Rumours that Panasonic is slowing/postponing Micro Four Thirds gear

mumu

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Jan 16, 2012
Messages
728
Odd, I just bought a Fuji X100V. It’s my 4th X100 so I sorta knew what I'd be getting. Now I hear Panasonic's AF is not competitive. It has to have PDAF. Well, my Fuji has PDAF. Other than with the P20 mounted, my GX9 crushes the Fuji's AF. I’m thinking my ancient GM1 is quicker as well. In any event, both are quick enough for me.
Same here: X100V and GX9 and my GX9's AF seems faster and more reliable. I'm also happy with my G9's constant AF for video. OTOH I don't shoot BIF or sports.
 

L0n3Gr3yW0lf

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2013
Messages
954
Location
UK
Real Name
Ovidiu
I wonder what you mean by these two statements together. In another thread I pointed out that there is no need to panic with M43 camera releases, as they have released their current models in under 0-3,5 years time and there is a shutdown of society going on.

Sony has a 3-3,5 year cycle for A7-series for example. Where do you get that 1 year cycle for cameras? Like I said, Nikon Z6 II being released after 2 years is not a good example, as the first camera is a totally new system. And the camera might need tweaks along with the system needing promotion.
Since you asked, just finished making an Excel table of ALL the DSLR and Mirrorless camera releases (excluding specialty cameras like astrophotography versions, medium and large formats, and Leica ... since few people can afford those it has little relevance for comparison):
https://1drv.ms/x/s!AksBB2IBTehLhcADGcnyGv-jaQf0-g?e=hShj9Z
(PS. It's an OneDrive upload of a .xlsx file)

Hopefully, that answers your question. (Even though smaller brands have less data given shorter production age or fewer camera lines/releases).
 

L0n3Gr3yW0lf

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2013
Messages
954
Location
UK
Real Name
Ovidiu
I would be amazed if somewhere at Panasonic HQ that there is not a small room with a team working on PDAF. It must concern them that the major complaint every potential customer seems to have with their recent FF Panasonic product is that the AF is not up to scratch** - particularly in a sector that is being overrun with competition such as the R5 and the Z5. Even allowing for all the positives that CDAF can offer, in a COVID-stricken and diminishing market I would be going all out to maximise the potential of the product one already produces. And if that means experimenting with a PDAF module in cameras that are all but otherwise finished and on sale, then I would certainly look very closely at doing it. If the S5 came with PDAF, for example, I would think sales would increase quite substantially

**and the fact that we Panasonic devotees aren't bothered too much by its faults
There's such a high variety of customers that it's near impossible to make a product that fits even most of the consumers' needs, less so a perfect camera for everyone. Just think of a few examples of where Panasonic's CDAF only S line would fit:
Landscape photographers: they usually request maximum image quality and dynamic range, accurate autofocus with not much care for speed ... but then you would have to break those into the cap that wants portability for a maximum travel benefit, that's where Panasonics (self-described) statement of maximum image quality with the sacrifice of all other aspects, which resulted on a camera system that not just rivals the weight and size of DSLR but it even beats (in a bad way) some of its competitors.
Videographers: most often the most displeased of the group because CDAF has the behavior of pulsating in AF operations which detract most of their interests (and potentially their viewers, I doubt a single videographer got 100% answer of ALL of their viewers saying it's not to their liking ... some people don't even notice it) ... and the even more niece of them are the bloggers: 1 KG camera plus another half kilo for a wide-angle lens = failure in their eyes.
Wildlife photographers, especially those coming from DSLR, feel very wary about the wobble, not being able to put trust into what the camera tells them if the subject is in focus or not. And as of 2020, there's still a significant lack of telephoto options to motivate jumping into the system.
Street shooters, not many lens options for that either ... coupled with an uneasy feeling on the AF to perform as they need. (I'm not saying it can't)
Most photographers are weary of the CDAF, whether they want to or not ... the noise's out there and it's hard to ignore.

