The Kr. Better then an M4/3rd?

Was in a large out of electronics retailer having a scooby at the various cameras they had there and when comparing the Kr to the Olumpus EPL1 and the Panasonic G3, there's not a lot in it really size wise at all.....

I'm aiming to save up for a small digital (slr or mirrorless) to complement my film cameras as the K200D does take a lot of space up in the bag and is fairly heavy. I was thinking the mirrorless or M4/3 cameras but after handling, they are really not much better than the Kr. No power in the batteries though.....

On an ancillary note, having never handled a Canon Dslr I was very surprised how cheap the EOS 1000 etc feel..... Plasticy!!! The VR Nikon lenses are HUGE!! Was quite shocked, if that is what lens image stabilisation means, I am rather happy with Pentaxes solution in body! The only DSLR I have ever used is my K200D and I never really looked about too much so it's eye opening for me.

Yes, Kr better for dynamic range and viewfinder, the two major difference points for me, ymmv. I have an EPL1 and love it, it is with me whenever a DSLR isn't and the light is OK. But the Kr (or Kx which I have) has much better noise and detail in the shadows and having a proper eye viewfinder cannot be overlooked.

Any APS-C camera, whether DSLR or mirrorless, will be better that m4/3. The only reason to buy m4/3 was size, and the NEX & NX cameras have all but removed that advantage. If you already have Pentax lenses then a K-r would probably be best.

I read on the net that diffraction kicks in on m4/3 just after
f/5.6 which sounds a pain

There seems to be a lot of mention of diffraction just lately. Diffraction sets in at smaller apertures, progressively reducing the resolution of the image. However, don't assume this is a major issue. With a good lens excellent results will be obtained down probably to f16 and f22 should be used if DOF is the main requirement. Yes, some sharpness will be lost, but it should still be good. It's good to have the choice.

With tiny sensors, they are often limted to f8 as beyond that quality drops off, but also because there's plenty of DOF anyway.

The size of the camera body isn't the main thing. It's the lenses. That's where the 4/3 scores over the APS-C. Just as lenses designed for APS-C can be smaller than full frame lenses, so can 4/3 be smaller than APS-C for given angles of view.

It's all a compromise and only you can set the limits. From personal experience, I regularly use my 14-140mm zoom at f11 on my Panasonic gf2 and I can say that diffraction is not a problem there or at f16. My agency, whicth judges images carefully at 100% has never rejected one of my images on grounds of softness.

That does not alter he fact that my K5 is a 2 stops ahead in terms of noise quality. On the other hand, my gf2 fits in my pocket with it's superb 20mm f1.7 and a camera you have with you is always better quality than the camera you don't

Pentax beats MFT for:
* dynamic range
* noise at any ISO
* features
* ergonomics
* viewfinder
* larger sensor
* system depth
* manual focusing
* innovative shooting modes
* immediate access to bracketing, etc.
* battery life
* wide angle availability

MFT beats Pentax at:
* video (some models)
* exposure accuracy (but you'll blow highlights due to reduced DR)
* cuteness factor (Olympus)
* mounting third-party lenses

Size is a wash. The MFT bodies are smaller but the camera plus a couple of lenses still requires a shoulder bag.

MFT should have produced pancakes in all focal lengths, but failed to capitalise on this potential advantage. Even the Panasonic 20mm isn't that small (compared with DA40). The older lenses made for PEN half-frame were nicer.

P.S. I shoot the Olympus E-P1 with either the PEN G. Zuiko 40mm or the Panasonic 20mm. Or sometimes a Leica, M42 or Pentax lens through an adapter.

That must be my fault.

I agree that diffraction needn't always be a concern. But for those prioritising sharpness it's good to know that, for example, all zooms made for MFT are diffraction limited no matter how you shoot. Rather puts things in perspective.

Yes, you can really see it on the lcd screen. I have an adapter to fit my Pentax glass and as you stop it down using the aperture ring, you can see it getting gradually more diffuse. The camera adjusts the brightness of the image, so you will also get an effect from that if the light is dim. Mostly I want to use those lenses wide open, so it is not such a problem, but live view with a manual lens it is a good tool for learning (or teaching) about DOF and people soon grasp the effects of diffraction as a bonus.

I have considered M4/3 a few times as a smaller, lighter option when traveling light. However, the K5 with a small zoom isn't much more in size than a G3 with a similar zoom.
One thing I consider a must is a good viewfinder as I just can't get used to using the rear LCD and holding the camera away from me to frame / take a shot.
I guess I reaaly just want something small that is easy to pack away and currently still use my old Canon G7, which has produced some great shots in the past. Sure, there are limitations, but it's a simple matter of compromise. To this end, the new Fuji X10 seems to fit the bill rather than another "system" camera for those times I want to leave the K5 and lenses at home.

One other thing to think about when considering the two formats and particularly relevant to the K-r, is 'stealth' factor. Not size but shutter mechanism noise. The K-r does give one hell of a mirror slap which might turn a few unwanted heads in particular environments. Having said that I was very close to getting the E-PL2 MFT camera. Loved the image samples I had seen but didn't like the feel of it, just too 'toyish' to me somehow. The K-r felt loads better and was still pretty compact so as I decided the noise factor wasn't a major issue for me, that's what I went for. Haven't felt the need to reach for the ear plugs yet!

Agreed and I have the same reservation about the EVFs on the G1/2/3. Though I don't doubt they will come to dominate things in the future.

Dave

Ditto, because the m4/3 feels like the old rangefinders, I find myself holding it up to my eye and then getting annoyed that the electronic viewfinder addon is £180 or so. Nearly as much as the optical squinty Pentax Q one!
For using manual focus lenses (I have the fotodiox aperture controlling adapter for fitting pentax) I think you really need to have it on a tripod or use a proper EVF. Using the DFA 100 macro is fantastic, but fiddly off tripod.

I actually like using the rear LCD. Agree on the Fuji X10 though, it really does look seriously nice, and I'd rather have it than any of the currently available CSC cameras. Sorry, little Q!