[sherrvonne]

It interests me that to use the Scene modes intelligently, one must know what differences are involved and WHY they matter. When the situation is 'standard' to the Scene mode selected it's normally what a knowledgeable photographer would select for that occasion.

If you're willing to follow signs to get to where you want to go, the Scene modes work most of the time. But if you don't know where you're goin' the signs don't help.

My opinion is that most folks would be better advised to simply use P-mode or the Green Bar if they don't understand the choices made for them in the Scene modes. And I've found VERY few folks that can explain what differentiates the Scene modes- hint: RTFM.

Argue the exposure choices there if you wish, but at least understand them. I've no argument with 'em, I just can't be bothered to select one or to remember which menu choice would work for me at the time -- it's just easier to DIY.

I HAVE had success suggesting folks 'study' the Scene mode adjustments as a learning step toward understanding exposure choices.

After using a K1000 in the 80's I, I tried using digital and found the scene modes irritating, lol, still do. Guess I just wanted real control back. The K3 is always on manual and I have to force myself to put it in others modes which I do. No one I know using a point and shoot with scene modes can explain them. Last week I made myself explore them on the Q7.

[6BQ5]

Good price but not too far in complexity from the K-5 series. Plus from my perspective it is missing the top information panel which I, for one, use quite extensively and almost exclusive during a shoot. That was one of the features I liked on my original *istDS.and all subsequent Pentax cameras I have owned. That top panel is as close as we can come to looking down at the camera and seeing the set shutter speed and F stop setting like we used to see on film cameras like the XM or K1000. (Information still available on the Leica M series) I'm thinking of a Pentax K-5 series style body with the simplicity in operation and menu selections of a Leica M or M9, or better yet like the top panel of a Nikon DF all for around $275. It would be the K-1000 of the modern era. Get rid of all those menus and bring back a simple camera but make it digital.

Isn't all that information available on the info screen too?

[Tony Belding]

I felt there was something awkward about the article, arguing that you don't really need the newest fancy expensive camera -- then touting a pretty new, pretty expensive, rather fancy camera (at least from my viewpoint) as the solution. There's a bit of "classic rangefinder" snobbery at work here too. I was always a SLR guy. When I got into photography, SLRs were hot stuff, but rangefinders were already sort of looked upon as has-been cameras.

[CWRailman]

Isn't all that information available on the info screen too?

If you are talking about the back LCD then yes it is but, and again this is a personal thing, I will use it for composing an image or reviewing the results of a shot but I ABSOLUTELY HATE having to get information off that back screen. Sorry, but as I noted, that is a personal thing which has been difficult for me to deal with on my Q7's. Hence the reason I am considering a Fuji X-T1 which has a top panel that gives me the same information the old film cameras used to provide. I should point out that during the film era, I was one of those who had difficulty when Pentax went from the pointer style exposure meter to the lights along side the viewing screen.

By the way, I had the opportunity to handle a Fuji X-T1 and while I was getting familar with it, the owner stated that the X-T1 facilitated his moving from film to digital. He had purchased a Nikon some time prior but just could not get used to all the digital menus and lack of mechanical dials to adjust settings. For that reason he had not done any photo work till he got the X-T1. I have a friend who was a professional photographer specializing in product shots for catalogs and brochures who had a similar problem in making the transition and he is no longer working in the photographic field but drives a school bus.

[reh321]

Good price but not too far in complexity from the K-5 series. Plus from my perspective it is missing the top information panel which I, for one, use quite extensively and almost exclusive during a shoot. That was one of the features I liked on my original *istDS.and all subsequent Pentax cameras I have owned. That top panel is as close as we can come to looking down at the camera and seeing the set shutter speed and F stop setting like we used to see on film cameras like the XM or K1000. (Information still available on the Leica M series) I'm thinking of a Pentax K-5 series style body with the simplicity in operation and menu selections of a Leica M or M9, or better yet like the top panel of a Nikon DF all for around $275. It would be the K-1000 of the modern era. Get rid of all those menus and bring back a simple camera but make it digital.

If you are talking about the back LCD then yes it is but, and again this is a personal thing, I will use it for composing an image or reviewing the results of a shot but I ABSOLUTELY HATE having to get information off that back screen. Sorry, but as I noted, that is a personal thing which has been difficult for me to deal with on my Q7's. Hence the reason I am considering a Fuji X-T1 which has a top panel that gives me the same information the old film cameras used to provide. I should point out that during the film era, I was one of those who had difficulty when Pentax went from the pointer style exposure meter to the lights along side the viewing screen.