I'd be amazed if there was. Panasonc, being Panasonic, will have a team working ferverishly on something different than phase detect. Either enhancements to DFD, or a new technology all together. That's how they work.
There are plenty of crazy ideas being tried in smartphones right now, laser AF from LG, LIDAR AF from Apple, Time of Flight from Samsung. Everyone is trying to improve AF and PDAF, as well as CDAF, which have their own advantages and disadvantages. Who knows what Panasonic have baking in their labs of madness :p

Cost has far less to do with it than the market does. Compare the number of phones sold every year to that of cameras. Then add in the competition factor. Phone companies do it because they have no choice.
Phones are selling in droves because they are commodities. Smartphones have such a wide range of usage that most people need them whether they want to or not (for work, for school, for entertainment, for gaming, for travel, for photography or videography, etc). What we used to need and use computers 10-20-30 years ago, these days they are being replaced by smartphones, so inherently they have to evolve faster, become more efficient and useful, consumers keep demanding more and more in their smartphones. More music and movies = more storage, flashier and bigger games = more performance, more communication, and content = faster connections. People spend more time on their phones than they do on almost any other device, especially the post-2000 generation.
(If you are of the older generation please don't take offense to this, I know there are many who don't need or want smartphones for more than basic needs for calling or texting or even a quarter of the capabilities. Smartphones have just become the defacto EVERYTHING and it's only going to accelerate more and more).
Cameras have not evolved as much compared to smartphones, they still have the status of it does 2 functions: still and/or video. And from what we have seen in the last few years there are not many advancements to make them more connected and more useful than these 2 functions. And I know many people are fine with that ... as am I, I'm only interested in making pictures.

Back to cost ... how many people these days feel the need or justification for 1.000 $/£/€ or more for a camera. Whether it's for selfies, or travel documentation, parties, sports photography for siblings or kids, or even just as a hobby. 35mm Full Frame (format) is out of price range for the most average consumer (unless you consider the average consumer an American/Wester European college graduate with a 6 figure yearly salary). And don't forget the cost of the lenses as well. Now top it off that most consumers would rather pay more money for a better phone that gives them more benefits in life than a camera (unless their interest is expressly photography), or a laptop/computer for work/school.

If everything gets more expensive it's to be expected that the most niche products in everyone's life will start to decline in usage and wish for upgrade or purchase. I don't see the prices of Canon R6/R5 or Sony A7R IV/A7 IV or Panasonic S1/S5 or Nikon Z6/Z5 being huge expandability into the future of the camera industry ... compared to the next iPhone or Galaxy S. On the other hand, the Panasonic G7, Olympus E-M10, Sony a6500, Fujifilm X-T200 might if they can keep the price under the phone so they can complement them in consumer's needs.

Odd, I just bought a Fuji X100V. It’s my 4th X100 so I sorta knew what I'd be getting. Now I hear Panasonic's AF is not competitive. It has to have PDAF. Well, my Fuji has PDAF. Other than with the P20 mounted, my GX9 crushes the Fuji's AF. I’m thinking my ancient GM1 is quicker as well. In any event, both are quick enough for me.

This is a mature and shrinking industry. To expect businesses to invest in such an environment is asking a bit much. I intend to continue my focus on photography, rather than gear. My 10+ year old cameras, as well as my brand new cameras, don’t seem to be all that different in supporting my hobby.
There are just as good CDAF as there are bad PDAF ... Panasonic DFD being the best of its kind ... while other PDAFs from the likes of Sony and Canon are the best of their kind. They all work in different ways with advantages and disadvantages. (Ex: PDAF is fast in good light, CDAF is more accurate in low light).
If you find the gear that best fits your need they rejoice, be happy ... you don't have to worry about that. But that doesn't mean there are others who have higher needs than you and what you have found to work for yourself.

I wish I had more bravery and social skills to make pictures of people, portraits, events, street imaging ... alas Human Eye AF has little impact on me (outside the few times I use it for family) or skin color rendition ... while I have a bigger interest in AF and Detection for wildlife, travel as I love hiking I prefer carrying more water and food, go further, climb higher, stay longer, so size and weight have a more significant consideration. What you may find very easy and fan can feel extremely difficult and scary or frustrating for me in photography.


