[photoptimist]

And, yet, the 1980's were "special". I have pictures from the the 1970's showing my brother using a 126 camera, my mother using a 110 camera, and a female friend of mine using a 110 camera. By the 1980's, my brother was using a Canon AE-1 program, my mother was using a Canon AE-1 program, and that friend was using a Pentax K-1000. When they went digital, all three went with point-and-shoot. The DSLR market today is clearly reduced from what the SLR market was in the 1980's .... many people who would have used SLR's in the 1980's are using smart phones today, which reduces capital available to the DSLR manufacturers. More people than ever are taking pictures, but that money is not making its way to camera businesses. Pentax and Minolta are no longer independent companies, Samsung has decided to focus on smart phones, and Nikon is having to restructure their business.

Yes, the 1980s were special. "Big cameras" became a status symbol. And most of the people that bought them were casual photographers who had been fine with pocket-110s before the 1980s and are fine with pocket-smartphones now. It's a bit like bowling which was huge in the 1960s or maybe drones today.

Those days aren't coming back.

[UncleVanya]

I would argue that the quality from 110 wasn't equal to expectations and so many dove into slrs thinking they needed them. Today's smartphones take excellent photos within their limitations with very little technical knowledge needed. With expert software those cameras are pretty amazing. The snapshot shooter can get fantastic shots with nothing else. No era of film ever gave such quality to consumers at so little incremental cost. We are not only special due to rarity but many of us want more from our images than most would consider sane. Celebrate it but know that economic forces are against us.

[surfar]

Those days aren't coming back.

No days anyone has had are coming back,only the memories and still and moving pictures remain!

---------- Post added 05-06-18 at 08:48 AM ----------

Today's smartphones take excellent photos

Yes as do today's cameras with their limitations.

My M43 kit and my 2 smartphones did their job yesterday,with that combination i didnt have any limitations.The stills and moving pictures were adequate.

[photoptimist]

I would argue that the quality from 110 wasn't equal to expectations and so many dove into slrs thinking they needed them. Today's smartphones take excellent photos within their limitations with very little technical knowledge needed. With expert software those cameras are pretty amazing. The snapshot shooter can get fantastic shots with nothing else. No era of film ever gave such quality to consumers at so little incremental cost. We are not only special due to rarity but many of us want more from our images than most would consider sane. Celebrate it but know that economic forces are against us.

Yes, it is amazing that the sensor in my iPhone is probably on par with the one in the my old K10D.

And yet, the poor ergonomics of the iPhone, lack of dedicated physical controls, lack of a viewfinder, and lack of interchangeable lenses put it at a serious disadvantage to the K10D. The K10D (or any ILC, especially a larger ILC) also signals something about the user that the iPhone does not. I doubt that many smartphone users have been asked "are you a photographer?" And I doubt that many clients would be pleased if they hired a photographer who showed up with a smartphone (even if said smartphone crushes pro digital cameras of some years ago and is more the adequate for producing good photographs for quite a range of "pro" purposes).

The economic forces are not against us to the extent that some admittedly small percentage of people have a more serious interest in photography. The number of people who can afford an ILC is ever growing.

[RobA_Oz]

Yes, the 1980s were special. "Big cameras" became a status symbol. And most of the people that bought them were casual photographers who had been fine with pocket-110s before the 1980s and are fine with pocket-smartphones now. It's a bit like bowling which was huge in the 1960s or maybe drones today.

Those days aren't coming back.

Not in the West, at any rate. When I’ve been holidaying abroad in recent years, it has been clear to me that the fellow tourists/visitors I see with “large” camera outfits are Western/European men (mostly) of my (older) age group and Asian middle-aged men, the latter being the more numerous by a wide margin. Bigger equating to greater status is still a current concept in some societies.

[GeneV]

Yes, it is amazing that the sensor in my iPhone is probably on par with the one in the my old K10D.

And yet, the poor ergonomics of the iPhone, lack of dedicated physical controls, lack of a viewfinder, and lack of interchangeable lenses put it at a serious disadvantage to the K10D. The K10D (or any ILC, especially a larger ILC) also signals something about the user that the iPhone does not. I doubt that many smartphone users have been asked "are you a photographer?" And I doubt that many clients would be pleased if they hired a photographer who showed up with a smartphone (even if said smartphone crushes pro digital cameras of some years ago and is more the adequate for producing good photographs for quite a range of "pro" purposes).

