[kevinschoenmakers]

If a camera is capable of being used by a pro for pro work, it's a pro camera. QED.

Everyone has his own definition. Granted someone has made money through ministock with a photo made by a sub-$100 P&S, which by your defintion would make that a pro-camera. Bit of a silly definition then, isn't it?

[24X36NOW]

I totally disagree.
Pentax, over the last 12 months, has gained a lot of customers than losing to Nikon and Canon. Why? The success of K-x. Entry level plays a much larger role in market share.

Sony has a FF camera - so what?
2009 and 2010 so far has been disastrous for them - and not just the dismal sales of A900/A850, but their whole DSLR division. A FF Sony has not in any way stopped Sony or new customers becoming Nikon or Canon customers.

OTOH, their new NEX cameras would gain them A LOT MORE new Sony users than their A900/A850 ever had or ever will (either owning the camera or attracted to the brand because of it).

Looking at what's happened to Sony, Hoya would be very wise to stay away from FF.

Entry level isn't where the profits are, because the margins are small. The "enthusiast" is the one who buys upgraded cameras and big collections of lenses, the "entry level" customer probably buys the camera and kit lens and that's it. If you think that is a recipe for success, I guess we differ there.

Sony's FF dSLR had a poorly performing sensor, and that's why it didn't sell. Nothing to do with the format. Suggests nothing about the prospects for Pentax either. If Pentax doesn't produce a FF dSLR, it will continue to hemorrhage its "enthusiast" customer base, which it cannot afford to do.

EVIL is not a good market for Pentax, because it requires more of the same lacking electronics/technology expertise that has Hoya looking for a "partner" on the sensor front.

[nosnoop]

Entry level isn't where the profits are, because the margins are small.

OTOH, they can sell them in much larger volume. And they need the entry level for market share, and to reduce the price of some the components shared with their "enthusiast" model. A successful entry level camera would also bring them shelf space in retail stores, and the much needed brand name visibility; and 3rd party lenses/accessories support. All these factors would help out their higher end model as well.

Interestingly, people are waiting for a $1,500 FF camera, which also mean significantly reduced profit margin than current FF cameras command.

If Pentax doesn't produce a FF dSLR, it will continue to hemorrhage its "enthusiast" customer base, which it cannot afford to do.

Not all enthusiast want a FF DSLR (the poll has shown that); some do, and there is no guarantee that they would buy a Pentax FF either

EVIL is not a good market for Pentax, because it requires more of the same lacking electronics/technology expertise that has Hoya looking for a "partner" on the sensor front.

They need EVIL to survive, more so than FF.
And the technology/electronics required is not all that different from what they have or what they need for DSLR anyways, which will all incorporate improving Live View, Contrast AF and HD movies.

[stanleyk]

Everyone has his own definition. Granted someone has made money through ministock with a photo made by a sub-$100 P&S, which by your defintion would make that a pro-camera. Bit of a silly definition then, isn't it?

Exactly. Anyone can use a camera now days because of all the program features. See this article from the NY Times regarding "pro" photography. That BTW is the most silly appellation used on this forum. If you don't pay your mortgage and feed your kids with your photos you aren't really a pro photographer to my way of thinking.

For Photographers, the Image of a Shrinking Path - NYTimes.com

"Concurrently, digital photography took off. “It used to be you really needed to know how to use a camera,” said Keith Marlowe, a photographer who has worked for Spin and Rolling Stone. “If you messed up a roll, you couldn’t redo the concert.” Now, though, any photographer can instantly see if a shot is good, or whether the light balances or other technical aspects need to be adjusted."

And........photo isn't good you can always fix it in Photoshop.

Professional photograhy is basically dead. Art photography, no.

[Christopher M.W.T]

Why do they need Evil?

I for one cannot see any serious photographers take EVIL seriously for the forseeable future, at this point it is STILL an INFERIOR technology.

Yes it provides more compact bodies but the reality is the quality and performance of EVF's are still miles behind optical VF.

Reality is people have been doing very fine with size and ergonomic SLR's & DSLRS for the last 50 years or so. Now all of a sudden everyone needs more compact DSLSRs?

I for one find the K-7 a smidgen too small and uncomfortable without the grip. Also the body with the grip balances well with something like the DA* 50-135, if the body were any lighter the entire camera would be out of balance and awkward.

[aliquis]

An EVIL don't have to be compact just because it's possible.

