[Aristophanes]

Seems the argument is finally coming around

All arguments are eventually won by algorithms :-)

[TropicalMonkey]

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.
.....

I want to edit my photos on a decent sized screen with real software before posting them anywhere.

Well... it can get really small. There won't be much difference between mobile computer and desktop computer except for the screen-size which can be outside of the computer.

Ubuntu Edge

[IchabodCrane]

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.



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.

If JPEG is truly the world we live in then I don't really see the point of spending $1000 for a camera to just get an 8-bit image.

One thing I know for sure... No Pentax OOC JPEG can match the corresponding RAW shot under RAW+ mode when displayed side-by-side in iPhoto/Aperture on a screen and without any user PP of the RAW fille involved. I've tried it more than a hundred times and used all kinds of camera JPEG tone presets to see how good it can do with the 8-bit limitation (or maybe it's the Pentax engine).

[Aristophanes]

If JPEG is truly the world we live in then I don't really see the point of spending $1000 for a camera to just get an 8-bit image.

That's why the vast majority of DSLR kits are priced well below US$1,000. Soon, in fact the APS-C gang will probably be coming in at an average below $800.

The whole industry is way ahead of you there ;-)

For a very long time JPEG was the only world we had. JPEG facilitated the development of digital cameras and is a recognized (ISO, library systems, etc.) archival standard.

One thing I know for sure... No Pentax OOC JPEG can match the corresponding RAW shot under RAW+ mode when displayed side-by-side in iPhoto/Aperture on a screen and without any user PP of the RAW fille involved. I've tried it more than a hundred times and used all kinds of camera JPEG tone presets to see how good it can do with the 8-bit limitation (or maybe it's the Pentax engine).

That's why I encourage new users to shoot in RAW+ on a big SD card and use the JPEGs for quick trust the camera use and RAW for anything that may need detailing....if they have the time, skill, and patience. In my experience, most do not.

But for most people on an average computer screen both iPhoto and sent to grandma, JPEG is more than sufficient if the exposure is correct. It's not like they are sending RAW to grandma or Flickr. For most people JPEG is "good enough" and miles better than their P&S. That is why they bought the DSLR. My speedometer in my car goes to 220 km/h. I've never gone above 150, and that was in Montana. Most SUV's never go offroad. Most fly fishermen never tie their own flies. Many DSLR shooters never go out of Auto mode or maybe after a lesson at the local store, Av mode. I could go on, but tinkering around with PP is like doing your own car repairs.

I did make the point earlier (as does DPReview somewhere) that JPEG engines need to improve. There is 12-bit JPEG, it's just that the industry prefers to use 8-bit for obscure reasons likely having to do with $0.8 sub-processors and keeping costs down.

[johnmflores]

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.

My friend is a hockey mom and really wanted a better camera for games. She had a Sony super zoom but it wasn't fast enough for action. She's always liked taking family snapshots and putting the photos in albums. She's semi-tech savvy (not afraid), and now enjoys taking Instagram photos of her kids and now prints them out as 4"x4" in little frames and mounts them on the wall. Couldn't care less about RAW. Saw sitting down at a computer to go through the images as a necessary evil and is more than happy to give it up.

She liked the Nikon V1 that I loaned her but had two reservations:

1-It was almost too fast (10FPS and up to 60FPS in bursts).
2-She wish it had wifi so that she could post pictures with her tablet while at the rink so that her parents and brother, thousands of miles away, could see the shots and comment.

For #1 I showed her how to slow the camera down. For #2 I showed her an Eye-Fi card.

She bought a V1 and Eye-Fi card and is happy as a clam.

It's a sample size of one, but I suspect that there's a lot of folks out there (30-somethings and 40-somethings) that fit this description.

[monochrome]

For #2 I showed her an Eye-Fi card.

Did the same for my wfe (Eye-Fi Mobi jpeg only Direct Mode to tablet and no Eye-Fi Cloud account) and now she uses a Q instead of a phone.

[monochrome]

All arguments are eventually won by algorithms :-)

The problem with algoritms is they reduce everything to histograms - and then we get an outlier . . . .

[gazonk]

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?

They don't have to be masters in the digital darkroom, with simple and easy to use tools they'll benefit from shooting in RAW with almost no training required (the most obvious example being iPhoto).

[mecrox]

They don't have to be masters in the digital darkroom, with simple and easy to use tools they'll benefit from shooting in RAW with almost no training required (the most obvious example being iPhoto).

I don't think anyone is really disagreeing with this, even though jpegs are more than "good enough" for many folks. I think folks are perhaps more uneasy with the idea that the future of photography for everyone lies in 8-bit jpegs + tablets + magick mobile OSes, like it or lump it. Goodbye RAW: Facebook and Instagram didn't like you, no one uses a PC these days, etc, etc. In fact, if camera companies want to go down this route, I suspect they will put themselves out of business even sooner. I mean, why buy a 5D mk III and all those high-end lenses if the best you can get out of them is a Canon jpeg which you have to adjust on a tiny screen? Doesn't make any sense to me.

