in Pentax's current state (a ragged lens lineup, no real pro accesories, no real pro support network) it would be boutique camera for a handful of the faithful who have a full stable of legacy glass.

I think the inference when people are "screaming for a FF" camera is that there will also be new lenses for it when it is made.

[wlachan]

Maybe canon should hire Pentax/Hoya to help them figure out how to make their dSLR bodies smaller. Pentax has some areas of improvement, but size is definitely one area where they are kicking ass and taking names.

On the contrary, I feel Canon was not making tiny DSLRs by choice. Take the 40D that I have for example, it is full of empty spaces inside. If they had the reason to, it should not be difficult squeezing all the parts tighter. The truth is most people associate camera/lens size with quality and professionalism, and bulky gears sell even though many might not use them. Owning those pro gears already made many feel good. Olympus was the pioneer on miniature, Pentax was just 2nd.

[Blue]

Thanks for the trip down memory lane.

Now how is any of that relevant?

Can you read the title or did you just cut an past it from that week blurb that you linked? You came in here like a big old troll saying that Pentax needs to follow Canon's lead and make smaller dSLR bodies.

Canon working on smaller DSLRs to compete with mirrorless/EVILs

Pentax bodies are already smaller than Canons. That's the relevance. Do you want to borrow a ruler? Look at the size of the K-7 and K-x.

[Blue]

On the contrary, I feel Canon was not making tiny DSLRs by choice. Take the 40D that I have for example, it is full of empty spaces inside. If they had the reason to, it should not be difficult squeezing all the parts tighter. The truth is most people associate camera/lens size with quality and professionalism, and bulky gears sell even though many might not use them. Owning those pro gears already made many feel good. Olympus was the pioneer on miniature, Pentax was just 2nd.

So you are saying the puffed up plastic Rebel was a facade done intentionally. Actually, you are wrong about Olympus being the pioneer in miniature. The AP and K were the bench marks of miniature 135. If you want 4/3, the 110 was 35 years ahead of the game in the context of film.

What the hell do people want, FF or 110 sized digital?