A plea to Pentax

Dear Pentax,

Please can you seriously consider producing a "performance" compact.
Yes, the i-10 is a lovely looking camera, but it is merely a point and shoot. Yes the W series are good waterproof cameras, but again just point and shoot. The X series are nice "bridge" cameras, but can be bulky compared to something you just want to put in your pocket.

No, what I would really like is a compact camera with the following:-
Large compact sensor (1/7" or even better 1/6.3")
Full control (which means Av, Tv, P, M, maybe TAv and Sv too which are soo useful)
Fast wide zoom (something like 24mm eqv and F2) up to 5x optical zoom.
Hotshoe, so I can put my Pentax flash on.
Shake reduction a given.
And, above all, the ability to shoot in RAW.

If Canon (G11), Nikon (P6000) and Panasonic (LX5) can do it, and probably make serious money out of them, then why can't Pentax?

The market is there, as a great many Pentax DSLR users would like a powerful compact with the Pentax badge on it.

So, please give it a thought.

That's kind of small - 1/7" is a diagonal of 3mm - barely a webcam sensor.

C

I have the Canon G11 , sorry Pentax can't wait forever, don't have to say anymore,

Jack.

Its in sensor speak rather than precise measurement. It stems back to vacuum tubes.

What I did miss was the 1. bit, so should have read - 1/1.7" and 1/1.63" Sorry for the confusion.

I think Samsung made it, the EX1. At least Pentax have been in bed with Samsung.

Thanks for the clarification. I have a GX100 - 1/1.75 - great in B&W, not much else - too noisy at 25M pixels per cm^2. The GF-1 has taken its place.

As others have said - too many other mfrs have done a brilliant job in this area - Pentax entering it would be a fools errand.

C

If Pentax wanted to produce a high-end compact, perhaps with an APS-C sized sensor, then I certainly would not discourage them.

With compacts I think we need to think very carefully about what the objective is.

I always carry a camera and for this purpose a very small compact is needed. I use the I-10 for this, chosen for its looks (I admit) but also for its sensor-based SR. The results from this are excellent, but it does need skill to make the most of it. This mostly relates to handling issues with such a small camera.

An all-round camera that can equally well shoot flowers or distant wildlife would be the X90. Very versatile, capable of most things albeit it slower than a DSLR. This sort of camera can be very, very useful. I am tempted, not because I need one, but, again, because I really would like one.

The DSLR does the job properly, no problem with that.

But the high end compact? What does it do? If it is a carry anywhere camera, probably without a zoom lens, it is neither versatile nor compact enough. It needs a case and at that point you might as well have a small DSLR such as the K-x in a small case. The DSLR will give better quality.

The cost will be very high, because of the way they are made and the low turnover, but the quality isn't as good as we might hope. Time and again testing reveals the shortcomings of even some very expensive kit.

My conclusion is that, although there is a market segment for such cameras, they aren't for me.

I would be happy with the digital equivalent of a Rollei 35B. I used one in tandem with my SLR film cameras for many years and adored it (how sad:blush for its simplicity, robustness, compact size, light weight and, most importantly, the quality of its lens. Maybe I was just lucky with mine, but, having become familar with its use and foibles, I was able to produce consistently sharp and contrasty images with good colour saturation on the reversal films (Kodachrome, Fujichrome, Agfachrome or Extachrome; it really didn't seem to matter) I invariably loaded it with. At the time I was a very keen hill/fell/mountain walker and I never left home without it. To this day, I still think some of my best (in the widest sense) images were taken using this litle gem of a camera. Sadly, when I went to work in the USA in the middle 80's for a couple of years my slide collection suffered hugely through not having been stored with sufficent care.

I sold it recently on 'fleabay' to a guy in Queensland because I felt it was wrong to hold on to it when I no longer had use for it. He was delighted with his purchase, amazed at the condition it was in and 'blown away' by the quality of the images it produced. Gave me a real buzz to think my little Rollei had been given a new lease of life.

