Originally posted by fikkser But why make a slow camera if it could be a fast one? What does a nature photographer lose from using a fast camera? Saying Pentax is for img quality is just a bad excuse. If they could they would have made a fast AF machine gun k-7 with 7d performance.
Well, I personally won't likely buy a high pixel count APS-C machine gun if that's what Pentax will be releasing next. I'd rather get a second K-7 on discount. If the next camera is actually a 35mm full frame, I'd be interested in that for various reasons.
I obviously assume that the next new camera out of Pentax will be the K-7 Super, which will probably be a general improvement over the existing K-7. I also assume it will be APS-C. Will it be 7fps+? Who knows... If it is, it won't be cheaper than $1300 most likely. Will Pentax come out with something above the K-7 Super? I have a feeling they might.
I at least think they will add a 3rd camera to the 35mm lineup. Will it be APS-C or FF? That's the question. If APS-C, it could be just below the K-7 or just above.
A few possibilities:
A - Release of the K-7 Super (fps increase variable)
A - Release of the K-8 35mm Full-Frame
A - K-x unchanged
or
B - Release of the K-5 middle ground APS-C
B - Release of the K-7 Super boring update
B - K-x unchanged
or
C - Release of the K-7 Super
C - Release of nothing else, eventually get 645D to the USA.
C- K-x unchanged
or
D - Release of the K-7 Super machine gun (technically K-8 APS-C)
D - Release of the K-5 middle round APS-C (technically cheap K-7 or expensive K-x)
D - K-x unchanged
or
E - Release of the K-7 Super boring update
E - Release of the K-5 middle ground
E - K-x unchanged
The list could go on and on.
I think B is probably most likely, but I'd rather have A... and I think there are some signs that have pointed to FF lately. All that being said, I don't think we can expect their first FF to be a machine gun seeing as they have not even had and APS-C one yet. Unless they find a fast FF sensor and just happen to have a new faster Prime processor in hand.
At least from what I've learned so far, speed tends to be traded for quality to hit a certain price point, among other technical issues. This is true for things besides cameras (eg. IPS vs TN LCD display panels). Having both probably means much more expense. I'd like to have ice cream and cake today, but if that means spending $30 on ice-cream cake, or spending $3.50 on a quart of ice cream... there is a good chance I'd just rather opt for the ice cream.
Also, the 645D for example uses a CCD, which overall is better for some types of things I'm interested in (I'd like to do more astrophotography for example). If Pentax were to use a Kodak sensor for the mystical 35mm full-frame, chances are it would not have an extreme framerate. If Pentax were to use Samsung, well we know what happened when they made the K20D sensor faster for the K-7 (don't get me wrong, I love my K-7...never had a K20D).
Sure, I'd like a crazy fast high quality 35mm full-frame camera, but there are some aspects I'd like more than others in say a $1500-2200 price point.
Originally posted by fikkser It's like apple, they make great computers but the graphics cards always lag behind, like Pentax AF (but at least apple does it intentionally).
Apple could put whatever they want into their machines. There is nothing stopping them from putting the most current graphics cards in their machines. Apple likes solid profit margins and is pretty keen on giving their fans just enough to please them (what they do give tends to be "special" and "magical" enough, which makes up for any shortcomings like no multitasking, removable battery, or SD card slot
). Keep in mind that they make decisions... having a removable battery and additional card slots would change the size of their devices. Apple wants sleek, solid, stark, ... some trade offs are necessary otherwise their "magical" design would have ended up looking and sized like a PC tablet.
Look at the K-7:
WR
Smaller and faster than the K10D and K20D
Sleek, Solid, Metal case
...could they have made the K-7 a machine gun as it is? Probably not.
1. faster processors tend to use more power, produce more heat, will be bigger until smaller fabrication processes are developed (which take time).
2. Speed will need to increase in all aspects of the camera, which most likely would have required more space.
So I'm guessing they thought... Let's take this K20D tech and merge it with this 645D tech to make something small, yet powerful enough at such-and-such a price point. Now they are probably thinking, let's take more 645D tech and merge that with what we learned from the K-7 and add all of this new stuff we want... to get ....
Originally posted by fikkser Pentax won't attract the young tech generation by making slow cameras with good iq, like apple won't attract gamers or anyone comparing specs, which is a big group of customers, probably the majority of the people below like 35.
I'm getting old, but I'm still under 30! I've never actually owned an Apple product, but I can at least admire them for their solid metal laptops.
Originally posted by fikkser In a Swedish Pentax forum I read the average age scares me. Sometimes i click some random poster and thinks "Wow, do this grandpa really know how to use computers?". Pentax will have to go more against canon and nikon cameras to attract the new generation IMO.
I can agree with your points. They are valid. I'm just thinking about what is most important to my personally and what I think differentiates Pentax in useful ways to me as a photographer. I'd just rather have some features over others. I also don't want to see Pentax follow in Canon/Nikon's footsteps for the sake of it... If I wanted such and such that the other companies already have, I'd just get that instead. If someone wants an APS-C machine gun... all they need to do is buy a 7D, right? Same could be said about the D700 for FF. It's not too expensive at around $2300, right?