[psdigital]

Over on DPR. The Sony thread is all about the NEX cameras right now. Sony just released the info about them and they have been reviewed by a lot of sites.

[nosnoop]

Why do they need Evil?
I for one cannot see any serious photographers take EVIL seriously for the forseeable future, at this point it is STILL an INFERIOR technology.

The key word is "at this point". Just think back what our TV looked like 5 years ago; and imagine what it will be like in 5 years...

Optical viewfinder has its advantages, but it is also a flawed design. Yes, it is much easier on our eyes - but ultimately, it is what the sensor sees (rather than our eyes) that is more important! Optical viewfinder basically is an simulation or estimation of what the sensor will see or capture. Its reliability (including AF) depends totally on perfect alignment and calibration. OTOH, EVF does not have the same problem - it is what the sensor sees

Here just a few of the potential advantages of EVIL and EVF:

• 100% coverage - no more 92% or whatever crippled coverage
• Live Histogram
• Real time preview of exposure and white balance
• Perfect focus - No more front focusing and back focusing
• Infinite focal points
• more accurate exposure/white balance metering - whole picture analysed
• And with up coming next generation global shutter CMOS:
  • Silent capture up to max speed (8-10fps easily)
  • No more mechanical shutter
  • Flash sync for ALL shutter speed, up to fastest shutter speed

Reality is people have been doing very fine with size and ergonomic SLR's & DSLRS for the last 50 years or so. Now all of a sudden everyone needs more compact DSLSRs?

One of the main barrier for more consumers adopting DSLR is the size, weight and bulk.

[Pål Jensen]

The key word is "at this point". Just think back what One of the main barrier for more consumers adopting DSLR is the size, weight and bulk.

Certainly not. There has been several attempts of making system cameras smaller than the 35mm slr's and they have all failed in the market. Pentax Auto 110; APS (film) SLR's; half format - you name it. Even rangfinders flopped as anything but a strict niche marked. These cameras did not fail due to image quality; the consumer was happy with the quality in other types of cameras.
People who wants SLR's generally don't want small(er) cameras. Canon have made huge sucess by making their cameras large. In fact, Canon make cameras at size points; when consumers can choose between a large camera and a small one at the same price, he is more likely to choose the larger one. That doesn not mean that some don't want them small. However, tiny cameras with interchangeable lenses is not something the general public demands. Tiny camera already exist and the market is saturated.
People buy slr's cause they fit their needs. The novice buys them cause it is a "real" camera the pros are using.

[Pål Jensen]

Optical viewfinder has its advantages, but it is also a flawed design. Yes, it is much easier on our eyes - but ultimately, it is what the sensor sees (rather than our eyes) that is more important! .

Not at all. When aiming and composing a photograph, what the eye is seeing is most important. What the sensor is seing is readily available on all DSLR's anyway and can be used in conjuction with optical viewfinder in anyway thinkable.

[Christopher M.W.T]

Certainly not. There has been several attempts of making system cameras smaller than the 35mm slr's and they have all failed in the market. Pentax Auto 110; APS (film) SLR's; half format - you name it. Even rangfinders flopped as anything but a strict niche marked. These cameras did not fail due to image quality; the consumer was happy with the quality in other types of cameras.
People who wants SLR's generally don't want small(er) cameras. Canon have made huge sucess by making their cameras large. In fact, Canon make cameras at size points; when consumers can choose between a large camera and a small one at the same price, he is more likely to choose the larger one. That doesn not mean that some don't want them small. However, tiny cameras with interchangeable lenses is not something the general public demands. Tiny camera already exist and the market is saturated.
People buy slr's cause they fit their needs. The novice buys them cause it is a "real" camera the pros are using.

As I said I find the K-7 without the grip already uncomfortably small, I find the Canons (50d / 7D) Nikon D90 and upwards perfect in the hands without a grip.

Any smaller is good but after a while I find my hands tend to cramp, its one of the reasons I got a grip for my K-7.

[Christopher M.W.T]

The key word is "at this point". Just think back what our TV looked like 5 years ago; and imagine what it will be like in 5 years...

