The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

Any former Pentax user?

Godfrey

Well-known member
...I dont understand why micro 4/3 is pushed so much and 4/3 is not.
While I find m4/3 small size nice for some things (parties, bycicle tours, casual stuff) I find a nice OVF and more important a certain size and weight of a camera body just the better tool. More stable in the hands, buttons better to reach without looking at it, better viewfinder, faster lenses.
Maybe I am old fashioned but m4/3 still does feel to small with too many buttons and video-camera-like viewfinder for me as an overall camera. Even without owning one a E5 is - IMO - much more camera than a GH2 or G3 or EP3.

size, amount of mp and high ISO noise are the most overrated features IMO today.
I think in many ways it comes down to how difficult it is to make a better SLR in the Olympus chosen FourThirds format. The basic design of the SLR has been very thoroughly developed over many years of constant improvement, since the middle 1930s, and is locked to certain physical constraints of the optical and mechanical systems necessary to implement it. In some ways ... the most important ones with respect to an "SLR" design (the viewfinder and reflex mirror system) ... the E-5 is very close to as good as you can get. While you can improve the sensor, the electronics, etc, there's really not much you're going to be able to do to improve the optical viewfinder performance given the size of the format.

Changing the sensor format is not a great option because that implies re-developing the entire line of lenses. The Olympus Zuiko Digital lens line represented by the HG and SHG lenses is top notch and really does have all the lenses that a photographer needs, plus or minus one or two based on your particular predilections.

The SLR's moving mirror also puts serious constraints on the development of lens designs ... a mount register that's nearly twice as deep as the 'normal' for the format makes designing normal to ultra wide lenses much more difficult. This is indeed the biggest advantage to Micro-FourThirds over the SLRs: the short mount register possible without a moving mirror means that it is possible to design normal and wide lenses of better quality that are simpler and less expensive.

Smaller than 35mm film formats are basically not the best basis for a 35mm format derivative SLR ... and this is why Nikon and Canon, with a HUGE lens range in their portfolio and a vast user community with tens of thousands of dollars worth of lenses that they don't want to replace, have been so strenuously developing and marketing for "full frame" (aka, 35mm sized sensor) formats.

These are just some of the things that comes to mind when I think of why Olympus might not want to push further with an SLR system, and why Panasonic only went to two models before putting all their investment money into all electronic cameras. The pro-line bodies and lenses Olympus has produced have all been very good to excellent products, the lens line for them is effectively very complete and top notch ... to go further down that path and produce better can only be done with very large investments, to which there are substantial risks. Meanwhile, the short mount register, modest size and shrinking price of producing quality electronics makes moving towards all electronic system cameras pretty appealing from a development standpoint. The compact size and low weight achievable is also very appealing to the consumer market standpoint too.

None of the current Micro-FourThirds or NEX cameras are marketed as pro-grade cameras with performance and durability on par with the pro-grade offerings from Olympus, Nikon and Canon. There's nothing that says that a larger form factor, pro-grade mFT cannot come along ... and I speculate that this is precisely what Olympus in particular is working on, with the assumption that they want to maintain their professional market (which is still a healthy piece of their business). They've implied so much themselves: in several interviews and press releases they've indicated that the E-5 is their professional camera model until an all electronic model with comparable or better performance can be released, and that all the rest are superceded by the Micro-FourThirds line due to the performance they've achieved there.

Whether all this is right or wrong from a marketing and business perspective is not mine to judge, but whenever that day comes, if it comes, I am pretty sure that it will be a fine camera satisfying to all who enjoy the quality and performance of the current E-5.
 

raist3d

Well-known member
Many thanks to everybody for your replies. It seems like almost everybody agrees thata newer m4/3 bodies are much better at focusing than Pentax bodies.

What is still not very clear to me is how they compare (especially the 12-megapixel sensor ones, like the EP-3 or older Panasonic bodies) with the K-7 in terms of image quality.
If I were to make the jump (assuming that I get used to the different ergonomics and the EVF) would I notice an improvement or are they going to be similar? Is high ISO performance (1600 iso is enough for me) going to be better?
The K-7 is probably better, but the K-5 is much much better (tone/DR/ISO).
I am not sure how the K-7 would relate in absolute term, but from what I have seen it would be better. Over the Panasonic say GH2/GH1 which has the best micro four thirds sensors, maybe by a hair or about same.