Consider this: camera manufacturers are not like circles that can encompass groups of photographers based on their needs and expectations ... they are more like drops of colored waters (colored just for the sake of easier to imagine it) that fall on different groups but as they might try to reach more and more groups of different types of photographers they density diminishes because nothing is infinite. They have limited R&D, budget, marketing, experience, coverage and so much more.
What we will most likely see is that companies regress their attempts to cover as many as possible and focus on smaller groups to be able to focus all of their resources and energy and time to stay profitable or to just even weather out the current state of affairs ... for we don't know how long it will last next Xmas? Next year? Next 5 or 10 years ... we don't know.
 

mumu

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Jan 16, 2012
Messages
728
There's such a high variety of customers that it's near impossible to make a product that fits even most of the consumers' needs, less so a perfect camera for everyone. Just think of a few examples of where Panasonic's CDAF only S line would fit:
** snip **
Street shooters, not many lens options for that either ... coupled with an uneasy feeling on the AF to perform as they need. (I'm not saying it can't)
I found the S-AF of my GX7, let alone my GX9 or G9, to be perfectly fine for street photography. Although if I were going to use an S5 for street, I'd also have a manual focus lens for it.
 

archaeopteryx

Gambian sidling bush
Joined
Feb 25, 2017
Messages
1,563
Wildlife photographers, especially those coming from DSLR, feel very wary about the wobble, not being able to put trust into what the camera tells them if the subject is in focus or not.
I'd like to suggest this claim merits either qualification or additional support, possibly both, for a couple reasons.

One, I started doing wildlife photography with SLRs, then DSLRs, then mirrorless. That's decades of experience and I can say a lot of wildlife gets photographed in AF-S where this isn't an issue for any AF implementation. In AF-C situations every implementation I've used has exhibited oscillations of some form, with DFD being the least prone to the behavior and typically exhibiting the smallest amplitude.

Two, in practice, few PDAF-based wildlife photographers perform AF microadjust (forum enthusiasts aren't a representative sample here). Again in my experience, that means (D)SLR PDAF and OSPDAF produce larger focus errors than DFD or CDAF. DFD and CDAF are also less likely to drop AF points and lack AF point orientation restrictions. PDAF+CDAF hybrids do mitigate this for those who've moved to mirrorless bodies.

It's also my experience it's difficult to be precise enough about AF point placement in AF-C situations that DFD wobble, when it does occur, is the limiting factor on AF accuracy. I pretty much look at as a benefit as it gives a form of focus bracketing which increases the chance of a frame with optimally placed focus. If Panasonic rolled out an intentional version of this as a feature I'd use it all the time on more static subjects. While I'm probably fairly unusual in this regard I would suggest it as yet another example of ILC failure to innovate.
 

DGoakill

Mu-43 Regular
Joined
Sep 21, 2019
Messages
66
Location
Philadelphia Suburbs
FWIW I've never heard of DClife and most in the comments of the original article pretty much said the same, so not sure how much brain box energy should be wasted on their wild assumptions. But.......

Maybe it's time the camera companies stopped hybridization and separated video and photo at least at the higher ends of their lines. I'm sick of watching and reading reviews where 80% of the review, regardless of if it's positive or negative, is focused on video. The hybrid was great at first, people were buying photography-centric cameras and it was fun to have video capabilities. But with 8K and higher bit rates etc., there are real physical side effects of this technology that affect the whole camera and not always in a good way.

PDAF and CDAF are only an issue when you have one and need the other. If the AF was suited for a single camera function it wouldn't matter. I don't see many people who are serious about bit rates and codecs taking a lot of photos or vice versa. Even in a video situation, the AF is only an problem for someone videoing themselves. If someone is actually operating the camera, it isn't as big an issue.

IMO, leave the hybrids to the entry level cameras so that the travel shooters and parents at kids birthday parties can capture both stills and video, but leave the people willing to spend more on dedicated bodies and lenses the choice, rather then sticking them with tech they don't need and crippling what they do.

The new BGH1 is a perfect example of the body getting out of the way of the function. Super capable of customization and nothing getting in the way of it's purpose. Strictly a video camera and there is no denying that which is why it works.
 

agentlossing

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Jun 26, 2013
Messages
4,695
Location
Oregon USA
Real Name
Andrew Lossing
I've been trying to decide what to switch to from my Pentax KP. Certainly looked at the R6. It's very nice and I was tempted. But can't see where it qualifies as "not that expensive". It's $2500 here in the US, which is $1000 more than the Olympus M1.3, and $500 more than the Z6II. The only things more than the R6 are the bodies that basically qualify as the top of the line models.
Just curious, why switching away from the KP? I actually recently got one, and it's a pretty capable machine.
 

exakta

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Jun 2, 2015
Messages
766
There's such a high variety of customers that it's near impossible to make a product that fits even most of the consumers' needs, less so a perfect camera for everyone.
I agree with most of this post. I think a lot of the discussion on teh interwebz, especially over at DPR, takes an overly narrow perspective.

