Pentax Reportedly Considering Micro 4/3 Style Camera

[count_zero]

Based on my own experience dealing with the uber-geek crowd. They break down into 3 categories.

1. The wise old jedi master who knows all.

2. Single with too much money, but no enough to buy a house yet.

3. Just married with a new baby on the way.

Category 1 bought the Canon MarkIII because of superior performance at high ISO, and he is about to retire so he has money to spend on massive 500mm telephoto lenses.

Category 2 bought the Nikon D90 the day it came out because it shoots HD video and takes the expensive Nikkor lenses. He takes "the paparazzi camera" to parties to get photos of drunken girls who wish they were Paris Hilton.

Category 3 wanted to buy the D90 because his friends have it, but can't because the wife will murder him, so he tried to compromise with the D5000 and failed. He ended up with one of those super zoom dSLR looking point-n-shoot cameras that aren't worth a cent. I tried to convince him to get a Ricoh or Sigma, but those are not name brand so the wife would not approve. Incidentally, he owns the Porsche Ceeyan because the wife would not be seen in VM taureg and they need something big and safe for the future kids.

When all of the above see my EP-1 and the flexibility it offers, they get the "look" on their face. Everyone who owns a m43 knows the "look". It's the "well my camera only crops 1.6x, and I have more lenses to choose from (or do I?)", or the "I want to see all of my glass in my FF sensor, but damn this thing is heavy, i need to put wheels on my $1000 tri-pod", and lastly "my wife will never be able to figure out how to use that thing".

 

[Pherdinand]

Bill, in my observation it's the fabricants that dictate the market, mostly.
The fashion and the fabricants. And the fabricants dictate the fashion a bit, too.🙂

what i mean is, dslr's are very popular because all big names make dslrs, big shiny "pro" ones, plus they were the only cameras with big sensor that produce consistently good image quality.
A big sensor in a small camera body, a new set of commercials involving young and sexy people using them, and voila there is your market, people will switch like they switch shampoo.

 

[bmattock]

Based on my own experience dealing with the uber-geek crowd. They break down into 3 categories.

The nerd-prime crowd you describe all put together represent a tiny fraction of the market, so what they buy or don't buy doesn't mean diddly squat. I include myself in that number. We like to think we're the market, but we're not. We're incidental.

 

[bmattock]

Bill, in my observation it's the fabricants that dictate the market, mostly.
The fashion and the fabricants. And the fabricants dictate the fashion a bit, too.🙂

what i mean is, dslr's are very popular because all big names make dslrs, big shiny "pro" ones, plus they were the only cameras with big sensor that produce consistently good image quality.
A big sensor in a small camera body, a new set of commercials involving young and sexy people using them, and voila there is your market, people will switch like they switch shampoo.

I tend to think of the masses as not just dumb but intentionally stupid. Even I don't think they're that idiotic. Pros won't switch because the m4/3 camera, for all its benefits, is not a dSLR and does not even begin to fill the dSLR niche. Not even close. Enthusiasts might - might - buy one. One. Not a dozen, one from each manufacturer who makes one. The vast majority, the booger-eatin' morons who buy cell phones with cameras in them and take them on vacation as a suitable replacement for even a digital point-n-shoot? Nothing. And I haven't seen an m4/3 advertising on TV during a football game, have you?

 

[Pherdinand]

no i haven't (though i looka t no football games)
but i thought you talk about the future 🙂

Just wait and see.

 

[FS Vontz]

The more competition the better. I'm not interested in this market, but it's good news for those that are.

 

[Pherdinand]

Maybe we have drinks with totally different people but the ones i meet in my everydays,
70% are considering getting a dslr for the quality and dropping their slow, noisy and "outdated" (2 year sold is too old) p&s but hesitating due to size and lack of simplicity (not price,lately), but they would only consider canon or nikon;
10% hoping badly for a better phone camera and
20% not giving a diddly-squat about photography.

What's a "diddly-squat" anyway?🙂

 

[DougFord]

[FONT=&quot]Larger sensors in compact enclosures is the trend.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]M4/3 technology has allowed Pani and Oly to achieve this end. Getting their products to market quickly has enabled them to establish a ‘beachhead’, a niche market that’s clamoring for new form factors and features. Witness the Oly EP1/2 & Pani GH/GH1/GF1 models. How big is this niche market? We have no idea, but I don’t believe that Oly & Pani would commit themselves to this extent if they didn’t believe that there’s a significant amount of gold in them thar hills.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]O.K., so what of the stragglers? Is the m4/3 market big enough to play catch-up in? Does it make sense for Pentax and others to jump in at this late date?[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]I guess I also lump the soon to be released hybrid aps-c cameras into this ‘stragglers’ group. Even though the greater sensor size of a hybrid aps-c is preferable, you’re looking out onto a field that’s partially occupied by the dug-in troops carrying Pani & Oly flags. Customers that have bought into the m4/3 system, with an assortment of lenses, not looking to re-invest in a ‘new’ format.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Long story short, with regards to m4/3. If you ain’t already on the beach, it’s too late.[/FONT]

 

[shadowfox]

And that would be the end of the conversation.

