[happygui]

Is this true? Actually, I dont really care FF. Just want something with better high ISO performance than K7.

[Aristophanes]

The philosoph in me cannot but notice the appearant paradox in this sentence. Because by definition, still photography is about to keep the moment, to freeze time.

If you think it thru, still photography for the sole purpose to share (rather than to keep) is an intermediate phenomenon until bandwidth doesn't penalize video anymore.

Then again, still photography will be about eternity -- to keep the moment and to leave traces beyound the short span of our lifes.

The biggest problem with photography as an aesthetic has always been archival storage. It's too cost-effective a medium.

Digital has actually made the problem worse! Finding quality photos amongst the noise is now harder than ever.

That said, i have about a dozen photos of my family that are more than worth the $10,000 in photo equipment I own. Only one of them I could have shot with the same emotional and qualitative appeal with a camera system worth less. They are keepers and worth every penny and then some. I will spend more to get more like those ones, and enjoy the process every step of the way.

Peter: If everyone at the wedding was so intent on seeing through a smartphone camera, why hire a photographer? Someone somewhere understood that there is an issue of high quality necessary for once-in-a-lifetime moments. We want the biggest, best sensor to capture the biggest, most emotional moments. No compromises.

People eat an awful lot of junk food. So then, why is cable programming so full of high-end cooking shows? That's where I frame the phone-as-a-camera debate.

[rparmar]

The philosoph in me cannot but notice the appearant paradox in this sentence. Because by definition, still photography is about to keep the moment, to freeze time.

Not a paradox, merely a change in function. Now photography is simply about noting moments in time, each of which make their way quickly past in succession, giving way almost immediately for the next moment. Flickr is the perfect example of this. You can only easily see the last photo from someone, slightly more readily see the last few. But you have to really try to see anything older. Same with Facebook or any other social site. Same with this forum, for that matter.

Photography is primarily an egocentric and social activity: "Here is me at the shopping mall", "Here is me kissing my new boyfriend", "Here is me in my new outfit." It's about social relationships, not images. And it's how 99% of people take and use photos.

Not us, perhaps. I presume we enjoy life in the margins.

To put the screws to Nikon. At some point the only feature to compete on will be sensor size.

Are you sure?

[paperbag846]

6 Endangered Tech Species

6-endangered-tech-species: Personal Finance News from Yahoo! Finance

"Digital Cameras

With Android phones up to 8 megapixels and the iPhone 4 boasting pixel-free resolution at 5 megapixels, even the digital-camera industry sees the impending slowdown."

I believe this will happen to point and shoots, but there is no way a phone will every replace a digital SLR, or even EVILs. Point and shoots are typically not for those who want to think about photography, but just want to grab some memories. Phone cameras do a fantastic job of that already. But Apple will NEVER put in the R&D to make the iPhone a creative photographic device.

[falconeye]

And it's how 99% of people take and use photos.
Not us, perhaps. I presume we enjoy life in the margins.

Most of us use cell phone cameras too. It's not about people. It's about activities. What you describe is life logging, as I call it. We're just seeing the beginnings. I would not call this activity "photographing". But this forum is about photography.

[falconeye]

But Apple will NEVER put in the R&D to make the iPhone a creative photographic device.

Maybe they would. But there are physical constraints about what a camera can do in a too small form factor.

[jpzk]

jpzk, the K-5 name make sense - if we're talking about a higher-level camera than K-7. And it is consistent with the naming system used for the film cameras (e.g. MZ-series, where the MZ-5 was above MZ-7/MZ-6).

Gotcha!
Thanks for the reply, Kunzite.

[jsherman999]

Most of us use cell phone cameras too. It's not about people. It's about activities. What you describe is life logging, as I call it. We're just seeing the beginnings. I would not call this activity "photographing".

"Life Logging" is a great way to put it.

