Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
07-29-2013, 11:16 AM - 1 Like   #2191
Site Supporter
Cynog Ap Brychan's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Gloucester
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,092
QuoteOriginally posted by mecrox Quote
"Your first 10,000 images are your worst". In the digital era, make that 100,000.
This goes a long way to explaining why my photographs are so bad!!

07-29-2013, 11:49 AM   #2192
Site Supporter
Aristophanes's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Dartmouth, Nova Scotia
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,922
Define "better photographer". Most everyone here takes photos only they will see ad maybe a few close friends and family. The vast bulk of photography is personal, vernacular, and of family. That's who is buying these products, people who shoot those subjects and usually in some firm of chronological events. We have matrix metering, zoom lenses, AF, and in-camera processing to satisfy that market. Generally they improve all photography.

Last edited by Aristophanes; 07-29-2013 at 12:16 PM.
07-29-2013, 11:51 AM   #2193
Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 16,213
I don't understand why people are mixing all this stuff up together. As far as I can see it, the PC market is not dead, nor will it be. It may be smaller in the future with less frequent upgrades, but there are plenty of applications that are either poor or, not available for tablets. Input devices for tablets aren't the best and the expense of a decent PC system just isn't that much for what it offers.

As to the ability to instantly facebook your life, I think this is the sort of thing that will become a feature on lower end cameras, but I don't see anyone interested in a D800, say, caring whether or not it has connectivity. Editing is something that not everybody does, more than sticking a few filters on a snapshot, but honestly, I want to edit my photos on a decent sized screen with real software before posting them anywhere.
07-29-2013, 12:29 PM   #2194
Site Supporter
Aristophanes's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Dartmouth, Nova Scotia
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,922
QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
I don't understand why people are mixing all this stuff up together. As far as I can see it, the PC market is not dead, nor will it be. It may be smaller in the future with less frequent upgrades, but there are plenty of applications that are either poor or, not available for tablets. Input devices for tablets aren't the best and the expense of a decent PC system just isn't that much for what it offers.

As to the ability to instantly facebook your life, I think this is the sort of thing that will become a feature on lower end cameras, but I don't see anyone interested in a D800, say, caring whether or not it has connectivity. Editing is something that not everybody does, more than sticking a few filters on a snapshot, but honestly, I want to edit my photos on a decent sized screen with real software before posting them anywhere.
People here seem to forget that historically the SLR format in film was not about rally any type of post-processing. 135 roll film was mostly lab processed. Personal darkrooms were rare and a minuscule segment of the SLR market appeal.

So suddenly in digital we expect everyone to become a master in the digital darkroom to justify a DSLR purchase? They are going to put their time and money and energy and other resources like computing power into mastering that PLUS learning shooting in the field?

No way. Only a very small minority of DSLR purchasers spend much time in post, and very few shoot in RAW. Why do you think most review sites start with JPEG and emphasize that in the reviews? Why is your DSLR set up out of the box in JPEG? Most buyers shoot and share SOOC.

Combine that market norm with weakening sales of home PC's and replacement by mobile OS's and you have a looming compatibility issue of people who don't want to do any PP owning systems that cannot are not set up to do more than the bare bones PP. Therefore we're going to need much more robust in-camera PP via JPEG, connected cameras, and mobile OS friendly editing and sharing apps. People may simply not have the PC's to do PP in the home in the future, yet the are the bedrock of the market. They didn't have home darkrooms in the film era so we're just going back to the future.

And don't confuse network sharing with low-end. Far from it. High-end sales are largely driven by the sharing websites, not printing as was previously assumed. For a $2,000 system to be less capable than a $700 Sony 1" digicam (RX100 MkII) is a sure way to kill your long-term DSLR sales.

07-29-2013, 12:41 PM   #2195
Pentaxian




Join Date: Sep 2012
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,728
QuoteOriginally posted by Aristophanes Quote
People here seem to forget that historically the SLR format in film was not about rally any type of post-processing. 135 roll film was mostly lab processed. Personal darkrooms were rare and a minuscule segment of the SLR market appeal.