Man, that would be a fine camera...

Yep, I'd like to see a 28/1.9 lens on something the same size and shape as the GR-1 and has a m4/3rd sensor in it.

 

[bmattock]

What's a "diddly-squat" anyway?🙂

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/diddly-squat

 

[ruben]

In my opinion, we should coin a great phrase by bmattock: digital photography is at its infancy.

So in my opinion is the prospective market. What we are seeing today is not what we wiill be seeing tommorrow.

To my feeling only, the potential segment for interchangeable lens cameras , is by far sleeping out. Meaning that the Speed Graphic sized and Hassy priced dslrs have catched a tiny segment ot the potential interchangeable lens market

Why ? because these cameares are too big, and too expensiive in their advanced shape. They are death-end cameras almost doomed to dye, unless designerss start to deliver much better, much smaller, for much cheper. Amen

Therefore in my opinion many "enthusiast" were left out of the dsler camp, with or without a dslr they are not using.

Here came the "smart" boys with top of the line cameras derived from the miniature mass market. The enthusiast, either by buying or abstaining, was left even more confused than ever. The new moderls were a digitaliziation of those Olympus monsters, created at the film "AF era to cover their back for not developing the OM5AF

Now, who is the profile of this "enthusiat" today, that decades back was the backbone of the slr market ?

In my opinion they are the millions of folks in touch with the many hi-tech devices around and not purchasing the Speed graphics for the reasons already ep;ained.

Furthermore, the development of techonology at work has increased the numbers of lthis prospective buyers without a real camera today they fieel comfortable with to pictue their families and trips.

Can the m4/3 be the answer for fhem in a more elaborated twist > Perhaps this is what Sony and Pentax are trying to asses.

Cheers,
Ruben

 

[charjohncarter]

Pentax needs to slap a FF sensor in the K-7, and put it out for the price of the Sony FF (DSLR). Leica came out with the MF sensor S2 and the body is the same size as a Pentax K20d (well maybe closer to a Canon, but still). They could do it, and they could make it a (price) market leader.

 

[Trius]

Yes, digital photography (at least the gear side) is in its infancy. It's something I've thought about often, if not deeply.

It seems to me (and this is entirely and quite subjective,) that most of the technology advances other than sensors themselvs, falls into one of two categories: gadgetry or specialist. Now, I say most because things like autofocus are generally useful. What hasn't really received as much attention is ergonomics/industrial design. JMHO.

 

[aizan]

Olympus, on the other hand, has a nice dSLR lineup, and sells a lot of p-n-s cameras too. Will their m4/3 cameras steal share from themselves as well as from competitors?

how can a company steal share from itself?

also, if there were numerous companies making "zslr" style cameras back in the late 80s, and you think the market now resembles the market back then, why don't you expect there to be multiple entrants in the small camera big sensor market?

 

[Y.B.hudson III]

The m4/3 format corresponds to the Classic 35mm cine format... and is very close to the Red One (Digital Cine camera) format... That's what is fueling the interest by manufactures...

 

[kbg32]

Most people complain about the size of dSLRs. Micro 4/3s was developed to answer this "need". I need the image quality afforded me by my Canon 5D when I have a client paying me. All other times, it sits in my bag. I traveled with it once for 2 weeks overseas. The body, 2 zoom lenses and a prime. Never again. My back, shoulder, and hands were killing me after walking around with it for days.

I have a 4/3s kit, a G1 and 3 zooms covering every focal length I will ever need. It all fits in a small shoulder bag with 2 spare batteries and is as light as can be. What a joy! I find the image quality to be really quite good. Sure, not the same IQ as my 5D, but once I remove the exif data and submit images to my agencies, they haven't complained at all.

This is what most people exactly want -a small quality camera with great lenses, pro, amateur, whatever. When I see people toting around their big honkin' dSLRs, and big lenses, I just have to have sympathy for them, and a laugh.

4/3s will continue to grow and develop. It is going to bring a host of new developments, better chips, IQ, lenses, etc..

 

[bmattock]

how can a company steal share from itself?

It's pretty basic.

If I sell point-and-shoot cameras, and then I introduce a new type of camera that might appeal to some people who otherwise might have purchased my point-and-shoot camera, I am stealing market share from my self. I sell one less point-and-shoot and one more of the new type.