The economic forces are not against us to the extent that some admittedly small percentage of people have a more serious interest in photography. The number of people who can afford an ILC is ever growing.

I get what you are saying about, perhaps, the sensor, but the lenses for the K10d blow an iPhone out of the water. Still, big is not necessary to quality the way it was. Mirrorless camera’s can be smaller, and sensors can be smaller as well. The SLR is 50 year old technology for viewing through the lens, and smaller camera can do just about anything a larger one could 10 years ago.

To some extent, the big camera thing has always been an illusion. My camera travel combo for most of the ‘80s was an Olympus XA and a Pentax MX, both of which were very compact. The epitome of quality was a Leica which was also very small.

[reh321]

I get what you are saying about, perhaps, the sensor, but the lenses for the K10d blow an iPhone out of the water. Still, big is not necessary to quality the way it was. Mirrorless camera’s can be smaller, and sensors can be smaller as well. The SLR is 50 year old technology for viewing through the lens, and smaller camera can do just about anything a larger one could 10 years ago.

To some extent, the big camera thing has always been an illusion. My camera travel combo for most of the ‘80s was an Olympus XA and a Pentax MX, both of which were very compact. The epitome of quality was a Leica which was also very small.

But small 35mm cameras like the Olympus XA had "FF" {35mm} sensors. From 1976-1990 my "travel camera" was a Vivitar 110 camera - a true "small sensor" camera with true "small sensor" issues.

Today, it should be possible to construct a small sensor camera, like a "Q", using smart phone components plus an EVF. My existing Q-mount lenses are quality, so this should provide the best of both worlds, but Pentax has shown no interest in extending the line. My view is that they allowed themselves to be limited by their initial vision for that camera, and aren't willing to look beyond that vision.

[surfar]

they allowed themselves to be limited by their initial vision for that camera, and aren't willing to look beyond that vision.

Yes, such a shame.Panasonic only got 2 bodies(one with EVF) out though and disappointingly stopped the GM line.

But still they insist,Q"is still supported" and "we will continue to sell Q line".It would be nice to see the sensor from the Ricoh action cam( 8mp and 4k video) get into a new Q model.

[reh321]

Yes, the 1980s were special. "Big cameras" became a status symbol. And most of the people that bought them were casual photographers who had been fine with pocket-110s before the 1980s and are fine with pocket-smartphones now. It's a bit like bowling which was huge in the 1960s or maybe drones today.

Those days aren't coming back.

I don't quite understand the 1980's, but I totally agree with what you say here. I had several relatives and friends {mainly females} who show up in my pictures using "pocket-110" cameras in the 1970's, SLR's in the 1980's, digital P&S cameras in the 2000's, and smart phones today.

[GeneV]

But small 35mm cameras like the Olympus XA had "FF" {35mm} sensors. From 1976-1990 my "travel camera" was a Vivitar 110 camera - a true "small sensor" camera with true "small sensor" issues.

Today, it should be possible to construct a small sensor camera, like a "Q", using smart phone components plus an EVF. My existing Q-mount lenses are quality, so this should provide the best of both worlds, but Pentax has shown no interest in extending the line. My view is that they allowed themselves to be limited by their initial vision for that camera, and aren't willing to look beyond that vision.

Unfortunately, Pentax also shows no interest in extending the K01 line, either.

However I thought the point the earlier poster was making is that large cameras were a status symbol and aren't now.

[reh321]

Unfortunately, Pentax also shows no interest in extending the K01 line, either.

However I thought the point the earlier poster was making is that large cameras were a status symbol and aren't now.

I'm not sure why people made the decisions they did, but I am fairly certain the high cost of the first digital cameras made a big difference and now "everyone" has a smart phone, so people who don't need something special don't have to spend anything extra.

My mother took "official" pictures of my sister's informal wedding with a 110 camera. When grandchildren arrived as a result of that union, she purchased a Canon AE-1. I don't think she would have been impressed by size - but I don't know and it is too late to ask her. I do know she went to a local camera store and got advice / instruction.

A female friend of mine used a 110 camera when we were in grad school. She purchased a K-1000 when she got a job - as a school librarian. I am guessing her purchase was influenced by those she worked with.

