Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
04-05-2019, 11:11 AM - 1 Like   #16
Pentaxian
KiloHotelphoto's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Glen Mills, PA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 658
QuoteOriginally posted by biz-engineer Quote
In the past, you'd buy a DSLR lens assuming that you would keep using it for a long , while upgrading bodies as they improve. If you might be getting a MILC in the future, why would you buy a EF or F lens now? And if the answer is "I can use a mount adapter" than what is the advantage of a mirrorless body (based on MILC lenses being sharpness thank to the shorter flange distance)?
Advantages will be silent shutter, seeing exposure in the evf, autofocus improvements like eye tracking and almost 100% coverage of AF points.

And according to Amazons best selling lens list 7 of the top 20 are Canon EF and another 2 are third party EF lenses. So I'm not sure where you got your info that almost nobody is buying EF or F mount.

04-05-2019, 02:20 PM - 3 Likes   #17
Pentaxian
photoptimist's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2016
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,407
The era of rapid upgrading of camera bodies is over -- the technology has matured to the point that most people replace the camera when the old one breaks rather than replace it when a new model comes out. At some level, it's the the desktop PC market -- there's nice spectrum of available PCs at a spectrum of prices but nothing earth shatteringly new that makes people dump their old machines.

Mirrorless never was a big advancement in camera technology. It's just an alternative architecture which brings features that are both a loved strength (small size and EVFs) and a hated weakness (too small and no OVF). I doesn't even bring a cost advantage because the money saved on the mirror box goes into high-speed digital circuits required to make a decent EVF. MILCs have been on the market for over a decade. They have their followers but it's clear they can't "win" because they lack things that some people want.
04-05-2019, 06:00 PM   #18
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: California
Posts: 619
QuoteOriginally posted by biz-engineer Quote
In the past, you'd buy a DSLR lens assuming that you would keep using it for a long , while upgrading bodies as they improve. If you might be getting a MILC in the future, why would you buy a EF or F lens now? And if the answer is "I can use a mount adapter" than what is the advantage of a mirrorless body (based on MILC lenses being sharpness thank to the shorter flange distance)?
I can see that. I can't answer to why anyone would buy an F lens, but buying an EF lens is a different story. Instead of a need for a filter housing on a wide lens, get the drop in filter adapter. if you aren't one to use a view finder because the camera stays on a tripod, why risk worrying about mirror shock, or having to worry about stray light through the viewfinder under certain conditions and exposures, certain cameras allow for a tilt evf. I think in general for every reason in favor of one, you can counter with a reason for the other.
04-05-2019, 06:19 PM   #19
retired sw engineer
Loyal Site Supporter
reh321's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: South Bend, IN, USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 12,915
QuoteOriginally posted by biz-engineer Quote
Almost no one buys EF or F lenses because it's not the future, and almost no one buy Z or RF lenses because either they aren't available yet, or because the lineup isn't yet complete to make the right selection.
I don't understand why you're so certain that Canikon have abandoned their DSLR mounts; they have the capability to do both, so whether they do depends entirely on what their market wants.

04-05-2019, 06:24 PM   #20
retired sw engineer
Loyal Site Supporter
reh321's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: South Bend, IN, USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 12,915
QuoteOriginally posted by biz-engineer Quote
In the past, you'd buy a DSLR lens assuming that you would keep using it for a long , while upgrading bodies as they improve. If you might be getting a MILC in the future, why would you buy a EF or F lens now? And if the answer is "I can use a mount adapter" than what is the advantage of a mirrorless body (based on MILC lenses being sharpness thank to the shorter flange distance)?
One major advantage of a MILC body is that it provides an EVF - those who want that will purchase MILC; those who want OVF will continue to purchase DSLR. By offering high-quality full-function adapter, manufoacturer assures current users that they can continue to purchase EF or F mounts lenses now and postpone body decision if that is what user wants to do.
04-05-2019, 08:54 PM   #21
AoCo
Loyal Site Supporter
monochrome's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: St. Louis, MO
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 24,551
QuoteOriginally posted by biz-engineer Quote
In the past, you'd buy a DSLR lens assuming that you would keep using it for a long , while upgrading bodies as they improve. If you might be getting a MILC in the future, why would you buy a EF or F lens now? And if the answer is "I can use a mount adapter" than what is the advantage of a mirrorless body (based on MILC lenses being sharpness thank to the shorter flange distance)?
In the past people didn’t buy a new camera every other year, nor change platforms at will chasing the latest features. At least I don’t think they did. The Nikon F and Canon F-1 transformed the Professional market. Pentax had certainly made an SLR a consumer item a bit earlier, Maybe the AE-1 made some people jump ship, and maybe Minolta did it again, but I’d bet those cameras expanded the market as much as they caused replacements.