By the way, I had the opportunity to handle a Fuji X-T1 and while I was getting familar with it, the owner stated that the X-T1 facilitated his moving from film to digital. He had purchased a Nikon some time prior but just could not get used to all the digital menus and lack of mechanical dials to adjust settings. For that reason he had not done any photo work till he got the X-T1. I have a friend who was a professional photographer specializing in product shots for catalogs and brochures who had a similar problem in making the transition and he is no longer working in the photographic field but drives a school bus.

So, when you use the word "complexity", you are talking about your point-of-view as a user, not the point-of-view of the camera company.

Having an LCD on the back is integral to the digital camera concept, so using it to also display information is the natural thing to do from an engineering point-of-view. An extra screen on top is just that, an extra, just an EVF is an extra supplementing what can already be displayed on the rear LCD. When I was looking at getting a Q, you explained over-and-over that we did not need an EVF, that it would be extra bother, and would add to the size of a Q, so it wasn't going to happen. I believe exactly the same words should explain why your issues are no more likely to be addressed on the next Q than mine are, and simple cost may explain why you won't find the extra screen on anything below top-of-the-line APS-C cameras.

BTW - the Fuji X-T1 is not in the class you're talking about. B&H lists the price of a body as $1150, which is more than 4 times your target of $275, and even more than the B&H listed price for a Pentax K-3ii. In addition to the extra LCD screen on top, the extra money buys you other "extras": an EVF and the rear LCD tilts

[Tony Belding]

By the way, I had the opportunity to handle a Fuji X-T1 and while I was getting familar with it, the owner stated that the X-T1 facilitated his moving from film to digital.

I too have admired the X-T1 from afar. Its styling and (more importantly) controls are the most 35mm SLR-like of any digital camera today. It would sure make a natural companion to the old Sears KS-2 (Ricoh XR7) that I learned photography on, and still sometimes use.

However. . . It's a pricey system, and by the time it hit the market I was already doing quite well with the Olympus OM-D E-M5, and it didn't make sense to expend time and money switching yet again.

I've also got to say, after getting used to the various "mirrorless" systems, picking up a Pentax K-5 II felt awkward and counter-intuitive to me.

[boriscleto]

Hmm. I think the market for this camera is entirely in this thread...

[magkelly]

I use my DSLR almost exactly like I do my film cameras. One is digital and has AF and auto modes for when I am feeling lazy, the other takes film and I have to do it all myself 100% of the time. The bells and whistles of digital I hardly ever use. The only thing I ever mess up on, shutter speed, I have to watch out for on both cameras, though on the DSLR's I have modes on the dial that can help with that if I really can't figure it out. Compared to some of the other DSLR's I've seen I don't find my K-30's and K-5II all that complicated actually but if I just cannot get myself together for whatever reason fast enough there's auto mode and AF and 90% of the time that's good enough to get me a quick shot. Admittedly I'm not an average user but even when I was just beginning with digital I didn't find things to be too difficult. I think the Pentax user menus and controls are pretty user intuitive compared to Nikon or Canon. It's one of the reasons I like Pentax cameras. I spend far more time shooting than I do worrying about how to shoot...

[CWRailman]

So, when you use the word "complexity", you are talking about your point-of-view as a user, not the point-of-view of the camera company.

Having an LCD on the back is integral to the digital camera concept, so using it to also display information is the natural thing to do from an engineering point-of-view. An extra screen on top is just that, an extra, just an EVF is an extra supplementing what can already be displayed on the rear LCD. When I was looking at getting a Q, you explained over-and-over that we did not need an EVF, that it would be extra bother, and would add to the size of a Q, so it wasn't going to happen. I believe exactly the same words should explain why your issues are no more likely to be addressed on the next Q than mine are, and simple cost may explain why you won't find the extra screen on anything below top-of-the-line APS-C cameras.

