Maybe a Dislike button? Ideally, I'd like to score things from -5 to +5, though any other integer besides 5 would be okay.
GZun: I’m new to photography, but equally curios as thirsty to learn. Here is my question: If there is a relation between pixel size and efficiency, why a larger sensor with less pixels is more desirably, I would venture into thinking glass to sensor size ratio be a more practical ratio independent of pixel count, price considered of course, considering that over time pixel technology is getting better and better. Is there a magical size a sensor should be?. I think this new compacts can give us more light and IQ as oppose to zoom….
I'm not so sure that smaller lenses are less expensive. In Micro Four Thirds Land, some small lenses are very pricey, ostensibly because manufacturing must be so precise.
I don't have a problem with this design. Sure, there are smaller mirrorless cameras, but they have smaller sensors. With this APS-C size sensor, Pentax could have made a flatter camera by putting image stabilization into the lenses, but then you'd have something like a Sony NEX, with big chunky expensive lenses and no real reduction in carrying size or weight. Pentax opted for a big chunky camera that can stabilize the image from any K-mount lens. If I had K-mount lenses from the film era, this looks like a near-perfect digital back for them.
Ben Raven: The RAW MATERIALS cost of glass, materials, mechanics and electronics is merely the STARTING point.
The MAJOR cost of any high quality optics, photo or otherwise, really starts piling up with:1. The creation, design, testing and optical engineering of a new lens formula that can achieve top levels in all the areas of optical image performance.
2. The expense of producing each element to the high tolerances and exotic shapes necessary, and precise application of multi layers of advanced anti-reflective coatings
3. Final assembly to, again, extremely high tolerances, alignment, centering and maintaining necessary super quality control.
As we go up and up in quality and performance so, PROPORTIONALLY, do the time and COST of all the above !
NOTE: The format is not a directly proportional factor in these
To think otherwise is like saying a Bugatti Veyron costs $3million just because the delivered metal, carbon fiber,and tires cost so much.
The Moral: You get what you pay for.
No, Ben, the additional labor costs do not account for the price difference. Costs do not increase proportionally with quality and performance, the relationship is more logarithmic. But fewer customers can afford a top-of-the-line product, so extra profit needs to be included in each unit's price.
Too steep a tilt for my taste.
The title is rather mean, but the photo is good.
Nic Walmsley: I got the Mini about 10 days ago, so early days. I didn't buy the Mini because it's simpler. I bought it because it's cheaper. And I was't concerned about budget. I was interested in cheaper because series 3 of the Pen lineup is sub-par with regards to sensor performance (DR, ISO).
So I figured get the Mini, save a few hundred bucks, spend it on lenses. Which I did, the 20mm 1.7.
I've chatted with others on Twitter, and I don't think I'm alone in this idea - save on the body, spend on the lens. Which is the opposite of what your review is getting at.
The plan is, when the Pen Pro is released, I sell the Mini on eBay, and get the Pro. And use it with the lenses I acquired on the way.
Also, I don't get the idea that the PASM dial offers more direct control. If anything I think of it as a distraction. I select shooting mode with a button, just like WB, ISO, etc. No PASM on NEX7. I think PASM dials will fade away.
Now if you could select PASM mode from the SCP, that would be nice :)
Nic, I see in your nice portfolio here that you also have an XZ-1, which looks like a direct alternative to the PEN Mini. Does the Mini's sensor make a real difference, or is the XZ-1's lens more important?