Here’s my NIB interchangeable lens camera gear history. Am I normal or an outlier?
  • When I was young (1977) I got a KX and a K50/1.4, then a gift Albinar 70-210. Still have the Pentaxes.
  • 7 years later in 1984 I got an MESuper and M50/1.4, then an M28/2.8, then an 200/4. Still have them.
  • 22 years or so later - 2006 - I bought a K10D. I bought 4 new lenses for that camera, Still have them.
  • 6 years later I bought a K-01, in 2012. It was an impulse purchase and really a toy, though I still use it.
  • In 2013 Ricoh Imaging gave me a K-3. I wouldn’t have bought one otherwise. I sold it in 2006.
  • 4 years after the K-01, in 2016, I bought a K-1. I bought 4 new lenses for that camera.
  • In 2017, again on an impulse I bought a used KP. I bought 4 new lenses for the KP.
Everything else is used gear . . . . I think the industry - and the customers - will eventually return to a much lower turnover of gear, replacing broken cameras, and maybe when there is a true technology breakthrough. Automatic Exposure or Autofocus first mover, for example.

I don’t think mirrorless is a true user improvement; more of an iteration than a breakthrough. MILC doesn’t do anything a DSLR doesn’t already do. The question is not whether the mirror, or even the dedicated camera can survive from a demand standpoint. The question is what Return on Capital is necessary to justify continuing to supply them.

Last edited by monochrome; 04-05-2019 at 09:19 PM.
04-06-2019, 02:02 AM   #22
Pentaxian




Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 2,272
Sony is already reporting major negative impact to their sales and profitability via defensive talk by their PR twisters:
"Sony is focused on technology and not necessarily just selling more cameras or making profits"
You sometimes have to wonder what they believe the average IQ of their customers is. We all know companies do not exist for sales or profits. Never.


And they confirm they pretty much ran out of incremental camera improvements and "technology" now is this:
"Sony is investing in computational photography and lenses now"
So JPG gimmicks and lenses.


(Sony interview: "First full-frame, then APS-C" - Photo Rumors)


Basically it is naive masochism to buy into a new mount these years and most photographers have understood that.
Nothing much to gain for lots of money.
04-06-2019, 08:19 AM   #23
retired sw engineer
Loyal Site Supporter
reh321's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: South Bend, IN, USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 12,915
QuoteOriginally posted by monochrome Quote
In the past people didn’t buy a new camera every other year, nor change platforms at will chasing the latest features. At least I don’t think they did. The Nikon F and Canon F-1 transformed the Professional market. Pentax had certainly made an SLR a consumer item a bit earlier, Maybe the AE-1 made some people jump ship, and maybe Minolta did it again, but I’d bet those cameras expanded the market as much as they caused replacements.
One difference between the SLR market and the DSLR market is that the SLR user could regularly 'refresh' his camera by switching to another type of film or could add a motor drive. With a DSLR everything is more integrated, so he has had to purchase a new camera in order to get faster fps or a larger buffer or a better sensor - but "innovation" may be slowing now. Do users really want to regularly throw large amounts of money at the camera manufacturers as is implied by the constant longing for new bodies??

When I purchased my K-30, I thought it might be my last camera {I was 67 then} - but the KP lured me 3-1/2 years later with the fantastic high ISO performance.

04-06-2019, 10:58 AM   #24
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Western Canada
Posts: 5,657
Interesting to think about the waxing and waning of the fortunes of good, read expensive, camera equipment in this day.

They're luxury goods for the most part, unless of course they're used by pros where they are tools. Luxury goods do better when the economy is strong.

When I consider all things, I could get by reasonably well in the film era with a K1000, a 35-105 and a zoom that went to 300mm...and a good flash.

In the digital age, my K10D, 16-45, 55-300 and good flash. But for many of us, it doesn't stop at this useful, but basic tool box. Me included.