There are pros and amateurs. Amongst the pros, you have art photographers, commercial photographers, wedding photographers, industrial photographers, press photographers, police photographers, sports photographers, medical phtographers, etc. Amateurs range from snapshooters to artistic "enthusiasts". Then there's stills vs. video.

So many of the discussions fail to consider all these different niches when trying to predict the future. The one thing I know about the future is it will not be what I might predict today. If it was, we would all have our jetpacks by now.

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
 

L0n3Gr3yW0lf

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2013
Messages
954
Location
UK
Real Name
Ovidiu
FWIW I've never heard of DClife and most in the comments of the original article pretty much said the same, so not sure how much brain box energy should be wasted on their wild assumptions. But.......

Maybe it's time the camera companies stopped hybridization and separated video and photo at least at the higher ends of their lines. I'm sick of watching and reading reviews where 80% of the review, regardless of if it's positive or negative, is focused on video. The hybrid was great at first, people were buying photography-centric cameras and it was fun to have video capabilities. But with 8K and higher bit rates etc., there are real physical side effects of this technology that affect the whole camera and not always in a good way.

PDAF and CDAF are only an issue when you have one and need the other. If the AF was suited for a single camera function it wouldn't matter. I don't see many people who are serious about bit rates and codecs taking a lot of photos or vice versa. Even in a video situation, the AF is only an problem for someone videoing themselves. If someone is actually operating the camera, it isn't as big an issue.

IMO, leave the hybrids to the entry level cameras so that the travel shooters and parents at kids birthday parties can capture both stills and video, but leave the people willing to spend more on dedicated bodies and lenses the choice, rather then sticking them with tech they don't need and crippling what they do.

The new BGH1 is a perfect example of the body getting out of the way of the function. Super capable of customization and nothing getting in the way of it's purpose. Strictly a video camera and there is no denying that which is why it works.
I agree with you on that fully. It's why I am an Olympus user, they were focusing on photography a d the design language of their products were made for stills... Since I am interested in stills. Panasonic had their GH and G line ballooned in size to make it work better for video, since they needed more room for bigger head dissaption cooling for their high bitrates, 4K and 8K, slow motion video recording. That's has appealed less and less to me and I was a Panasonic shooter for most of the last 10 years.

I would agree with you on having swpersted bodies for different functions, have a hybrid in the GF, GX, G, E-PL, E-M10, E-M5 line for unlimited 1080p and 4K 30p and make advanced bodies for proper video production like the Panasonic BGH1 as a seperate line for the high end stil image cameras.
 

L0n3Gr3yW0lf

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2013
Messages
954
Location
UK
Real Name
Ovidiu
Just curious, why switching away from the KP? I actually recently got one, and it's a pretty capable machine.
Not to be too negativistic but something is definitely going wrong at Pentax. They recently announced that the Pentax K-3 Mark III will be priced around 2.900 $ compared to the 1.100 $ MSRP of the Mark II version. That's a 163% price increase and from what Pentax disclosed, which is literally every aspect of the camera, it's nowhere near that much improvement in value.
*26 MP is just 2 MP above-average 1.5x Crop cameras,
*ISO 100-1.6 Million now lets be realistic and think how much is really usable (6.400? 12.800? I would be surprised if it's usable at 25.600),
*12 FPS with 32 RAW and 37 JPEG buffer is a far cry from the high end crop competitive and even less larger formats when you consider the price of this thing (The E-M1 III is cheaper and has higher performance in all metrics),
*101 PDAF points with 25 cross-type ... again, a far cry compared to even the old by now Nikon D500 with their 153 PDAF points and 99 cross-type,
*1.05x magnification OVF compared to Nikon D500's 1.0x is not much improvement.
*D-LI90 is the same battery since Pentax K-7 back in 2009, they can't be bothered to improve a damn battery?
*2 SDXC but only 1 is UHS-II ... well given the limited file buffer even UHS-I should be able to handle this "sports" beast :p
*Type C USB, WiFi, and Bluetooth are really the most advanced improvements compared to everything else.