If I think my new camera will steal customers from my competitors instead of cannibalizing my own sales of other models, then good. So a company that didn't have a high-end digital point-and-shoot of their own would be OK, but a company like, say, Canon, which has a nice high-end point-and-shoot, would be risking their G11 sales by introducing a m4/3 camera that appealed to the same market (enthusiasts who want a smaller camera than a dSLR, but with serious manual control capability).

also, if there were numerous companies making "zslr" style cameras back in the late 80s, and you think the market now resembles the market back then, why don't you expect there to be multiple entrants in the small camera big sensor market?

Yes, I do, and I've said that. What I said was that the market could not support multiple ZLR cameras then, and the market can't support (in my opinion) multiple m4/3 or m4/3-like cameras now. Both were limited markets. Lots of companies came crashing in, they discovered to their chagrin that there wasn't enough room for everyone.

 

[bmattock]

Most people complain about the size of dSLRs.

No, 'most people' do not. Again, you read RFF, you start to think we're the market. We're not the market.

Micro 4/3s was developed to answer this "need". I need the image quality afforded me by my Canon 5D when I have a client paying me. All other times, it sits in my bag. I traveled with it once for 2 weeks overseas. The body, 2 zoom lenses and a prime. Never again. My back, shoulder, and hands were killing me after walking around with it for days.

Anecdotal.

I have a 4/3s kit, a G1 and 3 zooms covering every focal length I will ever need. It all fits in a small shoulder bag with 2 spare batteries and is as light as can be. What a joy! I find the image quality to be really quite good. Sure, not the same IQ as my 5D, but once I remove the exif data and submit images to my agencies, they haven't complained at all.

You're stating that the m4/3 cameras are good and therefore will survive. They are good - that doesn't mean diddly-squat. There has to be a market for them. Betamax was better than VHS, but didn't survive. What's best doesn't matter. What sells matters.

This is what most people exactly want -a small quality camera with great lenses, pro, amateur, whatever.

No, wrong. This is not what 'most' people want. Most people who buy digital cameras buy point-and-shoot digicams and they will continue to do so. They don't care about image quality even a little tiny bit. They use cell phone cameras too, and they think they're pretty darned good. That's 'most' people. That's the market. You are not the market, and neither am I or anybody else on RFF.

When I see people toting around their big honkin' dSLRs, and big lenses, I just have to have sympathy for them, and a laugh.

Irrelevant.

4/3s will continue to grow and develop. It is going to bring a host of new developments, better chips, IQ, lenses, etc..

I am sure the m4/3 market niche is not fully exploited yet, but I repeat my opinion that the market is not big enough for everyone and their brother to climb in and build new successful lines. There is a limit to the niche that the m4/3 style camera appeals to.

 

[bmattock]

The m4/3 format corresponds to the Classic 35mm cine format... and is very close to the Red One (Digital Cine camera) format... That's what is fueling the interest by manufactures...

No, it is not. Manufacturers are interested in sales, and sales are driven by consumer demand. Consumers demand digicams with high zoom, high megapixels, small size, and low prices. And that's what they get.

The m4/3 cameras are being developed to exploit a perceived niche in the enthusiast market. They are not aimed at mom and pop at the family picnic - and mom and pop don't care about cine formats, other than the new HD standards for their big-screen televisions.

 

[aizan]

It's pretty basic.

If I sell point-and-shoot cameras, and then I introduce a new type of camera that might appeal to some people who otherwise might have purchased my point-and-shoot camera, I am stealing market share from my self. I sell one less point-and-shoot and one more of the new type.

If I think my new camera will steal customers from my competitors instead of cannibalizing my own sales of other models, then good. So a company that didn't have a high-end digital point-and-shoot of their own would be OK, but a company like, say, Canon, which has a nice high-end point-and-shoot, would be risking their G11 sales by introducing a m4/3 camera that appealed to the same market (enthusiasts who want a smaller camera than a dSLR, but with serious manual control capability).

but they're still selling one camera to one person. a more expensive camera, and one you can make more money out of by selling additional lenses and accessories. it also attracts more customers to your brand, at least while there's little competition. if it turns out that the niche can't support many entrants, though i doubt it, so much the better for olympus and panasonic. i'm willing to bet that canon will decide to cannibalize g11 sales by introducing an aps-c compact of their own so they don't lose market share to olympus and panasonic.

Yes, I do, and I've said that. What I said was that the market could not support multiple ZLR cameras then, and the market can't support (in my opinion) multiple m4/3 or m4/3-like cameras now. Both were limited markets. Lots of companies came crashing in, they discovered to their chagrin that there wasn't enough room for everyone.

ah, gotcha. it seems most of them were aps, so it probably had to do with the failure of that format, along with the fact that they weren't particularly compact.