As amateur photographers we don't really need the latest equipment, generally.

I bought my first 'good' camera (Pentax S1a) in '68. I didn't know anything about cameras and was not interested in them, but I bought the S1a, because I had to, for my job. It was a tool and a good one. Still have it, still works.

I got interested in cameras as a result of my S1a, than bought an ES ll, because by then, I had become a budding enthusiast.

Got married about 9 years later and my new wife had a K1000. I then bought a Vivitar 285HV flash and a 35-105 A Zoom. Then bought a Mamiya 220 Pro F medium format as I wanted to get into medium format. That was pretty well it for the next 20 + years as we had kids, cash flow went to family, etc.

For the most part during these years, I used my wife's K1000 and the 35-105 and 285HV flash. It more than covered all my photographic needs and did very well, BTW. That K1000, 35-105 and 285HV were reliable and versatile .

I then retired and if it wasn't for the digital revolution , I might of stayed with the K1000, etc.

In 2007 I bought a K10D, 16-45, 360 flash and got a 55-300 as a retirement gift from my staff. Being retired I really got into photography, our kids were adults, had their own lives and photography became my all consuming hobby. I love it.

I've bought additional digital equipment since then and use it all, along with my earlier acquired film stuff and also some film cameras I've received either as a gift, which I'm very grateful... or bought.

My buying history and spending.... parallels other life factors, in my case.

To review..... first got a film camera (S1a) in the late '60's...because I had too.

Then as a minor enthusiast...got my next camera (ES ll). I could afford it, it was the latest technology..electronic shutter and I wanted it, although my S1a was just fine...even with it's all mechanical innards.

Then got married and used my wife's camera (K1000) which I have used for the longest time, Incidentally, what a great camera the K1000 is, along with the A 35-105 lens. Didn't get much more... because of family, cash and time available... priorities... regarding budgetary considerations.

Then fast forward to retirement...time to do things, great (built up over the years ) enthusiasm and some cash flow...and digital was upon us...hence digital acquisition...cause I have the time, enthusiasm and some cash flow...to pursue my hobby.

This happy state has come due to age and changing life circumstances, largely affording me more time and some extra bucks. An evolution that I would say is not uncommon for many of us 'oldsters' .

Interesting to note how recent acquisition has been driven by my perceived need to take pictures of our young grandson ...ie; faster lens like my 100 Macro F 2.8...with emphasis on the F 2.8 for non flash, interior photography...less intrusive photography...therefore my Ricoh GR ll. Or at least that's what I tell myself, being a master of rationalization.

Last edited by lesmore49; 04-06-2019 at 01:34 PM.
04-06-2019, 02:37 PM - 2 Likes   #25
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 20,097
I guess the big question with mirrorless is whether people are truly dissatisfied with SLRs (most aren't, a few are, but many of those have already switched) and whether camera brands can convince them that the new mirrorless cameras offer something that older SLRs couldn't. There are a few things MILCs do better and a few things they do worse, but overall, the images they produce are similar to those from past cameras.
04-07-2019, 05:34 AM   #26
Pentaxian
RonHendriks1966's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2009
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 9,601
All those cameras are a little overkill in features when it comes to the majority use of all those images and video's.

https://cdn.frankwatching.com/app/uploads/2018/12/Overzicht-van-alle-social-...fographic.jpeg

Maybe someone should make a camera more suitable for these Internet uses.
04-07-2019, 10:06 AM   #27
retired sw engineer
Loyal Site Supporter
reh321's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: South Bend, IN, USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 12,915
QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
I guess the big question with mirrorless is whether people are truly dissatisfied with SLRs (most aren't, a few are, but many of those have already switched) and whether camera brands can convince them that the new mirrorless cameras offer something that older SLRs couldn't. There are a few things MILCs do better and a few things they do worse, but overall, the images they produce are similar to those from past cameras.
Yes, the image is similar, but the way of getting there is different. For example, there was a discussion here recently about performing manual focus using focus peaking - which is a natural for EVF; putting histogram in viewfinder is also much more natural for EVF than for OVF.
04-07-2019, 01:30 PM - 3 Likes   #28
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 20,097
QuoteOriginally posted by reh321 Quote
Yes, the image is similar, but the way of getting there is different. For example, there was a discussion here recently about performing manual focus using focus peaking - which is a natural for EVF; putting histogram in viewfinder is also much more natural for EVF than for OVF.
It is less different than it is the same for most people. You mention manual focus, focus peaking, and histograms, yet what percentage of people shooting SLRs use these items? I warrant that even on an MILC it is the minority that shoot a lot with manual focus lenses. Personally, I take a lot of photos, but I use auto focus except in macro situations and then I use the rear LCD most of the time. And if I could have tons more things cluttering up my viewfinder, I wouldn't. I like having the viewfinder pretty clean and if I am concerned about the exposure it is pretty simple to chimp a photo or two and see where I am at.