So suddenly in digital we expect everyone to become a master in the digital darkroom to justify a DSLR purchase? They are going to put their time and money and energy and other resources like computing power into mastering that PLUS learning shooting in the field?

No way. Only a very small minority of DSLR purchasers spend much time in post, and very few shoot in RAW. Why do you think most review sites start with JPEG and emphasize that in the reviews? Why is your DSLR set up out of the box in JPEG? Most buyers shoot and share SOOC.

Combine that market norm with weakening sales of home PC's and replacement by mobile OS's and you have a looming compatibility issue of people who don't want to do any PP owning systems that cannot are not set up to do more than the bare bones PP. Therefore we're going to need much more robust in-camera PP via JPEG, connected cameras, and mobile OS friendly editing and sharing apps. People may simply not have the PC's to do PP in the home in the future, yet the are the bedrock of the market. They didn't have home darkrooms in the film era so we're just going back to the future.

And don't confuse network sharing with low-end. Far from it. High-end sales are largely driven by the sharing websites, not printing as was previously assumed. For a $2,000 system to be less capable than a $700 Sony 1" digicam (RX100 MkII) is a sure way to kill your long-term DSLR sales.
I'm just not getting that connection between a film darkroom and a PC. One is complicated, space consuming, single purpose, potentially quite expensive, and most definitely messy. The other is a little box that sits on a desk and is used for a myriad of tasks besides post-processing. Additionally, every Apple computer sold comes with basic image post-processing and cataloging software (iPhoto) for free.

One thing not talked much about here is the vast range of the camera market. I certainly agree that the most photos taken with a Canon T3 are JPEGs and never get altered and until the K-500, Pentax hasn't even participated in that end of the market. However, I'd be quite surprised to learn that mid to high level DSLR owners don't do much PP.
07-29-2013, 12:47 PM - 1 Like   #2196
Veteran Member
Docrwm's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Somewhere in the Southern US
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 11,275
QuoteOriginally posted by dane.dawg Quote
Aristophanes, my new PC cost me 400.00 to build in December..
I5 processor, 8gb ram, 1.5tb drive and 1gb graphics card.
I know its not much but its enough to run two screens and any photo software I need..
And less than those cheap tablets that I can get "4 of" for the price of a desktop. No, tablets that actually work are rare. We've had people pushing them on us in healthcare for a LONG time and the only ones we've seen that don't constantly crash, hand-up, or otherwise give us fits are iPads - which cost $400+ each. We find that the professionals here all, to a person, prefer a desktop to do their work on, write reports, review records, etc. As for home, the kids still prefer the desktop to do nearly all their gaming, reports, projects, and homework when they are home and the iPads are only used to either watch a movie or when they leave the house.
07-29-2013, 01:12 PM   #2197
Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 16,213
QuoteOriginally posted by Aristophanes Quote
People here seem to forget that historically the SLR format in film was not about rally any type of post-processing. 135 roll film was mostly lab processed. Personal darkrooms were rare and a minuscule segment of the SLR market appeal.

So suddenly in digital we expect everyone to become a master in the digital darkroom to justify a DSLR purchase? They are going to put their time and money and energy and other resources like computing power into mastering that PLUS learning shooting in the field?

No way. Only a very small minority of DSLR purchasers spend much time in post, and very few shoot in RAW. Why do you think most review sites start with JPEG and emphasize that in the reviews? Why is your DSLR set up out of the box in JPEG? Most buyers shoot and share SOOC.

Combine that market norm with weakening sales of home PC's and replacement by mobile OS's and you have a looming compatibility issue of people who don't want to do any PP owning systems that cannot are not set up to do more than the bare bones PP. Therefore we're going to need much more robust in-camera PP via JPEG, connected cameras, and mobile OS friendly editing and sharing apps. People may simply not have the PC's to do PP in the home in the future, yet the are the bedrock of the market. They didn't have home darkrooms in the film era so we're just going back to the future.