That's a pretty piss poor showing for a 5-year wait for a successor ... not the price they expect to ask. What does this have to do with the KP and the reason to switch? Well, it shows what Pentax/Ricoh is looking to do: raise the prices, since they are the last DSLR company to not go into mirrorless and preferring to stay on DSLR design only they are left into basically a monopoly for its users. Personally, I have realized that Pentax has been slower to innovate to just becoming lazy: all their Pentax D-FA zooms lenses are Tamron re-badges with price increase. Pentax D-FA 50mm f 1.4 and 85mm f 1.4 are higher priced than competitors.

Why stay with Pentax? (depending on your needs and applications and preferences of course)
 

John M Flores

Super Moderator
Joined
Jan 7, 2011
Messages
3,156
Location
NJ
Not to be too negativistic but something is definitely going wrong at Pentax. They recently announced that the Pentax K-3 Mark III will be priced around 2.900 $ compared to the 1.100 $ MSRP of the Mark II version. That's a 163% price increase and from what Pentax disclosed, which is literally every aspect of the camera, it's nowhere near that much improvement in value.
*26 MP is just 2 MP above-average 1.5x Crop cameras,
*ISO 100-1.6 Million now lets be realistic and think how much is really usable (6.400? 12.800? I would be surprised if it's usable at 25.600),
*12 FPS with 32 RAW and 37 JPEG buffer is a far cry from the high end crop competitive and even less larger formats when you consider the price of this thing (The E-M1 III is cheaper and has higher performance in all metrics),
*101 PDAF points with 25 cross-type ... again, a far cry compared to even the old by now Nikon D500 with their 153 PDAF points and 99 cross-type,
*1.05x magnification OVF compared to Nikon D500's 1.0x is not much improvement.
*D-LI90 is the same battery since Pentax K-7 back in 2009, they can't be bothered to improve a damn battery?
*2 SDXC but only 1 is UHS-II ... well given the limited file buffer even UHS-I should be able to handle this "sports" beast :p
*Type C USB, WiFi, and Bluetooth are really the most advanced improvements compared to everything else.

That's a pretty piss poor showing for a 5-year wait for a successor ... not the price they expect to ask. What does this have to do with the KP and the reason to switch? Well, it shows what Pentax/Ricoh is looking to do: raise the prices, since they are the last DSLR company to not go into mirrorless and preferring to stay on DSLR design only they are left into basically a monopoly for its users. Personally, I have realized that Pentax has been slower to innovate to just becoming lazy: all their Pentax D-FA zooms lenses are Tamron re-badges with price increase. Pentax D-FA 50mm f 1.4 and 85mm f 1.4 are higher priced than competitors.

Why stay with Pentax? (depending on your needs and applications and preferences of course)
What kind of photography/subjects do you shoot?
 

RS86

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Mar 26, 2019
Messages
800
Location
Finland
Since you asked, just finished making an Excel table of ALL the DSLR and Mirrorless camera releases (excluding specialty cameras like astrophotography versions, medium and large formats, and Leica ... since few people can afford those it has little relevance for comparison):
https://1drv.ms/x/s!AksBB2IBTehLhcADGcnyGv-jaQf0-g?e=hShj9Z
(PS. It's an OneDrive upload of a .xlsx file)

Hopefully, that answers your question. (Even though smaller brands have less data given shorter production age or fewer camera lines/releases).
Umm, I'd rather not look at some chart and try to figure out what you're saying. Could you make a small statement what is your point? And I'm not sure can one compare DSLR cycles to mirrorless.

I was asking about Sony A7 cycles specifically, as you seemed to suggest they have one year cycle.
 

L0n3Gr3yW0lf

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2013
Messages
954
Location
UK
Real Name
Ovidiu
Umm, I'd rather not look at some chart and try to figure out what you're saying. Could you make a small statement what is your point? And I'm not sure can one compare DSLR cycles to mirrorless.

