File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
http://photographyblog.com/index.php/weblog/comments/pentax_and_samsung_partnership_not_perfect/

>Pentax’s Sales & Marketing Director of Imaging Systems, Mr. Toshiaki Iue went on to comment that Pentax are very open-minded about the possibility of joining the Micro Four Thirds system

Bricks were shat.
EXIF data available. Clickhereto show/hide.
Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS2 WindowsImage-Specific Properties:Image Width4536Image Height3568Number of Bits Per Component8, 8, 8Compression SchemeUncompressedPixel CompositionRGBImage OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution300 dpiVertical Resolution300 dpiImage Data ArrangementChunky FormatImage Created2006:09:14 18:51:08Color Space InformationsRGBImage Width4536Image Height3568
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
In b4 "Pentax doesn't need full frame" copypasta.

This could be awesome. I want everyone to start making u4/3 cameras and adapters for their various lens systems.

Okay, mostly I just want Canon to start making u4/3 cameras and adapters for their various lens systems. But Pentax doing it is a step in the right direction.
>> Anonymous
>>266283
You know, there's no reason why there can't be a µEOS mount. If 1.33x crop is enough to accommodate the M mount, then something at least that small could be done with a 1.6x.
>> Anonymous
>>266286
Also, this is what Thom Hogan predicts happening, the other companies make µ mounts in their sensor sizes.

http://bythom.com/2008%20Nikon%20News.htm
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>266286
I was actually thinking that Canon could go fully balls-to-the-walls and start releasing µ4/3 cameras. Given that the EF mount is all electrical with no physical connections other than the bayonet itself, it should be possible for them to make EF->µ4/3 adapters pretty easily.

They'd never in a million years do it, though.
>> Anonymous
>>266292
Making a u4/3 camera means using a u4/3 sensor and losing that extra half stop of noise over 4/3 they're proud about.
>> Anonymous
>>266296
Well, it's not so much pride or whatever, but there's just no need for Canon to invest in another sensor production line when they can just ramp up production of the sensor in a Rebel. Designing a physical mount with some contacts would be a lot more effective for them than making a whole new sensor design and size.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>266296
Except they'd still have their APS-C and full frame cameras. The µ4/3 would augment that.

The real reason they won't do it is because they're already dominant in the market and dominant players in a market don't join consortia.
>> Anonymous
>>266296
They can easily make their own 4/3 sensor. Think cutting up a crop sensor even more. Of course, they're going to lose their precious magerpixuls.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>266297
That's a good point too.
>> Anonymous
Make no mistake, Canon will join the micro race. It probably won't be Micro Four Thirds but it will be something similar.

Once these types of cameras take off there is no fucking way the largest camera company in the world is going to sit idly by as everyone else corners that market.
>> Anonymous
>>266404


Canon has said recently that they aren't interested in pursuing the micro market. That doesn't mean shit, though. They said the same shit about live view IIRC.
>> Anonymous
If Pentax creates an official, full focus K => u4/3 adapter, doesn't that mean the Micro Four Thirds lens availability got multiplied by over 9000?
>> Anonymous
>>266420
There's bound to be adapters for pretty much everything. M mount, LTM, K mount, F mount, M42, probably EOS, Alpha,... good God, this is going to be awesome.

Downside is the crop factor radically changes those landscapes, but fuck they're still huge.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>266430
>Downside is the crop factor radically changes those landscapes, but fuck they're still huge.
Oh man, I want an EOS adapter for these things. 100mm-equiv f/1.8 would be win.
>> Anonymous
LOL! So much for all the faggots who claimed that full frame was the future and everyone would be using it by now.

More camera companies making even smaller sensors! Wonderful.
>> Anonymous
>>266434

Except thanks to the larger DOF and noise issues you get with smaller sensors it won't be as awesome as it would be normally.
>> Anonymous
>>266446
So because the markets forks into both smaller and larger sensors, the larger sensors isn't part of the future?

Great logic there dumbass.
>> Anonymous
>>266457
your obvious butthurt is laughable
>> Anonymous
>>266434
A 50 Summilux-M ASPH. would probably be the best portrait lens on the planet on a µ4/3 camera.

More awesome gain: 85/1.2L.

The downside is you have to buy ultrawides to get normals and ultraultrawides to get wides. The only affordable stuff in the latter category is the Voigtlaender 12 and 15, and really old SLR ultrawides. There's good options, some 18mms, etc, the Leica Wide-Angle-Tri-Elmar (32-36-42/4 equivalent is pretty awesome) but they're mostly expensive.

>>266456
More depth of field is a good thing.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>266481
>The downside is you have to buy ultrawides to get normals and ultraultrawides to get wides.
Except that the u4/3 people will also be making u4/3-specific lenses. So it won't be like the pre-EF-S Canon days when there weren't any low-cost normals or wides available.

>More depth of field is a good thing.
More depth of field is a neutral thing. It's good if you want more depth of field, it's bad if you want less depth of field. I'd personally rather have shallower depth of field with the option of stopping down more.
>> Anonymous
You can always stop down some more, but you can't go the other way without buying a faster lens. Bigger sensors are better.
>> Anonymous
>>266498
You have to bump up the sensitivity if you want to stop down and retain the same shutter speed. Given that the noise doesn't scale perfectly with the size of the sensor, small sensors are actually slightly better if you're always limited by DoF.

Of course, you'll need a f/0.7 lens to replicate the DoF of a wide open full-frame 85/1.4 (or a MF 170/2.8) on a 4/3 camera; but there are only a few applications where you really need a DoF that small.
>> Anonymous
>>266506

bullshit. the problems of small sensors far outweigh anything else. that's why people pay good money for larger ones.

keep swallowing that olympus marketing and don't listen to those mean people that make you cry yourself to sleep each night, clutching your 4/3 camera.
>> Serenar !m827jEgWi.
>>266519
You make it sound like nobody in history has ever been satisfied with the output of a 4/3 sensor.

Geez, and we keep peddling that dinky ass Powershot A series shit here too. Looks like those cameras are useless huh. STOP MAKING SMALL PRINTS YOU GUYS YOU'RE MAKING THE INTERNET LOOK BAD
>> Anonymous
>>266519
>>266519


Another glaring example of a Canikon homo getting ANGRY when it's not Canikon doing the innovating.

Of course, until Canikon joins in.
>> Kilz2latex !!3htj9hFDMA4
i want to see the front of the pentax

weirdest body shave ive ever seen
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
this is one of the prototipes
>> Anonymous
>>266624
That's not a real camera.
>> Anonymous
>>266650
Its is a real camera, it seems you havent seen a medium format dslr before
>> Anonymous
>>266678


Cut the kid some slack. He saw that it wasn't a Canon so he assumed the worse.
>> Anonymous
>>266678
>>266681
I know it's the Pentax 645 digital prototype. I was making a joke about its status as epic vaporware.
>> Anonymous
>>266681
>>266678

uh, the 645 is officially on hiatus and has been for over 1 year, it'll never come to fruittion
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>266648

reminds me of this...