For what it's worth, I have a fairly nice CCD-based video camera that writes to tape. It hasn't been touched since my wife procured her iphone4. That pretty-good-enough video capability combined with it's small size and 'always, always with you' advantage made it an excellent, game-changing life-logger.

It takes very good stills, also, but only very good in relation to other devices like it.


.

[rparmar]

Most of us use cell phone cameras too. It's not about people. It's about activities. What you describe is life logging, as I call it. We're just seeing the beginnings. I would not call this activity "photographing". But this forum is about photography.

So, you prefer to define this activity, which is all about using cameras to get pictures, as outside "photography", by coining some alternate term in its stead. In this way you can dismiss what the vast majority of people actually do with cameras. This is a major error.

[GeneV]

So, you prefer to define this activity, which is all about using cameras to get pictures, as outside "photography", by coining some alternate term in its stead. In this way you can dismiss what the vast majority of people actually do with cameras. This is a major error.

It is not about good photography or art, but it is about photography. I have been amazed lately about the things people are attempting to accomplish with Iphones and BlackBerry cameras.

For example, most of the photographic evidence I am seeing these days in smaller landlord-tenant cases has been taken on some kind of camera phone. Companies have entire software systems designed to file the emails of this evidence. Is photographic evidence not photography?

[dopeytree]

It will merely comes down to choice.

Why do you have your car or your house. Do you need it? Could you do the same with less? What could you do with more?

Carrying on the iphone talk a few magazine editorials have been shot with iphones

Macworld Cover Shot: iPhone 4 used to shoot a glossy magazine cover ? Cell Phones & Mobile Device Technology News & Updates | Geek.com

Fashion Editorial Shoot: http://fstoppers.com/iphone/

Anyway a lot of people don't do research or will take the salesman's advice firsthand with out a second opinion.
So if no ones sells the idea behind top notch slr and glass then no one will buy it.

Why does the rich guy who's a shit photographer go spend 10K on the latest canon gear? Because if he looks thinks he looks like a pro maybe he will magically take photos like one.

I think olmypus's 'don't be a tourist' campaign is actually very good. It moved people away from the mobile phone and point and shoot type approach. It sells a piece of philosophy as well as creating a challenge to the viewer to think about composing better images and even ask what makes a good image.

Watch these! http://www.olympus.co.uk/consumer/22521.htm

Out of the thousands on your harddisk how many would you hang on your wall? Or say are the heartbreakers or the loved ones?

And so why do you have all the rest? Is it so when your retired in 20 years time you can spend time going through an organising them?

Sorry for going off on one.

[Aristophanes]

It is not about good photography or art, but it is about photography. I have been amazed lately about the things people are attempting to accomplish with Iphones and BlackBerry cameras.

For example, most of the photographic evidence I am seeing these days in smaller landlord-tenant cases has been taken on some kind of camera phone. Companies have entire software systems designed to file the emails of this evidence. Is photographic evidence not photography?

It's evidence of photography, and show's the medium's versatility. In this case it's as useful as a ballpoint pen on a notepad as gathering evidence. The advantage of the cameraphone is the phone. But you lose an awful lot of visual clarity on these devices. I cannot see much real forensic evidence gathering done on these devices, in part because of the compromised chain of evidence.

But about 50% of photos are of people. Portraits as a form of expression or comment. That's the broadest definition of the term "art". We've been making pictures of the human form for an extremely long time, and photography excels at this. Watch the BBC's documentary series "How Art Made the World" and "The Genius of Photography" for clear examples. One person's documentary typology is art to someone else. A 2,000 year old amphorae is not art to us, when it was cheap wine storage way back.