I was asking about Sony A7 cycles specifically, as you seemed to suggest they have one year cycle.
OK ... it's not just one line that you get to pick:
Sony NEX-3 (Re: 11. May. 2010) -> Sony NEX-C3 (Re: 8. Jun. 2011) -> Sony NEX-F3 (Re: 17. May 2012) -> Sony NEX-3N (Re: 20. Feb. 2013)

Sony NEX-5 (Re: 11. May. 2010) -> Sony NEX-5N (Re: 24. Aug. 2011) -> Sony NEX-5R (Re: 29. Aug. 2012) -> Sony NEX-5T (Re: 27. Aug. 2013) -> Sony a5000 (Re: 7. Jan. 2014) ->Sony a5100 (Re: 18 Aug. 2014) -> Sony a6100 (Re: 28. Aug. 2019)

Sony NEX-6 (Re: 12. Sep. 2012) -> Sony a6000 (Re: 12. Feb. 2014) - Sony a6300 (Re: 3. Feb. 2016) -> Sony a6400 (Re: 15. Jan. 2019)
Sony NEX-7 (Re: 24. Aug. 2011) -> Sony a6500 (Re: 6. Oct. 2016) -> Sony a6600 (Re: 28. Aug. 2019)

Sony a7 (Re: 16. Oct. 2013) -> Sony a7 II (Re: 20. Nov. 2014) -> Sony A7 III (Re: 27. Feb. 2018)
Sony a7r (Re: 16. Oct. 2013) -> Sony A7r II (Re: 10. Jun. 2015) -> Sony a7r III (Re: 25. Oct. 2017) -> Sony A7r IV (Re: 16. Jun. 2019)

Sony a7s (Re: 6. Apr. 2014) -> Sony a7s II (Re: 11. Sep. 2015) -> Sony a7s III (Re: 28. Jul. 2020)
Sony a9 (Re: 19. Apr. 2017) -> Sony a9 II (Re: 3. Oct. 2019)
Sony A7c (Re: 15. Sep. 2020)

Unless you consider Sony a7 cameras as the only ones important to make a difference or worth talking about. But let me simplify all of this even more:
*Sony NEX-C3 after 1 year and 2 months, Sony NEX-F3 after 1 year, Sony NEX-3N after 10 months
*Sony NEX-5N after 1 year and 4 months, Sony NEX-5R after 1 year, Sony NEX-5T after 1 year, Sony a5000 after 6 months, Sony a5100 after 8 months, Sony a6100 after 5 years
*Sony a6000 after 1 year and 6 months, Sony a6300 after 2 years, Sony a6400 after 2 years and 11 months
*Sony a6500 after 5 years and 3 months, Sony a6600 after 2 years and 9 months
*Sony a7 II after 1 year and 1 month, Sony a7 III after 3 years and 4 months
*Sony a7r II after 1 year and 9 months, Sony a7r III after 2 years and 4 months
*Sony A7s II after 1 year and 6 months, Sony a7s III after 4 years and 10 months
*Sony A9 II after 2 years and 7 months

So in the last few years, Sony has slowed down their release cycles ann all of their camera lines, it could be because of lack of competition 2-3 years ago or lack of sufficient innovation, new features and upgraded performance sensors, or the fact that it became less economically viable ... or a mix of all of this together.
 
Joined
Jan 3, 2021
Messages
13
Not to be too negativistic but something is definitely going wrong at Pentax. They recently announced that the Pentax K-3 Mark III will be priced around 2.900 $ compared to the 1.100 $ MSRP of the Mark II version. That's a 163% price increase and from what Pentax disclosed, which is literally every aspect of the camera, it's nowhere near that much improvement in value.
*26 MP is just 2 MP above-average 1.5x Crop cameras,
*ISO 100-1.6 Million now lets be realistic and think how much is really usable (6.400? 12.800? I would be surprised if it's usable at 25.600),
*12 FPS with 32 RAW and 37 JPEG buffer is a far cry from the high end crop competitive and even less larger formats when you consider the price of this thing (The E-M1 III is cheaper and has higher performance in all metrics),
*101 PDAF points with 25 cross-type ... again, a far cry compared to even the old by now Nikon D500 with their 153 PDAF points and 99 cross-type,
*1.05x magnification OVF compared to Nikon D500's 1.0x is not much improvement.
*D-LI90 is the same battery since Pentax K-7 back in 2009, they can't be bothered to improve a damn battery?
*2 SDXC but only 1 is UHS-II ... well given the limited file buffer even UHS-I should be able to handle this "sports" beast :p
*Type C USB, WiFi, and Bluetooth are really the most advanced improvements compared to everything else.
I'm probably moving away from the KP because I want an option that is smaller and lighter for travel and hiking/backpacking, and has better focus and more long lens options for wildlife. I also don't like the KP ergonomics...I prefer a deeper grip. The Olympus M1.3 seems to satisfy most of those. The new Canon and Nikon options do too, but are more expensive. Don't like Sony ergonomics and their weather-sealing hasn't historically been great(not compared to Pentax anyway).
As far as the new Pentax goes, it will be interesting to see what it goes for... I don't think that $2900 number is more than a rumor. Supposedly it does get the focus capability to somewhat more like a D500, which is pretty good indeed. But it's bigger and heavier than the KP, so doesn't help me there, and it doesn't solve the issue with not many modern wildlife lenses.
Where it will continue to be very good is image quality. The KP is very good. I've had a K-1, which is outstanding. I still have a 645z...meaning I don't need a new landscape camera. It's the other boxes that I need to tick.
 

