[gazonk]

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?

Well, e.g. the Pentax 18-55 IMHO is better for portraits than most small sensor cameras (if used at f/5.6 @55mm), so it isn't a total waste.

[Aristophanes]

why use an SLR if you are going to stick with low quality glass?

Is it really low quality?

Go to the Pentax Gallery or these forums galleries or Flickr and you can see excellent photos from most zoom lenses. Jay Maisel has used 18-200 and similar lenses to produce his body of work.

Don't confuse being a techno-lens snob with good photography.

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

I never said for everyone. I said the market is fractured, but overall camera development for Pentax will be increasingly driven by the largest denominator. The contention here is that most people who buy a $1,000 camera do some PP. The market reality is no, they don't. JPEG SOOC camera rules, so any camera design and marketing has to take that dominant factor into account.

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

We weren't? I beg to differ. I still get lovely photos out of my film SLR gear, none of which is pro level.

Definitely no everyone. But the amount of hobbyist, who do care about the photo quality is also increasing.

I doubt that. Photography is a huge hobby market but it's not that big an industry. The real issue is that people require substantial time and investments to do quality PP and the market data suggests this is still a small, niche market compared to overall system camera sales. Growth here may be measured in the thousands while sales of system cameras are in the tens of millions. The market here (and data spoken to in another thread) says the photography market is also looking oversold.

Consumers have limited time resources. Historically, consumer vernacular photography means taking a photo and experiencing it. It does not mean engaging in a creative editing process afterwards.

Just look at the history of RAW. For quite some time camera manufacturers were reluctant to allow RAW access because they understood, likely through market feedback, that most consumers bought a camera for producing a finished image, not an image requiring ANY editing. Editing software is almost a second-hand thought on a CD in the bottom of the box with instructions buried in the back of the manual.

Consumers who are not happy with their images SOOC are likely to be unhappy with the camera they just bought. they then blame the sale and the brand. Obviously a D800 buyer is going to buy into an editing regime, but that's maybe 5% of the system camera market by unit volume. By the time you get down to the 70% of the market buying a $749 system camera kit, you are mostly selling to people who have little intention of editing. The *might* give it a go in iPhoto on a few select photos. Maybe. Stats I've been spoken to about indicate it is infrequent for most users. Cropping and straightening are by runaway the most used edits.

The real issue for programs like iPhoto, Aperture, Picasa, and even LR are as digital asset managers. Image quality is secondary to asset management in an age of high-FPS shooting and information overload. Cameras could get a lot better here, as well, with folder and even organization, etc.

mecrox, the idea disputed here is that people should follow trends no matter what, and then limit themselves according to those trends

These are not "trends". These are economic and market realities. Consumers don't invest in photo editing PC's on a large scale because they have never cared for post-shot editing, not even in the days of film. That's why iPhoto is part of an iLife suite. So far from being a "trend" it is the norm around which the photographic industry is largely based to move product. It is precisely why DPR and other review sites use JPEG for most of their testing. Not only is JPEG a true industry standard, it is what most consumers use.

If you want to escape from that in the products you buy, get out your wallet. Adobe wants your subscription. Leica plays exactly to your sentiment. FF will be secularly expensive for a long time to come. Buy a Hasselblad. In the meantime, tablets/smartphones, not sit down computers, will soon be the dominant means to view photography. And most images any of us shoot will only ever be viewed by us or family and friends for a very brief period...and then forgotten. By all means, spend your time editing for a 3 second look once in your life. No "trend" is stopping you from that personal effort. It's just that camera manufacturers know that for most people, their personal efforts will go another way.

[mecrox]

Is it really low quality?

Go to the Pentax Gallery or these forums galleries or Flickr and you can see excellent photos from most zoom lenses. Jay Maisel has used 18-200 and similar lenses to produce his body of work.

Wow, Jay Maisel is a find, thanks for mentioning him.

To get even further away from the thread, I wonder if it would be worth folks on here listing two or three photographers whose work they admire and who have made them think "Wow, I would like to take pictures like that." Contemporary photographers, not the greats of yesteryear, and preferably using equipment most of us could afford or might even have. As an aside, it would interesting to speculate how many of them shoot to jpeg only and don't edit

[IchabodCrane]

Aristophanes, I'm not following the "single approach" theme here. Sure, some people will shoot a lot of JPEGs at their kids sporting events but that doesn't preclude them from also using the same camera in RAW mode to record a special sunset while on vacation. One of the attractions of iPhoto is that it's drop-dead simple to use for PP, including RAW files. When I couple that viewpoint with the assumption that people are not so stupid to spend $1000 on a camera and then forever remain totally ignorant of what it can do under the appropriate circumstances, I come to the conclusion that this market will never reduce itself down to an "either-or" proposition.