[gazonk]

I don't think anyone is really disagreeing with this, even though jpegs are more than "good enough" for many folks. I think folks are perhaps more uneasy with the idea that the future of photography for everyone lies in 8-bit jpegs + tablets + magick mobile OSes, like it or lump it. Goodbye RAW: Facebook and Instagram didn't like you, no one uses a PC these days, etc, etc. In fact, if camera companies want to go down this route, I suspect they will put themselves out of business even sooner. I mean, why buy a 5D mk III and all those high-end lenses if the best you can get out of them is a Canon jpeg which you have to adjust on a tiny screen? Doesn't make any sense to me.

Doesn't make any sense to me, either. But even today there are tablets with relatively large screens that are able to run full versions of Photoshop without problems (except for short battery time), so even if serious photographers move to tablet computers in a couple of years, IMHO it will be to tablets that will have no problems processing 64mp RAW files...

[Rondec]

If JPEG is truly the world we live in then I don't really see the point of spending $1000 for a camera to just get an 8-bit image.

One thing I know for sure... No Pentax OOC JPEG can match the corresponding RAW shot under RAW+ mode when displayed side-by-side in iPhoto/Aperture on a screen and without any user PP of the RAW fille involved. I've tried it more than a hundred times and used all kinds of camera JPEG tone presets to see how good it can do with the 8-bit limitation (or maybe it's the Pentax engine).

I personally agree. However, the same argument can be made about using the kit lens, or a super zoom lens -- why use an SLR if you are going to stick with low quality glass? But lots of people do.

However there is no doubt in my mind if you are a professional that you will edit on your PC. Retouching portraits. Doing selective sharpening. And yes, maybe you could hook a mouse and keyboard and larger screen up to your tablet and do the editing there, if the processor was up to it. But once again, it sort of defeats the purpose of the tablet.

Just with regard to the tablet market. They aren't cheap. And they don't have a lot of memory. And touch screens aren't the easiest to work with. And their processors are kind of slow. And their battery life isn't great. Other than that, I would replace my PC with one tomorrow.

[Kunzite]

mecrox, the idea disputed here is that people should follow trends no matter what, and then limit themselves according to those trends. Personal needs/wants are regarded as irrelevant, people should give up on their own will and become lemmings.
E.g. if the PC are replaced with tablets in a completely unrelated area (businesses not doing any image processing), a photographer should replace its PC as well (or not upgrade it, if needed), and because of that he must give up to his DSLRs and lenses and use a smartphone instead.
"Uneasy" is not the correct word

And this thread is now about why Pentax should never ever release an advanced camera. Should they enter the smartphone market instead?

[Jan67]

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.

Yes, and we were in average not satisfied with results.

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?

Definitely no everyone. But the amount of hobbyist, who do care about the photo quality is also increasing.
Isn't it easier for DSLR/PP SW producers to educate their customers at least in the very basic knowledge how to use the camera (time, apperture, ISO, flash)? How many millions of people try every day to shoot night scenery without any chance for success? Wouldn't such education campaign create more interest to produce better photos ? And sell more expensive camera?

Only a very small minority of DSLR purchasers spend much time in post, and very few shoot in RAW.
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.

There are actually two questions:
1) How many people want to (are able to) improve their picture, doesn't matter if in-camera or PC, JPEG or RAW
2) Will better JPEG in-camera processing really increase this amount?

PP tools will develop themselves. I am not against doing PP in tablet if it has the power of i7, 16Gb RAM, and 20" screen .
People who are not using other modes than P will probably not use better JPEG in-camera functions, as well.

[Fogel70]

I personally agree. However, the same argument can be made about using the kit lens, or a super zoom lens -- why use an SLR if you are going to stick with low quality glass? But lots of people do.

However there is no doubt in my mind if you are a professional that you will edit on your PC. Retouching portraits. Doing selective sharpening. And yes, maybe you could hook a mouse and keyboard and larger screen up to your tablet and do the editing there, if the processor was up to it. But once again, it sort of defeats the purpose of the tablet.

Just with regard to the tablet market. They aren't cheap. And they don't have a lot of memory. And touch screens aren't the easiest to work with. And their processors are kind of slow. And their battery life isn't great. Other than that, I would replace my PC with one tomorrow.

I actually think editing will be improved on large screen tablets, and there will be a lot of new possibilities that we have not seen yet. Maybe using a second screen or connecting two tablets together for improved editing and performance.

I think I will prefer doing editing on a tablet lying flat down on the table using a pen (or my fingers), instead of using mouse on a PC monitor. Of course it will take some time before interface is optimized, and before prices drop. But once they are mainstream products, price will drop fast and the tech advancement will accelerate.

I also wonder how long it will take before we get a new standard image format that can be used on cameras, and goes beyond 8-bit color?

[bxf]

mecrox, the idea disputed here is that people should follow trends no matter what, and then limit themselves according to those trends. Personal needs/wants are regarded as irrelevant, people should give up on their own will and become lemmings.
E.g. if the PC are replaced with tablets in a completely unrelated area (businesses not doing any image processing), a photographer should replace its PC as well (or not upgrade it, if needed), and because of that he must give up to his DSLRs and lenses and use a smartphone instead.
"Uneasy" is not the correct word

And this thread is now about why Pentax should never ever release an advanced camera. Should they enter the smartphone market instead?

Thanks for summarizing this discussion so succinctly - this is how I've been seeing it.

Talk about putting the cart before the horse...