agentlossing

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Jun 26, 2013
Messages
4,695
Location
Oregon USA
Real Name
Andrew Lossing
Not to be too negativistic but something is definitely going wrong at Pentax. They recently announced that the Pentax K-3 Mark III will be priced around 2.900 $ compared to the 1.100 $ MSRP of the Mark II version. That's a 163% price increase and from what Pentax disclosed, which is literally every aspect of the camera, it's nowhere near that much improvement in value.
*26 MP is just 2 MP above-average 1.5x Crop cameras,
*ISO 100-1.6 Million now lets be realistic and think how much is really usable (6.400? 12.800? I would be surprised if it's usable at 25.600),
*12 FPS with 32 RAW and 37 JPEG buffer is a far cry from the high end crop competitive and even less larger formats when you consider the price of this thing (The E-M1 III is cheaper and has higher performance in all metrics),
*101 PDAF points with 25 cross-type ... again, a far cry compared to even the old by now Nikon D500 with their 153 PDAF points and 99 cross-type,
*1.05x magnification OVF compared to Nikon D500's 1.0x is not much improvement.
*D-LI90 is the same battery since Pentax K-7 back in 2009, they can't be bothered to improve a damn battery?
*2 SDXC but only 1 is UHS-II ... well given the limited file buffer even UHS-I should be able to handle this "sports" beast :p
*Type C USB, WiFi, and Bluetooth are really the most advanced improvements compared to everything else.

That's a pretty piss poor showing for a 5-year wait for a successor ... not the price they expect to ask. What does this have to do with the KP and the reason to switch? Well, it shows what Pentax/Ricoh is looking to do: raise the prices, since they are the last DSLR company to not go into mirrorless and preferring to stay on DSLR design only they are left into basically a monopoly for its users. Personally, I have realized that Pentax has been slower to innovate to just becoming lazy: all their Pentax D-FA zooms lenses are Tamron re-badges with price increase. Pentax D-FA 50mm f 1.4 and 85mm f 1.4 are higher priced than competitors.

Why stay with Pentax? (depending on your needs and applications and preferences of course)
Not really sure why you quoted my question there, since your post really doesn't address my question about the KP! I agree with you, to an extent, that the delays and some of the news about the K-3 III isn't great, however in my opinion the KP isn't old tech at all, it's still pretty competitive for APS-C. And, really, when Pentax was putting together the KP they were pretty innovative compared to the other APS-C offerings. If we're talking what will someone upgrade to in 2-3 years, then it makes more sense. But unless there's a feature that's really needed in a new body, upgrading from the KP right now seems a bit counterproductive.
 

RS86

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Mar 26, 2019
Messages
800
Location
Finland
OK ... it's not just one line that you get to pick:
Sony NEX-3 (Re: 11. May. 2010) -> Sony NEX-C3 (Re: 8. Jun. 2011) -> Sony NEX-F3 (Re: 17. May 2012) -> Sony NEX-3N (Re: 20. Feb. 2013)

Sony NEX-5 (Re: 11. May. 2010) -> Sony NEX-5N (Re: 24. Aug. 2011) -> Sony NEX-5R (Re: 29. Aug. 2012) -> Sony NEX-5T (Re: 27. Aug. 2013) -> Sony a5000 (Re: 7. Jan. 2014) ->Sony a5100 (Re: 18 Aug. 2014) -> Sony a6100 (Re: 28. Aug. 2019)