Over the K-5 sensor, none of them.

- Raist
 

raist3d

Well-known member
For Pentax, the future is a little less clear since Pentax Imaging was sold to Ricoh by Hoya, and Ricoh has not yet announced their future plans for the Pentax brand and camera/lens lines as yet.
This isn't exactly true. Ricoh already announced that their intent in buying Pentax was to get in the expected to grow further DSLR market. That means the K- line is here to stay. They also mentioned it was indispensable for them to get their camera business (Of Pentax going) and they have every intention of keeping the Pentax brand to the end consumer. So on the DSLR is a pretty safe bet. Given the money Pentax is doing / investing in promoting the Q and given the Ricoh transaction is pretty much done, officially transferring October 1st, I don't think Ricoh is going to be opposed at all to the Pentax Q, if not actually promote it.

They also mentioned their goal is to expand the current Pentax + Ricoh camera marketshare by 2x within 3 years.

- Raist
 

raist3d

Well-known member
I am a bit surprized about some trends...
I dont understand why micro 4/3 is pushed so much and 4/3 is not.
Quite frankly at this point to me this is surprising only if you have missed on all the financial results/ directions/announcements of the companies. Let's take it by company with Panasonic first since that's the easiest one:

- Panasonic never really earned much with 4/3rds. They are in fact the ones that pushed micro four thirds as evidenced by how ready they were out of the gate. They are an electronic company so a camera that relies more on electronics they will have an edge (after all they even make the sensor for Olympus). They have all to gain and compared to their previous 4/3rds attempt they certainly are.

- Olympus - Olympus most likely saw an opportunity to get a foot hold while their 4/3rds market share and earnings continued to dwindle shrink quarter after quarter now over 2 years consecutively. So the issue here is not what some people perceive that would be nice- if 4/3rds continued, but the reality that it was just not profitable for Olympus.

Personally the main problem I think 4/3rds bumped into is that it lost its unique selling proposition. While lenses are really good, their unique selling proposition would have been smaller competent camera bodies. This sort of was half way achieved with the e-4xx line but by then it was a bit late. Also then a camera like the E-3 comes out and has to compete vs the big boys.

I personally think going head to head vs the big boys on their own game was probably Olympus biggest mistake. If they had focused on pro small cameras with good lenses I think they would have gotten a nice niche by now on 4/3rds. So micro four thirds is in a way that attempt now. Though now there's the initial catch up/ramp up with the lens system and new necessary tech (autofocus, etc.).

While I find m4/3 small size nice for some things (parties, bycicle tours, casual stuff) I find a nice OVF and more important a certain size and weight of a camera body just the better tool. More stable in the hands, buttons better to reach without looking at it, better viewfinder, faster lenses.
Maybe I am old fashioned but m4/3 still does feel to small with too many buttons and video-camera-like viewfinder for me as an overall camera. Even without owning one a E5 is - IMO - much more camera than a GH2 or G3 or EP3.

size, amount of mp and high ISO noise are the most overrated features IMO today.
I agree with MP. Not so sure on high ISO but I have particular needs. However, when you are putting out a big camera at $1,750 MSRP vs Nikon/Canon and surprisingly, Pentax and they are all ballpark good in many areas, your deficiencies start to stand out more and more… and that's a problem.


- Raist
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
This isn't exactly true. Ricoh already announced that their intent in buying Pentax was to get in the expected to grow further DSLR market. That means the K- line is here to stay. They also mentioned it was indispensable for them to get their camera business (Of Pentax going) and they have every intention of keeping the Pentax brand to the end consumer. So on the DSLR is a pretty safe bet. Given the money Pentax is doing / investing in promoting the Q and given the Ricoh transaction is pretty much done, officially transferring October 1st, I don't think Ricoh is going to be opposed at all to the Pentax Q, if not actually promote it.