And don't confuse network sharing with low-end. Far from it. High-end sales are largely driven by the sharing websites, not printing as was previously assumed. For a $2,000 system to be less capable than a $700 Sony 1" digicam (RX100 MkII) is a sure way to kill your long-term DSLR sales.
I understand that most SLR purchasers don't post process much, but I would venture to guess that the majority of prosumer and up users do some post processing. If you are a lower end user who basically wants to instagram and have filters that you can pop on your photos to make them have frames, or look like you took them in the 70s, then it doesn't really matter if you stick them on your iphone, or do filters in-camera. But if you want to do anything more in depth, than the small screen on the back of your camera is not adequate to allow decent editing.

As to net work sharing, the issue is not whether professionals use photo sharing sites, but whether they really want to upload from their camera. My wife shoot professionally, but she would never make a decision at a wedding what files to upload based on what she sees on a camera screen. It is important to her that photos that are shown -- even early peak photos -- are of a better quality than the average snapshooter will get in the same situation.
07-29-2013, 01:14 PM   #2198
Pentaxian
Fogel70's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,748
QuoteOriginally posted by northcoastgreg Quote
Then why not have 100MP sensors, or 1,000MP? If bigger is always better, why be content with 32MP?

The fact is, right now the 24MP sensors really aren't moving things forward. They provide a negligible amount of increased detail than 16MP sensors at the price of bit more noise and significantly bigger files. When we have 24MP APS-C sensors that actually provide increases in practical real world use, then it will make sense to use them in cameras. With the current state of technology, the 24MP APS-C sensor, whether in its Sony or Toshiba variants, is a marketing ploy.
I would not say higher resolution sensor is marketing ploy as it improve more things than resolution. With smaller pixels random noise will be less noticeable, DR and tonal range will be improved. One might even say that higher resolution is only a side effect of improving IQ on sensors. But there is always a limit on how small pixel can be made for each new generation sensors before IQ start to get worse.

QuoteQuote:
Perhaps not. But there's no reason why they shouldn't. Even if the technology does move forward, many photographers don't need 24MP.
I might not often need more than 6MP, but I still want much higher resolution than that, as IQ will be improved in more ways than only higher resolution.
QuoteQuote:
That could wind up being true. Moreover, it does look like the technology is slowing down. The K-5 is still the dynamic range king among APS-C cameras. The Nikon D3s is still the high ISO king, and that camera was released four years ago. There's nothing inevitably about technology progress. A technology can improve by leaps and bounds for several decades and then suddenly slow down to such a point that is no longer commercially feasible to move it forward. In1929, it took 48 hours to fly (commercially) from New York to Los Angeles. In the early 50s, commericial flights took 8 hours. In the early sixties, commercial flights took about 5 and a half hours. Today, fifty years later, commercial flights still take about 5 and a half hours. While I suspect there's still room for improvement in sensor technology, the rate of improvement is clearly slowing down. It would be unreasonable to assume that the next ten years will see as much improvement as the last ten years.
Nikon 24MP APS-C cameras has higher DR than Pentax 16MP cameras and 36MP FF sensor has higher DR than lower resoluion FF sensors, and I expect new generation of 32MP APS-C sensor beat 2-3 year old 16-24MP sensors in DR. I much prefer to get higher resolution and higher DR on low ISO than lower noise on 6400+ ISO.

07-29-2013, 02:36 PM   #2199
Pentaxian
RonHendriks1966's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2009
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,714
QuoteOriginally posted by Fogel70 Quote
Nikon 24MP APS-C cameras has higher DR than Pentax 16MP cameras and 36MP FF sensor has higher DR than lower resoluion FF sensors, and I expect new generation of 32MP APS-C sensor beat 2-3 year old 16-24MP sensors in DR. I much prefer to get higher resolution and higher DR on low ISO than lower noise on 6400+ ISO.
And I would love to have improved IQ on iso6400.
07-29-2013, 02:46 PM   #2200
Pentaxian
mecrox's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Oxford, UK
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,115
QuoteOriginally posted by Aristophanes Quote
Define "better photographer". Most everyone here takes photos only they will see ad maybe a few close friends and family. The vast bulk of photography is personal, vernacular, and of family. That's who is buying these products, people who shoot those subjects and usually in some firm of chronological events. We have matrix metering, zoom lenses, AF, and in-camera processing to satisfy that market. Generally they improve all photography.
I think you're trying to take the pop side of the market and generalize from it to all the other sides of the market. It doesn't work, imho. The market is too diverse and its needs are too multifarious for that. There really isn't one jpeg to rule them all - one set of assumptions which can be imposed on everyone. Folks who want to make a career or something serious out of photography are never going to settle for a few jpegs and a tablet or the LCD on the back of a camera as their sole editing and review tools. And I just don't buy the idea that high tech alone or pretty much so makes you a better photographer, or better at anything for that matter. Folks who claim it does - thus throwing several thousand years of educational culture and practice out of the window - have some justifying to do. What high tech does is act as a leveller and enabler, making available to huge numbers of folks that which was previously esoteric or priced beyond their reach. A great boon for sure - but what you do with it once you have it, well that is another story entirely.