How many of us have photographic equipment gathering metaphorical dust that could be put to good use in someone else's hands: Quite a few, I should think

Apologies for debasing a good thread with a nostalgia trip

Jon

Gathering 'dust' as I write: OM-1n, OM4, 50mm 1.4, T20 flash, Sony DSC-F828, HVL-F32X dedicated flash for the same + so many photographic bits and bobs I've lost count and wouldn't know where to find them anyway: any offers

Nothing sad about that at all - I adore my 35B for the same reasons and despite having had (and still have) many compact 35mm cameras since, the little Rollei is the only one that still gets regular use.

If somebody (and Pentax would be as good as anyone) were to make a digital version I'd fight you to be first in the queue.

But almost everybody makes a digital version. It's called a compact digital camera.

The advantage now is that it's thinner, has a zoom lens instead of a fixed one and also has a means of focusing called AF. The Pentax I-10 even has sensor shift SR built in.

The Rollei 35 concept is compact, albeit it heavy for its size, but the biggest drawback is that there is no focusing aid. A rangefinder would probably have had too short a base to work accurately enough.

They are very nice cameras with very nice lenses, but a good digital compact is IMHO much better for shooting images with.

It depends what you're after John, after years using the little Rollei (it was my only camera for a good chunk of my life) I became quite adept at judging distance, although I'd concede that some sort of focussing aid is preferable. Of course a digital version would doubtless have a screen and live view so that satisfies that desire...

What I like about the 35 that cameras like the I-10 don't address is the completely manual control. The 35 may be basic but it provides hardware to change aperture and shutter speed without faffing about in menus. I'm sure a digital version could add all those extra features like Av, Sv, P, auto focus, movies, etc and that's also fine by me, but if it misses out the basics of quick manual handling then I'm not interested in it. The reason I ended up with a Ricoh GR-D wasn't the IQ (although it's pretty good) but rather the fact it has twin control dials, a hotshoe, manual focus and a proper built in light meter. It's everything I need (and a lot more I don't use) all wrapped up in a package the size of a fag packet that I can (and do!) carry with me absolutely everywhere.

I realise that my requirements are probably only matched by a minority of P&S buyers but cameras like the GR-D, Sigma DP1/2 and Leica X1 show that the market is there. If Pentax (or Rollei ) would join that club then I certainly wouldn't complain!

BTW, given the choice of a fast sharp prime lens or a slower softer zoom I'll take the former every time...

I have just done some investigation for some friends, and the reality is that this market is far from being swamped with cameras.
At the moment, the only cameras which meet the spec are the following:-

Canon G11 and S90
Samsung EX1
Panasonic LX-3 and LX-5.

Nikon did have the P6000 but that is discontinued.

So, I would say there is a market for a Pentax model, as I am sure that they would sell pretty well.

The interesting thing though, that far from being a compromise, certain pros have this type of camera with them too. For instance, the celebrated landscape photographer, Joe Cornish, not only has his Large format and DSLR, but also a Panasonic LX-3 which he rates highly.

Hmmm.... I don't think I'm one of those photographers, cos if it doesn't have a lens mount, I don't really care what brand it is! The LX3 and G11 look so good, it would be very difficult for Pentax to compete. If Nikon failed, I doubt Pentax would do so well! If I was going to get one of them, I'd go for the LX3 which looks a bit closer to a normal compact.

Don't Olympus have any offerings in the high-end compact category any more? I used to love my c5060...

One other to consider - Fuji F200 EXR - large sensor (1/1.7) decent zoom range (28-140 equiv.) Manual control. Great reviews. No flash mount but a lot cheaper than the other options (about £160). Nice and small too.

I did look at this when it came out last year and it was intriguing.

However there are three things wrong with it.

1. No RAW
2. The aperture is either wide open or closed down. No steps.
3. Widest aperture is only F3.3, whereas the "pro" compacts are faster (Panasonic is F2)

What is more impressive is the F300EXR, which is the F200 replacement. Smaller sensor (shame) but they have put a clever phase detection AF (a first for a mirrorless camera) rather than contrast AF. Now if it works, I can forgive its lack of RAW, slow lens, and silly stepped aperture.

Still, I would rather Pentax came out with a decent spec compact.