BTW - the Fuji X-T1 is not in the class you're talking about. B&H lists the price of a body as $1150, which is more than 4 times your target of $275, and even more than the B&H listed price for a Pentax K-3ii. In addition to the extra LCD screen on top, the extra money buys you other "extras": an EVF and the rear LCD tilts

You are right that I said not to put a EVF on the Q and that it did not need one because for what it is, and it’s target market, that is not necessary. It’s focus are people who use cell phones for picture taking, not people who use view finders. Those are two separate and non related markets. Leave it alone as it holds a unique place in the photographic community in what it offers for the money. Again the tool box theory in which each piece of photographic equipment serves a purpose. You do not use a sledge hammer to pound nails nor do you use a finishing hammer to break concrete.

What I am talking about is that Pentax has a gap between the K series and the Q series that is being filled by cameras like the Olympus E-M10 and the soon to be released Fuji X-T10. The link provided below shows how an Olympus E-M10, which according to DPReview produces images at or near the IQ of a K-5, fits exactly in the middle of a K and Q series and does so with the EVF and tilt screen that many on this forum have shown interest in having in their cameras.
Compact Camera Meter
Hover your mouse over each camera and note the size and weight while the physical size relationship between the three cameras is visually demonstrated. The soon to be released Fuji X-T10 is almost exactly the same weight and size and supposedly produces even higher IQ images than the E-M10.

If Pentax was smart, meaning that if they had anybody who got past the first semester of product marketing they would come out with a stripped down digital version of the K-1000 to match the size of the E-M10 or the Fuji X-T1 with mechanical function knobs like on those cameras and some if not all of the same features. (By the way, the K-1000 was the last SLR Pentax sold and was the longest selling and the most successful model as far as number of units sold.) With the average camera user getting more and more confused, heck even some of the camera reviewers get confused and note such in their reviews, by the increasing complexity of menus in cameras it would behoove Pentax to make the controls more tactile like the Canon DF, Fuji X-T1 or the new Fuji X-T10. The reviewers have given these cameras high marks for their simplicity of operation. Olympus has headed in this direction with it’s OM-D line of cameras with the E-M10 being the latest and least costly of the series and as a result their sales have risen and pulled them out of their financial hole and I think Pentax should do something about the same size and for a bit less money. Hence my $275 street price for body only. In fact you might be amazed at how many Pentax owners also own one of the Olympus OM-D or Fuji X series cameras and I think the X-T10 will pull even more away from the Pentax brand. In using the Fuji X series cameras I particularly like the fact that with the camera up to your eye you can make aperture adjustments by turning the aperture ring on the lens just like we did on SLR’s. Such control that were once common among all SLR's need to be reintroduced into the digital world instead of being different on each camera make.


But you’re right, I do not believe Pentax should make any of these additions to the Q which good or bad, has it’s own unique place in the photographic market.

[stevebrot]

I'm thinking of a Pentax K-5 series style body with the simplicity in operation and menu selections of a Leica M or M9, or better yet like the top panel of a Nikon DF all for around $275. It would be the K-1000 of the modern era. Get rid of all those menus and bring back a simple camera but make it digital.

Let me know when you start your Kickstarter Campaign. The market is there, IMHO, but I would not wait for Ricoh or any other established maker to fill the niche. BTW...have you seen this?

Konost |


Steve

[CWRailman]

Let me know when you start your Kickstarter Campaign. The market is there, IMHO, but I would not wait for Ricoh or any other established maker to fill the niche. BTW...have you seen this?

Konost |

Steve

No, I had not heard about that camera but it does not surprise me. There seems to be a growing market for simple cameras and that is why I am suggesting Pentax hop on the band wagon before it's too late. Have you seen what Leica gets for similar cameras and there is a 2-6 month waiting list for some of their higher priced models.

[reh321]

No, I had not heard about that camera but it does not surprise me. There seems to be a growing market for simple cameras and that is why I am suggesting Pentax hop on the band wagon before it's too late. Have you seen what Leica gets for similar cameras and there is a 2-6 month waiting list for some of their higher priced models.

It will be interesting to see what Konost charges for that camera; I'm guessing that it won't be anywhere near your $275 target. Most of us use lots of brain cycles in composing pictures, and often are more than happy to offload some of the work on the camera (the last time I had to determine both aperture and shutter speed was forty-one years ago, just before I got my second range-finder camera, for example).