Separately, this much I know... if Apple's JPEG engine is significantly better than Pentax's at rendering images close to the processed RAWs, then Pentax needs to place a high priority on improving their JPEG engine.

[Aristophanes]

Aristophanes, I'm not following the "single approach" theme here. Sure, some people will shoot a lot of JPEGs at their kids sporting events but that doesn't preclude them from also using the same camera in RAW mode to record a special sunset while on vacation. One of the attractions of iPhoto is that it's drop-dead simple to use for PP, including RAW files. When I couple that viewpoint with the assumption that people are not so stupid to spend $1000 on a camera and then forever remain totally ignorant of what it can do under the appropriate circumstances, I come to the conclusion that this market will never reduce itself down to an "either-or" proposition.

Separately, this much I know... if Apple's JPEG engine is significantly better than Pentax's at rendering images close to the processed RAWs, then Pentax needs to place a high priority on improving their JPEG engine.

People buy $60,000 SUV's to run grocery trips. People buy $1,000 system cameras to take JPEGs and post immediately on Facebook.

The former buys more SUV's (something like 20-fold) than the offroad SUV driver, and similarly the JPEG shooter who never edits likely never will.

They are not stupid if they are perfectly happy with the incredible leap in quality their DSLR offers over a P&S a default JPEG quality. And likely they have a 20" iMac from 2009 with an uncalibrated screen sporting a 250GB hard drive and 4 GB RAM.

They don't edit because they have no time and see no need. Furthermore they are likely not educated in the parameters used to judge a "better" image. Even if the tool is a click away, it's like assuming anyone with a tool can fix their own car. And Apple knows this which is why their processing engine is tweaked the way it is.

Maybe they are not stupid because they use their time to photograph their kids more than spent editing. Realize this: the average image is viewed once for less than 3 seconds. How much editing time should you put into an image viewed so briefly in either yours or its existence? People have better things to do than fuss over each image. Caught that smile? Good enough. Next.

My understanding is that DSLR sales have been driven largely by the IQ jump over P&S, and also for DSLR's by the incredibly swift AF which is necessary when photographing kids, hence the constant soccer Mom references. They buy a 2 lens kit and a fast 50 and they are done. This is the bulwark of North American DSLR sales. I often (2x/month) hang out at a local camera store where myself and local pro know the manager now and we watch the parade of sales, and for every camera geek who walks in there's probably 5x that # looking for a better camera for taking photos of their vacation or their kids. If the woman buys I bet she's going to take a lot of family photos, and if the guy buys I often judge a book by its cover and can tell if he has also has a $4,000 golf club set in the trunk and still has never shot less than 95. She'll walk out with a D5200 and he'll splurge for the D7200 and a 12-24 on top of the kit. I know I'm generalizing but what moves the DSLR market is not people posting on forums like us. We are economic beneficiaries of a much larger market.

And yes, Jay Maisel rocks. He's known to shoot with Nikon FF and a 70-300 or 28-300 lens plus carry a fast 50 and that's his kit. There's some interesting videos about him and how he works. He trudges around New York with his 70-300 and puts all those Leica-sporting hipsters to shame with his "street" photography. While they spend money, he makes money. Of course he edits, but from what I've seen he pays others to move the mouse to his vision. But the issue with Maisel is he uses pretty straightforward superzoom lenses for his work, and is not a lens snob by any stretch.

[IchabodCrane]

People buy $60,000 SUV's to run grocery trips. People buy $1,000 system cameras to take JPEGs and post immediately on Facebook.

The former buys more SUV's (something like 20-fold) than the offroad SUV driver, and similarly the JPEG shooter who never edits likely never will.

This is exactly my point. I don't know a single person who bought an SUV for $60k and only used it to buy groceries. They also use it to get to work, take vacations, buy other things like small appliances, take their kids off to college, etc., etc. Just because most people don't take them off-road (which almost no one ever did, anyway) doesn't relegate them to a single task or a single class of tasks. This I know -- you can do a lot more with an SUV than you can do with a sedan. I can't sit here and guess at all the things people do with their SUVs nor can I say with certainty what everyone does with their DSLRs, including after they take a picture. How can anyone insist they have all those answers?