Last edited by mecrox; 07-29-2013 at 02:51 PM.
07-29-2013, 02:47 PM   #2201
Banned




Join Date: May 2010
Location: Back to my Walkabout Creek
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,541
QuoteOriginally posted by Fogel70 Quote

I might not often need more than 6MP, but I still want much higher resolution than that, as IQ will be improved in more ways than only higher resolution.
Nikon 24MP APS-C cameras has higher DR than Pentax 16MP cameras and 36MP FF sensor has higher DR than lower resoluion FF sensors, and I expect new generation of 32MP APS-C sensor beat 2-3 year old 16-24MP sensors in DR. I much prefer to get higher resolution and higher DR on low ISO than lower noise on 6400+ ISO.
How many fps and how large a buffer you would like for those 32 MP? 8-10 fps? Continuous, no lag buffer too?
07-29-2013, 03:43 PM   #2202
Pentaxian
Fogel70's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,748
QuoteOriginally posted by Uluru Quote
How many fps and how large a buffer you would like for those 32 MP? 8-10 fps? Continuous, no lag buffer too?
For myself I don't have much need of high FPS, and I don't think I ever captured more than 5 images in a row in continuous mode on my K7.

It would be easy to create a 10 FPS mode on a 32MP camera. But on a 10 FPS Pentax DSLR it might be difficult to have active AF and aperture control during 10 FPS. And it will also put high demand on the mirror mechanism.

Sony A77 is almost two years old and has 24MP 12FPS (up to 14 RAW images), which create about the same data as 32MP 10FPS.
07-29-2013, 04:27 PM   #2203
Site Supporter
Aristophanes's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Dartmouth, Nova Scotia
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,922
QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
I understand that most SLR purchasers don't post process much, but I would venture to guess that the majority of prosumer and up users do some post processing. If you are a lower end user...
Stop right there.

The "lower-end user" is also buying the K-50 and even the occasional K-5 dependent on personal resources (money). I see it all the time where soccer Moms show up with some pretty high-end hardware.

You're creating a false market distinction by automatically assuming that a K-5 purchaser is also proficient at desktop PP. Far from it. That's like assuming an SUV purchaser is proficient at off-road driving. Yet who was driving [sic] SUV sales? Off-road drivers? Nope. People who bought groceries.

Assuming that the prosumer market is driven by post-processing demands and capabilities is a fundamental mis-read of the overall market.

QuoteOriginally posted by IchabodCrane Quote
I'm just not getting that connection between a film darkroom and a PC. One is complicated, space consuming, single purpose, potentially quite expensive, and most definitely messy. The other is a little box that sits on a desk and is used for a myriad of tasks besides post-processing. Additionally, every Apple computer sold comes with basic image post-processing and cataloging software (iPhoto) for free.
I have software tested for both iPhoto (many years ago) and especially Aperture (currently).

To be blunt, most people just organize even with serious high-end cameras. This is known because there are built-in feedback systems for the software products to aid the development cycle. I was blown away to find out that a strong majority of DSLR users never touch a RAW file. As the price range of the DSLR goes up, of course we'll see more PP adherents, but something like 80% of all DSLRs sold are under $1,000 and the # of JPEG-only users was very high.

For most people they use their PC in what is referred to as "shoebox mode"; that is as an organizer. There is very little editing. That's why latest developments are for things like location grabs and face detection, to help the shoebox. And both Adobe and Apple are striving to automate these processes because they know most users will not fuss over WB,tones, curves, etc. It's tedious and dissuasive.