They also mentioned their goal is to expand the current Pentax + Ricoh camera marketshare by 2x within 3 years.
What Ricoh press release did you read which articulated these things? Please send the URL as I haven't seen anything that stated their future directions for Pentax in such clear and incontrovertible terms.
 

ptomsu

Workshop Member
A camera like the E5 is the perfect tool for me for serious photography in many resects like size, IQ, features, controls, OVF etc. and also in combination with the pro grade lenses.

M43 is far away from this perfection. While having different merits like small size, low weight and even EVFs which are sometimes preferable, it is far away from being as perfect for serious photography like E5 is for me.

So I really do hope that not only Olympus, but also the other vendors will keep these type of Pro models in their lineup.

M43 Pro only relying on EVF etc is very far away IMHO
 

raist3d

Well-known member
What Ricoh press release did you read which articulated these things? Please send the URL as I haven't seen anything that stated their future directions for Pentax in such clear and incontrovertible terms.
http://www.ricoh.com/release/2011/pdf/0701.pdf
http://e.nikkei.com/e/fr/tnks/Nni20110702D01JFA18.htm

Given Ricoh is officially announcing they plan to sell and keep Pentax products/services, given they are talking about their interest in the Pentax DSLR (mentioned in a few articles / interviews), given this said in the last link:

"With a focus on leveraging Pentax's SLR technologies, Ricoh targets 100 billion yen in annual sales from digital cameras in three years, almost double their combined sales at present. It hopes to turn digital cameras into a key business behind its office products."

By combined sales it refers to Ricoh sales + Pentax sales (cameras).

Since they explicitly talk about the DSLR business several times, it would be a truly bone headed move to get rid of the K-line. Interestingly enough, Pentax has an invitation in Paris in Salon De La Foto, mid october to introduce a new camera…. (my guess is the K-5 successor, probably with the A77 sensor though honestly I rather have them stick to 16 MP and tweak that more or an improved version of that).

As for the Q, it just doesn't make any sense Pentax spending money on marketing and putting the Q out in the market with the already confirmed transfer of ownership- if Ricoh was against that product line. Yes, the Q is my own conjecture (and I didn't say anything different above though above it was just consequentially implied). It's just a connect the dots at that point when they have been laid out.

Of course, on a dime/quantum physics/fate could intercede and a turn around of decisions could happen, but I don't think those are the likely scenarios.


- Raist
 

Paratom

Well-known member
I think in many ways it comes down to how difficult it is to make a better SLR in the Olympus chosen FourThirds format. The basic design of the SLR has been very thoroughly developed over many years of constant improvement, since the middle 1930s, and is locked to certain physical constraints of the optical and mechanical systems necessary to implement it. In some ways ... the most important ones with respect to an "SLR" design (the viewfinder and reflex mirror system) ... the E-5 is very close to as good as you can get. While you can improve the sensor, the electronics, etc, there's really not much you're going to be able to do to improve the optical viewfinder performance given the size of the format.

Changing the sensor format is not a great option because that implies re-developing the entire line of lenses. The Olympus Zuiko Digital lens line represented by the HG and SHG lenses is top notch and really does have all the lenses that a photographer needs, plus or minus one or two based on your particular predilections.

The SLR's moving mirror also puts serious constraints on the development of lens designs ... a mount register that's nearly twice as deep as the 'normal' for the format makes designing normal to ultra wide lenses much more difficult. This is indeed the biggest advantage to Micro-FourThirds over the SLRs: the short mount register possible without a moving mirror means that it is possible to design normal and wide lenses of better quality that are simpler and less expensive.

Smaller than 35mm film formats are basically not the best basis for a 35mm format derivative SLR ... and this is why Nikon and Canon, with a HUGE lens range in their portfolio and a vast user community with tens of thousands of dollars worth of lenses that they don't want to replace, have been so strenuously developing and marketing for "full frame" (aka, 35mm sized sensor) formats.

These are just some of the things that comes to mind when I think of why Olympus might not want to push further with an SLR system, and why Panasonic only went to two models before putting all their investment money into all electronic cameras. The pro-line bodies and lenses Olympus has produced have all been very good to excellent products, the lens line for them is effectively very complete and top notch ... to go further down that path and produce better can only be done with very large investments, to which there are substantial risks. Meanwhile, the short mount register, modest size and shrinking price of producing quality electronics makes moving towards all electronic system cameras pretty appealing from a development standpoint. The compact size and low weight achievable is also very appealing to the consumer market standpoint too.