[Aristophanes]

This is exactly my point. I don't know a single person who bought an SUV for $60k and only used it to buy groceries. They also use it to get to work, take vacations, buy other things like small appliances, take their kids off to college, etc., etc. Just because most people don't take them off-road (which almost no one ever did, anyway) doesn't relegate them to a single task or a single class of tasks. This I know -- you can do a lot more with an SUV than you can do with a sedan. I can't sit here and guess at all the things people do with their SUVs nor can I say with certainty what everyone does with their DSLRs, including after they take a picture. How can anyone insist they have all those answers?

The whole point of the SUV's chassis and suspension system an 4WD is primarily to navigate off-road. They are heavily over-engineered for city runabuots, especially on new suburban roads. They are a classic case of over-consumption for suburban and city dwellers. Rural users and rough weather drivers can benefit from SUV engineering, but there's a huge divergence between what people need and what they buy; and an equal divergence between what they buy and how they use it.

Yet the advertising in print and in TV had SUV's camped beside a remote mountain lake while the family is gathered around a fire getting high on marchmallows (an not another vehicle in sight). Yet there were surveys where less than 4% of purchasers ever went offroad. Why buy them? Because they bought an advertisement. their neghbiurs bught one. They had affluenza. They felt safer (despite a much higher incidence of rollover injuries).

SUV's are also expensive to make having left automakers with losses when the gas prices and fiscal crisis of 5 years ago took a toll. Automakers are actually trying to steer buyers towards more unibody and multi-purpose chassis that are cheaper and more efficient.

I used to go up to Whistler skiing almost every weekend and watch SUV after SUV in the ditch after a recent snowfall while I chugged by in my FWD sedan. All those SUV drivers seem to have forgot their added weight, despite wider wheels, is still not going to stop when they think their 4WD makes them invulnerable. Take a look at insurance rates for SUV's; they tell a story of how over-consumption leads to increased premiums.

Camera markets are largely the same. People over-buy and then under-use all features. But if they have a bad JPEG, them blame the camera. No way they are going to edit, in the same way the consumer buying a $60,000 SUV is going to do his own engine work. Auto mode on a DSLR sells more camera bodies than RAW on all models combined.

[Clavius]

I apologise in advance for the following on-topic comment:

...So... Any K3 speculations? Or are we restricted to discussing market dynamics now?

[Aristophanes]

24 MP Sony (not Toshiba) sensor, better video (a la K-50), more AF points, a better attempt at AF tracking, maybe dual SD slots.

[cali92rs]

Camera markets are largely the same. People over-buy and then under-use all features. But if they have a bad JPEG, them blame the camera. No way they are going to edit, in the same way the consumer buying a $60,000 SUV is going to do his own engine work. Auto mode on a DSLR sells more camera bodies than RAW on all models combined.

I guess I don't follow the logic stream here.
The fact of the matter is that the PC market is much, much larger than the DSLR market. And nowadays, midlevel computers have enough horsepower to run most processing software. So for talking purposes, lets say there are 10 of these midlevel PCs for every DSLR, there is absolutely no threat for DSLR manufactures that there won't be enough of these PCs to churn RAW files and make them into JPEGs.

So the PC market is sliding downwards, lets say there are only 5 PCs to every DSLR...how does that make a difference.
And what about PC gamers? Surely the PC Gamer market is much larger than the DSLR market, and their games require much more powerful hardware than any DSLR, and I don't hear them saying that the gaming software companies need to make their software less advanced.

[mamethot]

24 MP Sony (not Toshiba) sensor, better video (a la K-50), more AF points, a better attempt at AF tracking, maybe dual SD slots.

Yes!

Add better/faster processor/buffer. Less noise at high ISO! Built-in WIFI!

[monochrome]

Consumers have limited time resources. Historically, consumer vernacular photography means taking a photo and experiencing it. It does not mean engaging in a creative editing process afterwards.

At the height of the film era there were 1-Hour Photo kiosks in strip mall parking lots. Think about that - an Instamatic shooter was impatient enough that she dropped her 126 cartidge at the kiosk, did her shopping and expected her envelope to be ready with prints when she left the strip mall. These weren't the people who plumbed thier basements to build a darkroom. Why are we surprised iPhones that link to Instagram are so popular?

I for one could handle PS Elements 6. I can get around PS Elements 9. I cannot use Lightroom to save my life - can't abide the interface, can't see the dark-on-darker skin, can't use the controls, can't find the files if I figure out how to process something and I can't for the life of me do anything without clicking "Process in Photoshop Elements." On a modern laptop w/ plenty of RAM Boot Time (and then Boot Time for Elements) is so long that the whole thing is totally discouraging. I have for a year now simply shot in RAW+, accepted OOC jpeg's and stored the RAWs in case I ever figure out PP software. iPhoto doesn't help because I don't have an Apple computer. I have avoided getting a K5II because I just don't want to handle the files.