And this is true to history where people were never part of the development process. They took a photo and, if an SLR user, fussed over exposure mostly (not really necessary with a P&S). Then they got prints back. Suddenly saying those people are going edit RAW is silly. There is no market background to do so, little education in how to do it properly, and a serious time curve to do it right. RAW is and always has been a professional attribute, not a core system to sell to the mass market. In fact, trying to sell people on post-shooting "workflow" is a surefire way to dissuade sales. That is NOT what made DSLR sales take off.

Therefore most DSLR buyers are not photo editors and use those facilities rarely. If you design and manufacture DSLR's you have to factor this in to your customer matrix as the dominant expectation of your consumer. You see this is in the way our DSLR's are set-up with more in-camera editing features and JPEG as the default.

Most posters here are wildly over-assuming that most shooters spend major time behind the computer editing RAW files and will also purchase PC systems capable of handling that task. Simply not true. And I predict in the future the rise of dominant mobile OS's will curtail desktop editing even further. Pentax designs systems first to cater to JPEG, SOOC shooters because they are and always have been the dominant part of the market.

Last edited by Aristophanes; 07-29-2013 at 04:53 PM.
07-29-2013, 05:26 PM - 1 Like   #2204
Site Supporter
Aristophanes's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Dartmouth, Nova Scotia
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,922
QuoteOriginally posted by mecrox Quote
I think you're trying to take the pop side of the market and generalize from it to all the other sides of the market. It doesn't work, imho.
But that's been exactly my point. The market is fractured and Pentax really has only 2.5 camera models to sell into that market. So they design, manufacture, and sell where the most money is. The biggest chunk of gross revenues (what pays the to keep the lights on, distinct from profits) comes from soccer Moms (and similar) buying the best IQ bang for the buck, but who has zero interest in sitting down at a desktop PC to massage RAW files after the kids are asleep. She shoots JPEGs, avoids forums like this, and sends what she's got via iPhoto to Facebook. Most consumers of DSLR's are no different than users of SLR's prior; they expect the processing to be done behind the scenes leading to a finished product reflecting their memories and experience. This is the meat of the DSLR market and what makes an affordable DSLR hobby possible for "the rest of us" tinkerers. Lots of discretionary dollar markets and hobbies are reliant on a much larger "normal" base to fund the overall project.
07-29-2013, 06:51 PM   #2205
Loyal Site Supporter
monochrome's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Kirkwood (St. Louis) MO
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 20,423
QuoteOriginally posted by Aristophanes Quote
One of the biggest issues related to the slowdown in camera sales is that as megapixels go up, they need more home PC processing power.

Except sales of home PC's are going down, replaced by LESS powerful devices like tablets.

So a D800's 100+ MB file size requires a consumer both to buy the camera and to buy against the trend in PC sales.

Ultimately we are going to see most PP done in-camera. Camera manufacturers can no longer rely on their supposed consumer base buying high-end PC's to process files.

And archiving is also an issue.
I've argued for years that digital photography transfers work TO the end users rather than FROM the end users since it requires use of an independently purchased PC. At one time the flame war got so heated I was officially warned and another user was actually given a 30 day timeout. His statement was that my point is null because the computer is already there.

I actually lament the loss of lab printer skills - the persons.displaced by the silicon.

Seems the argument is finally coming around

Last edited by monochrome; 07-29-2013 at 08:42 PM.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
aps-c, body, k-5, k-7, k-7/k-5, pentax, pentax news, pentax rumors, reason, sensor, sony
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Speculation: What if Pentax did not go FF but rather a 1.3x? brecklundin Pentax DSLR Discussion 36 08-13-2013 10:36 PM
Any speculation on how long... Tom S. Pentax K-5 10 12-16-2010 09:19 PM
K-x price speculation SylBer Pentax DSLR Discussion 18 10-13-2010 12:29 PM
Small rant + speculation ilya80 Pentax News and Rumors 35 04-20-2010 11:42 PM
speculation about FA lenses on FF DSLR lpfonseca Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 19 11-05-2009 10:34 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:21 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top