On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 01:31:39PM -0400, Desjardins, Steve scripsit: > $2000, eh? Amazing.
At this point, one can snark about that extreme expense of that little red L, or point out that small production volumes are bad for your pricing structure. I suspect it's some of both. > I definitely think there's a market for "smaller than DSLR" cameras > that are better quality than the typical P&S, especially with > interchangeable lenses. I'd say that the inte-changeable lens part is unproven. Something like the LX3 is a pretty good argument that a high-quality P&S has a market. What is (to my mind) a lot less obvious is whether or not there's a market between P&S (but a good one), the 400 USD or so price point, and a DSLR. > I'd like to have the E-P1 with the 14 mm pancake but I wouldn't want > to be stuck with that one focal length. I acknowledge the idea that > maybe it's just me, but I would definitely spend some of my money on > this format. I certainly think that the micro 4/3 approach is the > best use of that sensor. The problem with interchangeable lenses is that they have both mass and volume. The advantage to the wee, smaller-than-SLR, camera is that you can drop it in your coat pocket. Once you need to carry the lenses and the blower to get the dust out of the innards and the bag to keep the lenses from rattling, the advantage is greatly diminished if not gone. If it has a zoom lens, quality suffers; making good lenses for smaller sensors is demanding. So far, most people who really want portability appear to want it more than they want best-practical lens quality. I don't know how well that's going to hold up with novel lens materials. Personally, I think something like the W80 is closer to what I want in a pocket camera; OK image quality and it doesn't care if it gets rained on. -- Graydon -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
