r.t. dowling

<p>I'll say this much: the shots I'm getting with my E-PL1 are sharper and have less noise than the shots I get with my K100D, even though the K100D has a physically bigger sensor. I've taken some shots with my E-PL1 that I wouldn't hesitate to print at 16"x20", or maybe even bigger.</p>

<p>This is the adapter I mentioned earlier, which allows me to use K-mount lenses on the Olympus:<br>

http://www.amazon.com/RainbowImaging-K-mount-Adapter-Panasonic-USD24-99/dp/B003GRB4EK/<br>

It works great. Just mount it on the camera, and then mount the lens. Image stabilization works great too; just enter the lens's focal length in the stabilization settings menu.</p>

<p>Last year I bought an Olympus E-PL1 on a whim. I just thought it would be fun, the price was too low to pass up, and I wanted to see how it performed with my old manual focus lenses. I didn't think I would end up using it more often than my Pentax K100D, but that is exactly what has happened. I can do things with the E-PL1 that I simply can't do with a conventional DSLR... and even though the sensor is slightly smaller, the image quality is very, very good. I've been able to take some positively gorgeous portraits with my E-PL1 and my Pentax 50/1.7 (with cheap K-to-Micro Four Thirds adapter). The Pentax lens acts like a 100/1.7 when I use it on the Olympus, which is wonderful for portraits. The Olympus 14-42 kit lens is surprisingly good too, and autofocus accuracy on the Olympus camera is far better than I was ever able to achieve with the Pentax.</p>

<p>I haven't ruled out getting an APS-C mirrorless camera at some point in the future, but I think I would be leaning toward the Sony NEX system at this point. I have nothing against the K-01 and in fact I think it's quite charming, but one of the things I enjoy most about mirrorless cameras is the ability to adapt lenses from other systems, and the K-01 doesn't allow that (other than M42 lenses).</p>

<p>If Pentax announced that they were going to come out with an APS-C mirrorless camera that allowed easy adaptation of lenses from other systems, I would definitely have to give it serious consideration.</p>

<p>Probably a good deal for folks who upgrade to a new camera body every year; for folks like myself who upgrade camera bodies as frequently as the United States Census knocks on my front door, not such a good deal. ;-)</p>

<p>Thanks for the update, Matt!</p>

<p>On my E-PL1, I'm able to change the ISO by pressing the round "START / OK" button on the back of the camera. This brings up a variety of different settings and options. Press the up or down buttons until you get to ISO, then press the left or right buttons to select your desired ISO, then press the START / OK button to save your changes.</p>

<p>Reading the manual is always a very good idea, of course. ;-)</p>

<p>Jamie, the E-PL5 uses "digital" image stabilization in video mode, rather than hardware-based (movable sensor) image stabilization. That's why you're not hearing any sensor movement sounds when shooting in video mode but are still able to observe a stabilized image. Unfortunately that doesn't answer the question of whether or not your hardware-based IS is working.</p>

<p>DPReview has posted some "real world" image samples from the new Q7:</p>

<p>http://www.dpreview.com/news/2013/07/03/pentax-q7-samples-gallery</p>

<p>I agree with Brian Quinn, it's the shape of the camera and the shape/length of the lens that is going to get you into trouble, rather than whether or not the camera actually uses interchangeable lenses. The folks who are enforcing these silly rules are most likely being told to look for cameras "with big lenses"; I doubt they're actually approaching each person and examining the camera carefully, or asking each person to demonstrate whether or not the lens is removable.</p>

<p>From a few feet away, especially to an untrained eye, there would be no difference between a point-and-shoot and one of these with collapsible kit zoom attached: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/828170-REG/Panasonic_DMC_GX1KBODY_DMC_GX1_Digital_Camera_Body.html</p>

<p>Here's another route you could try, and this one "keeps it in the family" so to speak: the Ricoh GXR system. With one of the zoom modules attached, it looks (and acts) like any other non-interchangeable-lens camera.</p>

<p>GXR with 28-300 module: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/760786-REG/Ricoh_170553_Lens_P10_28_300mm_F3_5_5_6.html</p>

<p>GXR with 24-72 module: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/760788-REG/Ricoh_170543_S10_24_72mm_F2_5_4_4VC_Camera.html</p>

<p>When you're not being harassed by the lens police, you can attach the M-Mount module and shoot Leica lenses using the same wonderful 12mp APS-C sensor found in the Pentax K-x, K-r, Nikon D90/D300, etc. http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/816332-REG/Ricoh_170613_GXR_Mount_A12_For.html</p>

<p>The irony is that many of today's professional photographers -- folks who sell their photos in order to make money -- are using iPhones. Silly rules prohibiting cameras with detachable lenses are not going to stop a pro from coming in with his or her iPhone, capturing some nice shots, and selling them.</p>

<p>If you want to use a camera with a reasonably large sensor and interchangeable lenses, with minimal chance of the "detachable lens police" noticing you, perhaps your best bet would be a Micro Four Thirds or Sony NEX camera with one of the collapsible kit lenses. When those lenses are in their collapsed position, they're not much longer than a pancake lens.</p>

<p>Examples:</p>

<p>Panasonic 14-42: http://www.amazon.com/Panasonic-14-42mm-F3-5-5-6-G-Series-Digital/dp/B005J5TZVG</p>

<p>Sony 16-50: http://www.amazon.com/Sony-SELP1650-16-50mm-Power-Zoom/dp/B0096W1PG6</p>

<p>Granted, these zooms don't have much reach... but they'll get you a bit farther than the non-zoom lens on an iPhone... and you can always attach a longer zoom to the camera when you're in a venue with reasonable/non-silly photo regulations.</p>