[6BQ5]

Making an "in between" requires more than just stripping out bells and whistles. You need a new form factor and that could require a new lens mount. The K-mount is simply too big to be much smaller than what it is now. We've seen attempts at this with the K-01. That is probably as small as you can reasonably make it. Maybe some of the circuitry could be shrunk down and maybe a smaller, denser battery could be used ... but you still have that canyon sized mount. Squishing the K-mount dimensions could introduce some funky focusing issues in some lenses even if the mirror was removed.

Use the K-mount for what it is and you'll love it. Use the Q mount for what it is and you'll love that too. The M10 we both got could be the best compromise as an "in between" camera.

[reh321]

No, I had not heard about that camera but it does not surprise me. There seems to be a growing market for simple cameras and that is why I am suggesting Pentax hop on the band wagon before it's too late. Have you seen what Leica gets for similar cameras and there is a 2-6 month waiting list for some of their higher priced models.

This thread is entitled "The Myth of More", but it has evolved to The Myth of Less. Leica is a high-priced niche product; as I implied in my previous response, I'm guessing that the Konost will turn out to be another niche product, priced like a Leica for its appearance, but performing like a Canon. Why own one like that? So others can see it? I take a lot of pictures under circumstances that approach "street photography". For example, you take pictures of model railroad stations, where part of the scene is plastic passengers who obediently stay where they are placed; I take pictures at real railroad stations, where part of the scene is real passengers who can become very curious when something potentially interestng appears. With my recently departed Canon Rebel, I had a Sigma 10mm-20mm lens; I really liked that lens, but it didn't work well under those conditions, because I got questions about this lens with the gold band around it, and I can't take the picture I want if my camera kit is distracting my scene. I haven't used my new Pentax cameras yet, but I'm hoping that people rushing past will view them as toy or strictly amateur cameras. That is my need: a camera that will enable me to blend into a group while taking quality pictures of the group, and without breaking my checkbook (I spent roughly $700 on the two digital cameras shown here, including the extra 01 lens).

[pacerr]

As I peruse this site, and this thread in particular, it occurs to me that there are two types pf “Pentaxians” – or photographers in general. Those intimately involved with the 'machine' and those involved in the results possible by using the machine. And most certainly this isn't intended as a purely black-or-white label but rather it includes situational shades of gray.


I'm a “machine-guy” by nature. I value and respect the Pentax 'machine(s) and after nearly half a century of use I have no desire or intention to explore other brands seeking greener grass. That an' I'm just too damn old to change now, but that's beside the point.


First, in the early '60's, the H1a solved the parallax issues of close focusing, then the Spotmatics with their TTL metering made complex technical photography much more convenient (after a learning curve about using TTL metering anyway). Excepting a two year hiatus when a very compact 1/2-frame Olympus Pen-F KIT solved a travel problem in the '60's the Pentax SLR(s) have served every photo need for me. That need was to produce – in the field – well exposed, sharp forensic-like images that conveyed information in graphic form.


Sometimes the point was for direct presentation of information, for other uses it was to build instructional graphics that depended upon accurate detailed depictions of images or to build instructional animation presentations. Like a carpenter with a favorite hammer, the Pentax 'machine' was my favored tool to produce a satisfactory result with little or no thought for the tool itself. I never tried to drive Phillips Screws with a hammer! Any capabilities or limitations were simply accommodated within the utility of the 'tool' – I'd like to think it was a “professional” accommodation of the reality of the tools at hand.


I've never considered myself a “photographer” – certainly not an “aesthetic photographic artist”, and rarely have any inclination to offer an image to the public except as potentially interesting information. I consider myself as a user of photography to record and occasionally to present a point of view – aesthetics notwithstanding.


As a 'tool user' the Q and the Q7 with 01, 03, 06 and 08 lenses with a home-made adapter/extension tube for some A110 lenses and Q>PK and Q>Adaptall lens adapters for all the other stuff on the shelf it's given me hours – heck, months – of entertainment and fun. Then there's the five DSLR bodies on the shelf for 'serious' contemplation.


My point here: Now retired I'm havin' a world of fun explorin' the Q-system (and the capabilities of the DSLRs in general) while transitioning from the smelly 'wet' darkroom to the digital processing. Ya know, this photo stuff is fun once ya don't take it too seriously!


I'm gradually comin' to the conclusion . . . if ya ain't havin' fun with it you're doin' it wrong. An' I'm casting my vote for bein' pleased with what we've got and then applauding any future “improvements” – at least until I think I've mastered what I've got in hand.