In short, I ahve come to hate processing image files - doing that has taken all the fun out of the hobby and I've been a net seller of lenses and SLR's / dSLR's for the last 18 months. I don't have a new dSLR and I won't buy one this fall. K-01 and Q are fun to use but the processing issue still exists.

When I had a Suburban I ran three children all over town, drove to work, drove five people to Colorado and new Mexico twice a year, went off-road once a month, took 5 Boy Scouts and 2 weeks gear to Canada, trailered, drove in 6" or more of snow once a year, hauled large items often and bought a hell of a lot of gasoline. A Subaru is a better all-around value but it is a pain to rent a truck or pay for delivery of large items and it most certainly isn't a highway car, so we fly now and rent an SUV.

The K-3 will split Canon and Nikon model positions and be a good features for price value in a comfortable, conservative, familiar body.

[Aristophanes]

I guess I don't follow the logic stream here.
The fact of the matter is that the PC market is much, much larger than the DSLR market. And nowadays, midlevel computers have enough horsepower to run most processing software. So for talking purposes, lets say there are 10 of these midlevel PCs for every DSLR, there is absolutely no threat for DSLR manufactures that there won't be enough of these PCs to churn RAW files and make them into JPEGs.

So the PC market is sliding downwards, lets say there are only 5 PCs to every DSLR...how does that make a difference.
And what about PC gamers? Surely the PC Gamer market is much larger than the DSLR market, and their games require much more powerful hardware than any DSLR, and I don't hear them saying that the gaming software companies need to make their software less advanced.

Because sales of home PCs are being replaced by non-PC computing.

Also a large number of home PC's are not capable of DSLR file management being netbooks or similar. This is especially true in the developing world.

Business and government are buying PCs still and represent the only stable part of the PC market; last I looked they weren't buying many DSLR's.

Large chunks of the emerging middles classes in the developing world have never bought into the home PC and instead emerged into a netbook or mobile OS world. It's hard to sell them a DSLR when you're also telling them to buy a home PC as well.

The home digital darkroom has never been popular amongst most photographers who make up the DSLR market (aka the soccer Moms and vacation shooters). Most people don't edit, never shoot RAW, and never will. They buy a camera to make a finished image with no in-between editing process. That's something like 70% of the market.

So if you keep making large file size cameras that require constant storage and processing upgrades, you have a sales issue for the DSLR.

And I'm trying to find the source but I think last I read the average installed home PC had a 250GB hard drive and between 2 and 4GB RAM. This is what the market looks like after a 5 year slump. That's not going to last you long with a new DSLR shooting RAW.

The PC gaming market is interesting because it is slightly growing. It's doing so because consumers can customize their PC's and the software cost to hardware cost ratio favours the latter. You don't see that in systems cameras where the camera is often more expensive than the PC. For the dedicated PC gamer an investment in hardware makes the $70 game just an expensive app whereas with a DSLR each photo adds an equation of future storage costs.

Basically my point is that camera manufacturers cannot take for granted that their target markets have or will continue to have PC's capable of handling DSLR output on a continuous basis. Nor can they assume (in fact I don't' think they ever have) that their majority consumer base does more than organize JPEGs on those PC's. Editing and RAW are a niche within a much larger industry.

And BTW, I mostly shoot RAW. I switch to JPEG for fast action high-FPS sequences. But then I've been an Aperture beta-tester since very early on and have a plethora of presets perfected. As the neighbourhood photogeek, however, I am often asked over to comment on how friends can improve their photos and I am always struck by how everyone uses JPEG. Everyone. They ALL want to minimize computer time and just organize and share quickly. The thought of PP is nauseating to many; they spend enough time in front of PC's at work.

[Aristophanes]

At the height of the film era there were 1-Hour Photo kiosks in strip mall parking lots

Parking lots? Try drive-thus.

People could get film dropped off and picked up without ever leaving their car!

Photographic junk food, right?

A Behind-the-Scenes Look At How 35mm Film is Developed and Printed at a Lab

[monochrome]

Parking lots? Try drive-thus.

People could get film dropped off and picked up without ever leaving their car!

Photographic junk food, right?

A Behind-the-Scenes Look At How 35mm Film is Developed and Printed at a Lab

This is St. Louis. Things are just a bit slower here. We never got that.