<p>Robin, when you refer to "sub-standard butt-ugly cameras," which specific camera(s) are you referring to?</p>

<p>Also, can you clarify/expand your comment about the MX-1 being a mistake? I've been hearing very good things about it thus far. Most of the praise for the MX-1 seems to be coming from non-Pentaxians, whereas most of the criticism seems to be from Pentaxians. Curious to hear your in-depth thoughts about it.</p>

<p>Maine sunset</p><div></div>

<p>Maine sunset</p><div></div>

<p>I'm not in marketing, but thank you for the compliment! :) I'd buy one too, and I could see it being a huge hit in the L.L.Bean catalog. WR would be fantastic. A small, light, high-quality MILC that I can literally take anywhere in any kind of weather? Yes, please! Or as Liz Lemon would say, "I want to go to there." ;)</p>

<p>Hey Pentax, are you still listening? :D</p>

<p>Agreed, the initial pricing is MUCH more reasonable. The Q7 + 02 Standard Zoom is listed at $496.95 on B&H, and we can safely assume that the price will eventually come down over time... but that's really a very reasonable price, especially as a starting price, considering that comparable fixed-lens compacts such as the Olympus XZ-2 are selling for the same price. The original Q was priced at around $800 when it came out. (You can still get them, by the way, for the very reasonable price of $249.95 at Amazon!)</p>

<p>I gotta admit I'm a sucker for brown and green — reminds me of my favorite candy, Andes Chocolate Mints!</p>

<p>If I was going to buy a Q7, the traditionalist in me would feel a very strong urge to go with the all-black version... but at the same time there is definitely something compelling about being able to pick your own custom colors and pretend that you're rich and that you had Pentax custom-design a camera just for you. :)</p>

<p>You must have an awful time with cell phones, Wayne! ;-)</p>

<p>They should make a weather-resistant version that looks like this and market it as the Q7 L.L.Bean Editon. ;-) </p>

<p><img src="http://pentaximaging.com/q7simulator/img/photos/Q7--metal_green--brown.png" alt="" width="400" height="228" /></p>

<p>I have a feeling that they'll be fine. When the Q first came out, many folks thought the lenses were needlessly large for such a small sensor. Perhaps now we know why!</p>

<p>Same here, Matt!</p>

<p>The larger sensor means that existing Q-mount lenses just got a little wider. For example, the 02 Standard Zoom had a 28-83 equivalent focal length on the Q and Q10, but on the Q7 it becomes a 23-69... or let's just call it a 24-70, which sounds a lot more traditional and professional. ;-) The 01 Standard Prime had a 47mm focal length equivalent on the old Qs, but on the new Q it has a 39mm equivalent... pretty close to 40, which is considered "true normal" by many.</p>

<p>The fact that these lenses have a large enough image circle for the 1/1.7" sensor would appear to suggest that Pentax planned to use a 1/1.7" sensor all along. We'll probably never know why they didn't use one right from the start. But hey, better late than never!</p>

<p>This camera system just became a LOT more interesting to a lot more people.</p>

<p>It's worth mentioning that Pentax really did quite a remarkable job in getting maximum performance from the tiny 1/2.3" sensor used in previous Qs. Hopefully that means that the Q7 will blow other 1/1.7" sensor cameras out of the water.</p>

<p>Pentax has released a new member of the "Q" family. The Q7 features a new 1/1.7" sensor, which is is still very small but significantly larger than the 1/2.3" sensors used in the Q and the Q10.</p>

<p>(When the original Q was released, many of us, myself included, wanted to know why they didn't use a 1/1.7" sensor. Perhaps they've been listening...?)</p>

<p>More info on the Q7: http://pentaximaging.com/hybrid/Q7_Black</p>

<p>http://pentaximaging.com/Q7studio#/silver/black</p>

<p>I adore my Nikon EM. The size and weight are perfect for my non-enormous hands, it's reliable, it's fun, I can carry it all day and not get tired of it... and I get gorgeous images with my Series E 50/1.8 and Series E 28/2.8 lenses.</p>

<p>It was originally my mother's camera. Nikon did indeed market it to the 1970s equivalent of "soccer moms" but I'm confident enough in my masculinity to not be bothered by that. ;-) Most of the photos taken of me when I was a toddler were taken with a Nikon EM and either Kodachrome 64 or Kodacolor 100. </p>

<p>Other than not having a viewfinder hump, it looks like it's pretty similar in size to the E-M5, and it's either 5 grams heavier or 5 grams lighter, depending on whose specs you believe... but either way that's probably not a noticeable weight difference for the vast majority of people. </p>

<p>Great looking camera, though! Definitely a nice combination of features.</p>

<p>Personally I'll just wait for them to add Wi-Fi and GPS to the "E-M6" or whatever comes after the E-M5. ;-)</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>"Is that 'prominent' Pentax feature TAv mode?"</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes.</p>

<p>I was surprised by the lack of SR as well. Some would argue that it's not really necessary with a 28/2.8 equivalent lens... but it's still nice to have, especially for heavily-caffeinated folks such as myself. ;-)</p>

<p>Before the OP goes out and spends lots of money on a new lens, I think he/she should do some testing to make sure his/her 16-45 is working properly. It might only need a minor adjustment. It's normally a very sharp lens, <em>especially</em> at the wide end. </p>

<p>It sounds to me like there might be something wrong with your 16-45, or perhaps it's having focus problems. It <em>should</em> be very sharp at the wide end, even at f/4, based on all the reviews and tests I've seen. When PhotoZone tested it, sharpness at 16mm was quite impressive -- and significantly sharper than at 45mm.</p>