Sony NEX-6 (Re: 12. Sep. 2012) -> Sony a6000 (Re: 12. Feb. 2014) - Sony a6300 (Re: 3. Feb. 2016) -> Sony a6400 (Re: 15. Jan. 2019)
Sony NEX-7 (Re: 24. Aug. 2011) -> Sony a6500 (Re: 6. Oct. 2016) -> Sony a6600 (Re: 28. Aug. 2019)

Sony a7 (Re: 16. Oct. 2013) -> Sony a7 II (Re: 20. Nov. 2014) -> Sony A7 III (Re: 27. Feb. 2018)
Sony a7r (Re: 16. Oct. 2013) -> Sony A7r II (Re: 10. Jun. 2015) -> Sony a7r III (Re: 25. Oct. 2017) -> Sony A7r IV (Re: 16. Jun. 2019)

Sony a7s (Re: 6. Apr. 2014) -> Sony a7s II (Re: 11. Sep. 2015) -> Sony a7s III (Re: 28. Jul. 2020)
Sony a9 (Re: 19. Apr. 2017) -> Sony a9 II (Re: 3. Oct. 2019)
Sony A7c (Re: 15. Sep. 2020)

Unless you consider Sony a7 cameras as the only ones important to make a difference or worth talking about. But let me simplify all of this even more:
*Sony NEX-C3 after 1 year and 2 months, Sony NEX-F3 after 1 year, Sony NEX-3N after 10 months
*Sony NEX-5N after 1 year and 4 months, Sony NEX-5R after 1 year, Sony NEX-5T after 1 year, Sony a5000 after 6 months, Sony a5100 after 8 months, Sony a6100 after 5 years
*Sony a6000 after 1 year and 6 months, Sony a6300 after 2 years, Sony a6400 after 2 years and 11 months
*Sony a6500 after 5 years and 3 months, Sony a6600 after 2 years and 9 months
*Sony a7 II after 1 year and 1 month, Sony a7 III after 3 years and 4 months
*Sony a7r II after 1 year and 9 months, Sony a7r III after 2 years and 4 months
*Sony A7s II after 1 year and 6 months, Sony a7s III after 4 years and 10 months
*Sony A9 II after 2 years and 7 months

So in the last few years, Sony has slowed down their release cycles ann all of their camera lines, it could be because of lack of competition 2-3 years ago or lack of sufficient innovation, new features and upgraded performance sensors, or the fact that it became less economically viable ... or a mix of all of this together.
I still can't see those "yearly releases" that you combined with certain camera cycles. I wouldn't compare to very old cameras like NEX, as at that point mirrorless tech got constant upgrades. Or the first models, like I said with Nikon Z6 II coming after 2 years.

To me it seems mirrorless cameras have mostly always been 2+ year cycles. But I think we agree that the releases should come in 3+ year cycles.
 

Paul C

Mu-43 Regular
Joined
Oct 29, 2017
Messages
186
2020 was supposed to have delivered a brand new M4/3 camera syste
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
m - Yongnuo’s YN450.
Has anyone seen a sight of one?

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

It was originally said to be a M4/3 sensor with a Canon ef mount - but then changed to M4/3.......could it be that after this year's troubles, the engineers are heading back to the ef mount?
 
Joined
Jan 3, 2021
Messages
13
Personally, I have realized that Pentax has been slower to innovate to just becoming lazy: all their Pentax D-FA zooms lenses are Tamron re-badges with price increase. Pentax D-FA 50mm f 1.4 and 85mm f 1.4 are higher priced than competitors.
And this is getting a little off-topic, but one minor correction....not all of the modern DFA zooms are Tamron re-badges. The 70-200 2.8 and 150-450 are all Pentax. And yes, the new 50 and 85 are very pricy. But by most accounts I've read, they are at least as good as anything out there in those focal lengths. Pentax may be thinking a high end approach like Leica is the way to go.
 

Latest posts

Links on this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
Mu-43 is a fan site and not associated with Olympus, Panasonic, or other manufacturers mentioned on this site.
Forum post reactions by Twemoji: https://github.com/twitter/twemoji
Copyright © 2009-2019 Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom