Originally posted by Lord Lucan I guess that was sarcasm, but I do exactly that. Phones that are not internet-enabled are called "feature phones" and I use one.
I do have a smart phone but don't use it for calls. I reluctantly use it as a portable PC only when I have to. When I switch it on, and then again when I access anything with it, it is bombarded with spam, apps, and IDK what else. Last week I had to use it outside a shop (Currys, UK) to message them (as they required) that I was outside to collect an order, and when I logged on to them site I had to watch them stuffing my phone with software and data for at least two minutes before I could do anything with it. They are out of control, and a PITA. Yet some people want this stuff integrated into their cameras!
I want tools optimised for the job and "stills outline" ICL cameras are not optimal for video. The good news is that I believe that cameras aimed at video users will evolve away from those aimed at stills users. Those extras for video use, like gimbals and serious microphones, will become integral to the camera, just as, historically, exposure meters and flash became integrated with still cameras. Who knows, maybe video-oriented ICL cameras might evolve into - you know: camcorders! and leave us stills photographers alone with our stills-oriented brands like Pentax.
I fully understand where your coming from. I have been so dissatisfied with digital photography in general that I went back to a camera made of wood.
Ansel Adams said (to paraphrase) - "isn't it interesting how much we progress with so little improvement."
Digital may be 1000 times easier but the 3 fiber based silver gelatin photographs I made in the darkroom last night, which took 3 hours, are definitely something beyond digital. Silver reflects light, ink doesn't. And no batteries or internet required! JMHO.
---------- Post added 10-04-20 at 08:21 AM ----------
Originally posted by roberrl Although we still don't know the full spec for K-new it seems to me that what has been revealed so far (no flippy screen, enhanced viewfinder) suggests this camera is going into some market area which does not care about video, not much about action photography and no desire to compete with the big boys in general.
While I have no problem with Ricoh/Pentax choosing and following their niche (it's their business after all) I'm sad that the manufacturer I have followed for 6 decades is moving away from my use case.
I have often had the need to capture stills and video at the same event and tried carrying both sorts of camera - it's a PITA.
I know this view does not fit with the majority view on the forum - it might be wrong headed but it's the truth as I see it.
Well considering where Fuji is sales wise and compared to Pentax, I think a lot of other people see it like that too.
You can always choose to not use a feature if you have it, but you can't use it if you don't.
Including 4K isn't going to make some people not buy it, but not including it will.
---------- Post added 10-04-20 at 08:28 AM ----------
Originally posted by AfterPentax "So to answer your question, I need a hybrid camera, not a video camera, and right now the best on the market is the XT series from Fuji."
Actually , you are demanding that Ricoh starts producing something you have already got. That does not make sense. I'd rather see they throw any video aspirations overboard, make a splendid stills camera and because of not aiming at videographers they are probably able to produce that camera at a friendly price. I need a camera that is as easy handling as any old film camera, but with improved image quality. If I want to shoot video (which I do not) I buy a videocamera or as a last resort use my smartphone to do so.
I am not "demanding" anything.
I already have a camera system that does what I need it to do. But it's not my preferred system. And I only bought that system because Pentax didn't offer what I needed. I want Pentax to succeed and I want to buy a Pentax because I prefer Pentax over Fuji (and others) for many reasons, and I already have a bag full of Pentax lenses.
I don't see adding video as having to necessarily sacrifice stills capabilities. It's funny how it's kind of assumed that Pentax can only handle so much and incorporating video into their cameras would have to take away from some other area.
---------- Post added 10-04-20 at 08:34 AM ----------
Originally posted by tvdtvdtvd I read the entire OP, every word, and to be very honest I didn't perceive the >need< for a 4K capable Pentax. I definitely perceived the want and the desire but
not the need. As others have pointed out, that need is already being met with your other gear(*).
I don't deny you have a desire for a 4K capable Pentax, many people seemingly do. But I fail to see the need. What specifically would a 4K Pentax do that the
rest of your gear can not? That would be the starting point to argue for the >need< for a 4K Pentax.
* - Truthfully, I didn't perceive the need for 4K at all, but I can only assume at some point in your chain you are exhibiting your video in an environment where
the 4K quality is noticeable. It definitely seems irrelevant for the embedded thumbnail video included in the OP.
Watch that video on a 4K 50 inch tv...
An $800 drone does 4K60 and 48MP stills and it also has to navigate, fly and not crash...
No, it's not a need. But Like I said, I want Pentax to succeed and I'd rather use a Pentax so if they want to sell me a new camera it really needs to have 4K capabilities for that to happen otherwise I'm staying where I'm at.
Pentax can go out of business at this point and it wouldn't affect me at all, though I'd be sad that it happened...
Last edited by Qwntm; 10-04-2020 at 08:37 AM.