None of the current Micro-FourThirds or NEX cameras are marketed as pro-grade cameras with performance and durability on par with the pro-grade offerings from Olympus, Nikon and Canon. There's nothing that says that a larger form factor, pro-grade mFT cannot come along ... and I speculate that this is precisely what Olympus in particular is working on, with the assumption that they want to maintain their professional market (which is still a healthy piece of their business). They've implied so much themselves: in several interviews and press releases they've indicated that the E-5 is their professional camera model until an all electronic model with comparable or better performance can be released, and that all the rest are superceded by the Micro-FourThirds line due to the performance they've achieved there.

Whether all this is right or wrong from a marketing and business perspective is not mine to judge, but whenever that day comes, if it comes, I am pretty sure that it will be a fine camera satisfying to all who enjoy the quality and performance of the current E-5.
I still believe that the viewfinder is one of the most important parts of a camera. It is so a releafing experience to look through a D700 or A900 or S2 after having shot with a G3 for a time, its like "yeah, now I can see what I photograph and dont have to guess it", I can see how the light and shaddow and color really looks like and not how the display is showing it.
I am not talking against m4/3 which I find great for its compact size for some people (who do not want to carry much) and for some occasions (where one just doesnt havemuch room)
I also understand the theoretic lens design restrictions with the mirror in the way - but isnt reality that we do allready have all those very good lenses for 35mm available?
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
I also believe the viewfinder is one of the most important parts of a camera, but I see it more for its function than its aesthetic appeal. I use a viewfinder to focus and to frame ... anything that makes those functions better is appealing to me. I don't look through a viewfinder to find my subject matter in the first place ... I look with my eyes to do that. :)

... I also understand the theoretic lens design restrictions with the mirror in the way - but isnt reality that we do allready have all those very good lenses for 35mm available?
Even in 35mm full-frame circles, it is a almost a given that the best performing lenses are the lenses made for rangefinder cameras. The reason for that is they can be produced with fewer constraints on their design due to the short mount register of RF cameras, the lack of mirror and other mechanical bits in the way that can also cause vibrations, and they're smaller and lighter in the bargain. This Voigtländer Skopar 35mm f/2.5 I shot my second test roll with the M4-2 is simply an astonishingly good lens, and it is not only tiny but relatively inexpensive.

It's all about trade offs. I'll take a viewfinder that functions better over one that is perhaps more aesthetically pleasing, and I'll take lenses that perform as well or better that are much smaller. Others can make their own compromises... ;-)
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
I see. So you are inferring all these things, not reading them explicitly stated by Ricoh. That's what I thought.

I don't think Ricoh is going to eliminate the Pentax K mount cameras, and Ricoh has said say they'll continue the brand (as of July 1 anyway). But just what their plans are remains to be seen, that's why it's "unclear" ...

If Pentax Imaging had been making a lot of profit, I doubt Hoya Optical would have sold it for only $100M. Hoya never wanted Pentax Imaging, far as I can tell ... they wanted the very profitable Pentax Medical products.
 

raist3d

Well-known member
I see. So you are inferring all these things, not reading them explicitly stated by Ricoh. That's what I thought.
Nope, that's not what I said. Did you read what Ricoh stated as far as strategy for marketshare and interest in expanding the DSLR market? And keeping / putting products with the Pentax brand name? That's what they said, I didn't make that up.

Now, are there some rather obvious conjectures there, sure. I mean, we can all use our brains little bit here without straying from facts.

I don't think Ricoh is going to eliminate the Pentax K mount cameras, and Ricoh has said say they'll continue the brand (as of July 1 anyway). But just what their plans are remains to be seen, that's why it's "unclear" ...
That's not what they just said- did you bother reading the links I typed? They said they intend to expand the DSLR and that their intent - part of their intent in the Pentax acquisition was about that.

The Pentax Q is my own conjecture, but again, seems rather obvious too.