Optical viewfinder has its advantages, but it is also a flawed design. Yes, it is much easier on our eyes - but ultimately, it is what the sensor sees (rather than our eyes) that is more important! Optical viewfinder basically is an simulation or estimation of what the sensor will see or capture. Its reliability (including AF) depends totally on perfect alignment and calibration. OTOH, EVF does not have the same problem - it is what the sensor sees

Here just a few of the potential advantages of EVIL and EVF:

• 100% coverage - no more 92% or whatever crippled coverage
• Live Histogram
• Real time preview of exposure and white balance
• Perfect focus - No more front focusing and back focusing
• Infinite focal points
• more accurate exposure/white balance metering - whole picture analysed
• And with up coming next generation global shutter CMOS:
  • Silent capture up to max speed (8-10fps easily)
  • No more mechanical shutter
  • Flash sync for ALL shutter speed, up to fastest shutter speed

One of the main barrier for more consumers adopting DSLR is the size, weight and bulk.

It's funny how people chase inferior technologies, ie LCD tv is still in terms of image quality inferior to a top grade plasma.

In that sense people are keen for Micro 4/3 which is inferior to APS-C and then inferior to FF.

[nosnoop]

It's funny how people chase inferior technologies, ie LCD tv is still in terms of image quality inferior to a top grade plasma.

This is another example of different people's preference. Some may go for black level, some may go for ultimate image quality.

OTOH, some may like LCD's more efficient power consumption. And for homes with bright rooms, LCD would be more practical than plasma; or for people living in high altitude, LCD works better too.

In that sense people are keen for Micro 4/3 which is inferior to APS-C and then inferior to FF.

Where in the world do Pentax users prefer 4/3 over APS-C?
And I don't consider perfect focusing, flash sync to 1/4000 and live histogram as inferior technology at all.

[WMBP]

"Concurrently, digital photography took off. “It used to be you really needed to know how to use a camera,” said Keith Marlowe, a photographer who has worked for Spin and Rolling Stone. “If you messed up a roll, you couldn’t redo the concert.” Now, though, any photographer can instantly see if a shot is good, or whether the light balances or other technical aspects need to be adjusted."

And........photo isn't good you can always fix it in Photoshop.

Professional photograhy is basically dead. Art photography, no.

Speaking as one Dallasite to another: I don't think so.

I think we've been going through a period where it looked as if things were going to get so easy, where cameras were going to get so smart, that we almost wouldn't need photographers. That period is going to continue now for a little while, because the additional of high-res video seems to be giving some folks the impression that they won't have to worry about when to snap the shutter.

Except that IT JUST ISN'T THE CASE. Cameras have NOT gotten that easy. Oh, if you put your camera into green mode, you may significantly reduce the risk of totally blowing a series of shots, the way you used to be able to completely blow a roll of film. And if you don't nail a shot, you may be able to lessen the damage in Photoshop or whatever you use to process your photos.

But the "photography is easy!" idea is a lie, and people are going to wake up and realize it sooner or later. I now make a significant part of my income from photography. And if I had to sum up what I've learned in the last five years as a working photographer, I'd put it this way: Digital photography is a helluva lot harder than I realized. And I should add, I had a lot of experience with photography in the past.

I'm old enough to have lived through several periods in which people thought technology was making everything easy. Back in the 1980s, especially after the release of the Mac and the appearance of the first version of PageMaker, people thought that desktop publishing was the way of the future, and a lot of art directors and page layout people thought there was no future for them. Wasn't true. What the 1970s were to fashion, the 1980s were to page design—in other words, a nightmare. And eventually people woke up and realized that they didn't NEED to use three fonts to write a business letter, etc. They realized that what they had been doing for a while actually SUCKED. And that to do it better, they were going to have to learn stuff they didn't want to learn, to work harder than they wanted to work.

It's clear now that everybody has a camera with them all the time, and that's not going to change. What will keep the pros alive is simple: better photos.

Will

[stanleyk]

Speaking as one Dallasite to another: I don't think so.

Will

Try Harry Moss Park for dog walking it's really great. Take Greenville to Royal. Head away from 75 on Royal, turn at the next light- Arborside. You can park on Arborside. There are many acres to walk to the dogs. The only people that go to this part of the park are dog walkers and a few horse riders. There's a stable on Fair Oaks that backs up to this area.

Maybe I'll see you there some day. :-) I have two dogs, black lab named Stanley and a complete Heinz 57 I just adopted named Hugo. We go camping on most weekends this time of year though.

I'll concede your point to a point. It really depends on the type of photograph.

I seriously doubt many of us will every be Ansel Adams, Elliot Porter, William Eggleston or Diane Arbus. That's a special talent that a camera can't give you.