[jpzk]

Well, don't forget his nonleaks are leaks, too! I mean, this thread is basically, "Confirmation: K-5 is model spec'd above K-7, but not FF", only written backwards with a few more details thrown in
K5 confirmation then ... spec's above those of the K7 ... to which extent? We shall see.
But as to your other comment, you almost never damage yourself by investing in a new body, if you can afford the opportunity cost. I can think of a few groups that "lost" features moving to a new body, particularly astronomers, but not many. You'll only be upset if that means not buying a new model in the near future, but with resale value being what it is on cameras, it's not such a big deal unless you break it.
Going for that K5, as long as the AF is MUCH better than that of the K7 and, if I read the rumours correctly, as long as the new sensor is indeed much more performant at high-ISO's, would be a serious consideration from my part.
I will likely develop CBA just when it comes out, but this time I will be patient and wait for REAL reports of its performance. The thing that really annoys me is that this K5 might be followed with an FF which might then cause me "grief" for not having waited long enough. On the other hand, and since I use a DA*300/4 for most of my shots, what good would an FF be for me?
Anyway, this is really a matter of waiting a bit and see what Pentax has to offer at Photokina 2010 and during the following few months.
What does matter is how you spend money on lenses. An announcement of FF in the near future could be damaging to the sales of any DA lens that doesn't cover the full frame circle, and the FA line would get a little boost in it's demand. That's where the real decisions should be made. Are you currently willing to invest in a lens that doesn't cover the full frame circle?
[COLOR="blue"]I have started to buy a couple of good quality FF lenses over the past two years, and of course I already use them for "other-than-bird-photo" situations. To be frank, I think I went overboard in buying lenses: FA31Ltd, FA43Ltd, Zeiss T*Planar 85/4, FA50/1.4. I use them all, not as often as I should though.
Now, if Pentax produces telephoto lenses along with the rumoured FF ... that puts me in a rather odd situation: would I switch entirely to FF, with the appropriate lenses, and sell off the non-compatible ones? Perhaps Pentax, if I does build an FF, will make sure that both DA's and FF-able lenses can be used? /COLOR]

I don't personally see myself as an early adopter if a FF was released, but I still don't currently want to buy any lens that CAN'T be used if I do.
Ditto!

I'd better stop posting a load of "maybe's", that's just getting me more confused.
Best thing for me to wait and see!

Reply and comments much appreciated!

Cheers.

[jsherman999]

D3X, D3s, D700:
D3X is the only camera which needs to exist. But because Nikon prefers to maximize profit, they made two crippled versions: D3s in resolution and D700 in resolution and ergonomics. D3X and D700 have about the same age and almost identical low light performance. The D3X has much better (1.5EV) dynamic range though. The D3s is a newer camera. It still has the lower dynamic range (compared to D3X), but has a slightly improved low light performance (about 0.5EV better) than both D3X and D700. Pixel size has nothing to do with that.

D3X: $7400
D3S: $5200
D3: $3600
D700: $2300

I, for one, am extremely glad Nikon has stratified it's FF offerings to allow choices between more MP/resolution vs. faster performance and smaller files. I would not be able to justify spending $7500 on a DSLR body. If you're implying that Nikon could simply charge $2300 for a D700 body with a D3X sensor and remain profitable - but don't want to - you may have a compelling argument, but I don't think those sensors cost the same to produce. And if Nikon got out of the sub-$2500 FF market and put out a single, split-the-difference $5000 body with the D3X sensor, they'd lose a lot of revenue, otherwise they would have done it already.

The charts on that Dxo site clearly show the per-pixel noise advantage of the lower-res FF sensors, but accurately point out that when normalized (or printed,) there's very little difference in SNR and you gain in other ways by having higher-MP.

But a $2300 body that gets you better pixel-level noise and about the same 'normalized' SNR as a $7500 body is a sweet deal for consumers. I have yet to 'need' more than 12mp is just about anything I've ever shot or printed large, although low-ISO cropping could be a real advantage for most folks.

Ad 1. They are. Pentax 645D should beat any non MF camera in low light. I already guesstimated (and posted) figures from available data.

I seem to recall reading the opposite - where have you posted this, I'd like to give it a look, thx.





.