If Pentax Imaging had been making a lot of profit, I doubt Hoya Optical would have sold it for only $100M. Hoya never wanted Pentax Imaging, far as I can tell ... they wanted the very profitable Pentax Medical products.
Hoya always wanted the medical. Pentax last year did post a profit (small). That's certainly better than red and market shrink which is what Olympus has been doing. Though I expect the new pens to be a big success.

- Raist

PS: And there's additional data. Why would Pentax waste now-Ricoh's cash to gather reporters/people around Salon De La foto to announce new camera product(s) mid October, after the acquisition? Doesn't that strike you as a little bit odd? Same with the Q. The deal is already done. Why would Ricoh let them waste that cash if they are not approving?
 

mediumcool

Active member
I have been thinking of leaving Pentax (have a Samsung GX20 aka K20D w/12–24, 16–45 and 200 M-series) to go exclusively m4/3. I do have a Mamiya 645AFD/Aptus for the serious stuff, but the GF1 is astonishingly capable for its size. All I need now is the 7–14!
 

Paratom

Well-known member
I also believe the viewfinder is one of the most important parts of a camera, but I see it more for its function than its aesthetic appeal. I use a viewfinder to focus and to frame ... anything that makes those functions better is appealing to me. I don't look through a viewfinder to find my subject matter in the first place ... I look with my eyes to do that. :)



Even in 35mm full-frame circles, it is a almost a given that the best performing lenses are the lenses made for rangefinder cameras. The reason for that is they can be produced with fewer constraints on their design due to the short mount register of RF cameras, the lack of mirror and other mechanical bits in the way that can also cause vibrations, and they're smaller and lighter in the bargain. This Voigtländer Skopar 35mm f/2.5 I shot my second test roll with the M4-2 is simply an astonishingly good lens, and it is not only tiny but relatively inexpensive.

It's all about trade offs. I'll take a viewfinder that functions better over one that is perhaps more aesthetically pleasing, and I'll take lenses that perform as well or better that are much smaller. Others can make their own compromises... ;-)
For me it is not only aesthetics if I can see the "real" thing shortly before and after I take a photograph. I feel I can better judge the light and I also feel to better catch the moment with an OVF.
I am not saying that a ovf is better I can only say it works better for me for most subjects.
 

ptomsu

Workshop Member
For me it is not only aesthetics if I can see the "real" thing shortly before and after I take a photograph. I feel I can better judge the light and I also feel to better catch the moment with an OVF.
I am not saying that a ovf is better I can only say it works better for me for most subjects.
+1
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
For me it is not only aesthetics if I can see the "real" thing shortly before and after I take a photograph. I feel I can better judge the light and I also feel to better catch the moment with an OVF.
I am not saying that a ovf is better I can only say it works better for me for most subjects.
I'm not in disagreement really, but I find that the "seeing the light before and after" with a good EVF is fine in most circumstances. It's only when I need to do sequence shooting, particularly using longer lenses, that I find today's EVFs have issues and I prefer an SLR.

That's why I have an SLR in my kit ... I just find that I'm using it less and less, and can't justify the weight and expense of a big SLR system anymore. My SLR kit is going down to one body and two lenses dedicated to it. Other lenses I can use with it will be shared with the mirrorless kit, and likely get more use there.
 
Last edited:

raist3d

Well-known member
But also wondering if and when Pentax gains access to Sony’s 24MP APS sensor (as will Nikon).
There's new announcements mid October by Pentax for new cameras so we'll see. My bet is yes, but honestly, I don't want 24 MP (not that I am buying a new camera, I am sticking to the K-5). While I can understand 24 MP on one end starts giving medium format class prints to an extent (or the low end of that), to me it would be just a workflow clog.

Honestly, I think I would be fine with 12 MP. 12 MP of Foveon type data would be great to me. Even 8-9 MP of those.

I just see the 24 MP as a workflow clog, and it demands better lenses to really use the data even if it delivers a bit more with the current lenses.

Just my personal opinion though.

- Raist
 

Brian Mosley

New member
My personal opinion too. 24Mp is a compromise - give me better quality pixels and I can scale them up for prints.

Brian
 
Top