I am fairly certain both switched to p&s digital cameras because of price; when my mother gave me $300 to bribe me into trying digital in 2005, the best I could do was a p&s.

[BobSpot]

Sigma makes an electronic adapter to convert SA Mt lenses reversibly to Sony E ( also MC-11 mount converter for Sigma SA to Canon )
These lenses are fully functional focus, aperture, etc and can be used on both cameras.
Ricoh could do the same with its K Mt lenses on a new mirrorless flat camera without the space for a mirror box (cf K-01)but use it to fit an adapter so same lenses could be used on either traditional DSLR’s or MIL no need to create another mount . They could even jump in and make an electronic adapter for the new fully electronic Ka4 mount to Sony, and Canon.
If Ricoh doesn't do something to increase its market we will loose Pentax altogether, make a camera with features like the A7 series for $3000 and increase Ricoh's income.
Asahi did not invent the penta-prism Pentacon did, but they were quick to copy with Pentax which soon surpassed the German cameras in features and became the market leader with the ES. Bought new Pentax Spotmatic, ES & K-01 BobSpot

[Wheatfield]

I wonder why Pentax has not yet jumped the mirrorless bandwagon (or rather, jumped off after the K01), I feel they are digging their own grave...

CP+ 2018 interviews: The reign of the DSLR is almost over...: Digital Photography Review

Some people feel that Pentax has been digging their own grave for some 30 years now. Some people feel mirrorless is the future, some feel it is a passing fad, and some feel that cell phone cameras will put both in the grave that Pentax has so kindly dug.
I don't see mirrorless as having that many advantages. The only one I've found is for using non automated lenses. I've found that my Fuji X-T1 is better with pre A series lenses than my Pentax DSLR is.
I have doubts that most people who are buying into mirrorless are doing so with the intention of using glass from the 1970s, so the advantage, while there, is likely not being utilized to any great extent.

---------- Post added 06-18-18 at 10:47 AM ----------

Sigma makes an electronic adapter to convert SA Mt lenses reversibly to Sony E ( also MC-11 mount converter for Sigma SA to Canon )
These lenses are fully functional focus, aperture, etc and can be used on both cameras.
Ricoh could do the same with its K Mt lenses on a new mirrorless flat camera without the space for a mirror box (cf K-01)but use it to fit an adapter so same lenses could be used on either traditional DSLR’s or MIL no need to create another mount . They could even jump in and make an electronic adapter for the new fully electronic Ka4 mount to Sony, and Canon.
If Ricoh doesn't do something to increase its market we will loose Pentax altogether, make a camera with features like the A7 series for $3000 and increase Ricoh's income.
Asahi did not invent the penta-prism Pentacon did, but they were quick to copy with Pentax which soon surpassed the German cameras in features and became the market leader with the ES. Bought new Pentax Spotmatic, ES & K-01 BobSpot

The part about increasing market share is FUD. The camera industry as a whole is now in serious decline, and the market for interchangeable lens cameras is going upscale. As the market becomes more and more eroded by the cell phone, we will see the demise of the inexpensive stand alone camera, be it mirrorless or optical viewfinder. Pentax moving into the mirrorless market would be as an also ran, not as a contender. There is virtually nothing to be gained, and very much to lose by entering mirrorless at this point.
Note that both the big players have dipped their toes in the pool but have not jumped in. This is a good indication that there is nothing to be made at this point with mirrorless.

[SSGGeezer]

Note that both the big players have dipped their toes in the pool but have not jumped in. This is a good indication that there is nothing to be made at this point with mirrorless.

I can imagine that the expenditures needed for mass production of new mirrorless designs would demand high sales numbers to justify such a move. I don't think there is a better mousetrap to be built that will bring all the customers running to buy one, mirrorless or DSLR. There may be incremental improvements in both but a market-changing development? Unlikely at best.

[Wheatfield]

I can imagine that the expenditures needed for mass production of new mirrorless designs would demand high sales numbers to justify such a move. I don't think there is a better mousetrap to be built that will bring all the customers running to buy one, mirrorless or DSLR. There may be incremental improvements in both but a market-changing development? Unlikely at best.

That's the thing. If one wants to recover development costs you need to sell at a price point that will allow this at the unit numbers that are likely to sell.
How many Sony killers will Pentax sell in a shrinking market that is dominated by a behemoth that is willing to buy the market?