Regardless, MILCs and DSLRs are more similar than they are different. The sensors are the same. You have to have a lens to go with each device. You hold a camera to your eye (either seeing a reflected view of the outside world or a tiny TV screen), hold a button to auto focus, and then push another button to activate the shutter. The images are stored on a card which can then be read by your computer or in some of the newer ones transmitted via wifi to your phone. The overall experience is very much the same, even though camera companies try to spin them as completely different.
04-09-2019, 09:09 AM   #29
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Feb 2015
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 6,677
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by RonHendriks1966 Quote
Maybe someone should make a camera more suitable for these Internet uses.
I see your point. I would say, if photographers would be better educated, the camera market would be different, apsc would be more consumer oriented and medium format would be more developed. The question is, who pixel peep today and who print large? The likely answer is that most people pixel peep and never print, they get more image quality than they effectively use, but on the other hand if the current full frame models that a full of gadget software feature aren't that good to make high quality professional works, the equipment for real professionals is underdeveloped and extremely expensive (Phase One etc..). A lot of consumer look over the number of AF point that cover the whole frame because they buying into have AF points that cover the whole frame, but in practice given the 1/3rd / 2/3rd DoF there is not relevant use of AF points in 1/3rd corners of the frame, never mind consumer buy into the selling argument. There are a lot of buy cases like that, where the consumer flawed buying logic that companies use as selling argument. Professionally, who use pixel shift? No professional would be a camera such as the Sony, Pana or Pentax for pixel shift as there are too many cases where it is unusable.... but consumers buy into those lies, which is why I say the camera market and the cameras features would be different if the consumers would be better educated. Also, if I consider the artistic side of photography, how many owner of cameras that have all the consumer appealing features (EVF, pixel shift etc), do really produce photographs worth being considered as art? Shutter counts indicated the quality of the photographs taken.

---------- Post added 09-04-19 at 18:13 ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by reh321 Quote
One major advantage of a MILC body is that it provides an EVF
The EVF advantage is an educated advantage. If we repeat that EVF is the advantage long enough, people start to believe it and once they believe it they repeat it to other.
04-09-2019, 09:19 AM - 2 Likes   #30
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 33,133
QuoteOriginally posted by pres589 Quote
Not shedding a tear for Tamron after they've abandoned k-mount.
Two of the three Pentax triumvirate lenses 15-30, 24-70 and 70-200, were developed by Tamron. You're being a little harsh. The K-1 wouldn't even have a modern pro zoom set without Tamron. Tamron clearly isn't opposed to Pentax. What they are opposed to is losing money supporting Pentax.

I'm sure they are thrilled to be the supplier of the glass for Pentax OEM lenses.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
adoption, base, camera, canon, dslr, eos, ff, ff mirrorless adoption, flickr, frame, k1, lenses, mirrorless, moment, nikon, panasonic, pentax, people, photo industry, photography, pool, post, shift, shops, size, sony, time, users
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Survey on determiners in the adoption of the MOOCs* by learners chino974 General Talk 0 07-29-2016 06:01 AM
Just got an LX.... and slow shutter speed seem way too slow LFLee Pentax Film SLR Discussion 42 07-14-2016 10:23 AM
Pets Kitty for Adoption Newtophotos Pentax K-3 Photo Contest 2 06-02-2014 08:07 AM
Pets Ready for Adoption (Caution - Cute Pups) atupdate Post Your Photos! 23 05-31-2014 09:50 PM
effects filters slow down camera,turn off filter and camera is still slow zorak Pentax K-r 7 10-05-2011 06:12 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:03 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top