[Medium FormatPro]

I used the Pentax LX as a front line professional cameras in the 80's.

...Only using the (then) film versions of the Hasselblad 2000fc or a Pentax medium format when needed. And even though my present Hasselblad H4 is both able to be used as (perhaps switched over is the better term) aither a film or digital camera - I sure don't miss haing to spool a roll of film though at least two seperate backs.

[Docrwm]

Not entirely different. Our business was founded in 1976 on the premise of providing professional session players a store that opened before their 10 o'clock sessions. That brought us credibility with a solid base of customers with needs, not dis-similar to a professional photographer. Today, professionals still rely on us for addressing their demands. However, there's also a large amount of people coming to buy a guitar in Nashville, because somehow, it's got to be better....I still get amused by that...More importantly, the majority go for the bigger, most recognizable name brand. They don't care if another brand is less expensive, yet out performs the name brand. And I'm pretty confident this is not consistent only in the instrument retail side of things.

Consider this: When you think of an electric guitar, what comes to mind? Most will say Gibson and Fender. When you think of a DSLR, I'd be hard pressed to imagine anything other than Canon or Nikon flashes before their eyes. And I want to ask you another question. Would Sony be selling more Alpha 900s if they would have kept Minolta as the brand name? My guess is yes. On a parallel field, Fender recently decided to offer a Squire guitar without the Squire logo. They look just like American Fenders. As a result, we sell a lot more Fender Squire's than we used to, because a lot of people had a problem playing something that had Squire on the headstock.

We all are different, but we're still pack animals consciously and subconsciously following trends set forth by others and made popular. We're all pretty similar, despite our proclamations of individuality and uniqueness. That means I'm a lot like you; I'm just more dumb and probably not as good looking. But as we enjoy a nice discussion, we're both sharing on a forum among many other Pentax enthusiasts. Think about that for a minute.

I also love my K-5, and bought into Pentax years ago because (well, my step-dad had an awesome film Pentax), but never had any doubts regarding their ability to make a damn good camera for someone serious about photography. I have to use mine for my job, and knew I could rely on both the K-7 and K-5 thanks to the very good reviews and long time understanding of Pentax being a serious camera company. Yes, it's not Gibson or Fender, but it's Gretsch and Rickenbacker. They'll never outsell Canon or Nikon, but photographers still hold them in high regard. Should Ricoh end up settling on affordable niche products, then who really knows what will happen. I do know that I will have to choose a different brand when it's time for me to upgrade or retire my K-5. And I'm sure I am not alone in my thinking.

Funny, I have a Squire marked guitar in the closet and only after getting it home did I realize that Fender made it. Guess I'm true to form in that I have Pentax camera gear and when I bought a guitar it was not marked Fender or Gibson.

[beholder3]

[deleted]

[eddie1960]

Actually anyone can afford equipment that gives totally profesional results these days. You'll be suprised how many profesional photographers that use run-of-the-mill mid level gear.
The professional nomenclature on photographic equipment has mostly lost its meaning.

I agree many pros I know shoot quite old bodies that are primitive comparatively to say a K5, but if they needed it none of them would hesitate to go out and buy a D4 or a 1Dx, or for that matter a hassy. It's all what sector you are in and what income it generates .
Funnily enough many enthusiasts change their gear far more frequently. a lot of D 4 sales will probably be to guys who bought the D3 in 2007, so 5 years. OTOH in the same time frame here many who are crying out for a FF have owned a K10, K20, K7, K5. this cost them about the same as just buying the D3 and living with it for the 5 years.
Enthusiasts are definitely the real bread and butter for camera makers. the last couple of years has seen a huge jump in enthusiast moving to FF thanks to the more affordable variants like the 5D/5D2 and the D700. this years crop of announcements along with the old models hanging around at lower prices will draw even more to the fold. even the ones who can't afford the FF jump many have bought D7000/D300s D60 7D with an eye to a FF in the future. this is really the big challenge for Pentax. from the K10 though the K5 when compared to the competitive models from canikon the Pentax has easily stood its ground (heck the K7 was Nikon's inspiration for the D7000) For many though who are looking to long term prospects the lack of a FF "pro" option made them look to the big 2.
I know a pro can produce great work with a lesser camera. that is one of the things that makes them good. Just look at Benjikan's work for one.
Most "pro" cameras at the sub 3000 level are really as much enthusiast cameras as they are pro. but it makes people feel good when they buy what they perceive as a pro camera. and they need not make tonnes of money to buy them. I work in what is generally a low pay industry. of the enthusiast photographers in the building there is 1 pentax digital user (me), 1 Pentax 67 user who shoots a Sony A850 as he had Minolta before - we are about the same income level. the big boss shoots a D200 but has very nice lenses. 2 people shoot D700 one is a Room Service waiter the other is a houseman in Housekeeping. Both have 24-70, 70-200 and 85 1.4 lenses. Of the 5 enthusiasts the ones who spent the most are the ones who earned the least. There is only Canon DSLR user has a rebel with a superzoom, and there is one Olympus 4/3 user with an E300 and 2 kit zooms (the chef who uses it primarily to photograph presentations for the line to follow)
the rest of the building pretty much use cell phones or cheap point shoots from what i can tell

[Medium FormatPro]

Unfortunately I'll have to respectfully disagree. I don;t see dslr's going anywhere anytime soon - they'll still hold the market for both regular consumers and even semi-professionals

They've been around in mass since the 70's; and outside of minor technology advancements - haven't really changed all that much except for the imaging sensors. Sure there is more automation, but that's about it.

I can see medium format prices actually coming down to about the 5k to 6k range (for beginner camra medium format bodies) in about the next two to three years - if that. For true professionals and artists that might not be able to afford that - they'll still need a version of an slr (or perhaps even a mirrorless?!?) that can voth support an extensive lens line and lighting options (ie - on camera hotshoe and off camera lighting)

[oklahomakid93]

Funny, I have a Squire marked guitar in the closet and only after getting it home did I realize that Fender made it. Guess I'm true to form in that I have Pentax camera gear and when I bought a guitar it was not marked Fender or Gibson.

Ha! Until, eventually, you found out it had a Fender name on it! Congrats!

Actually, the Squire's are well-made, and the newer Classic Vibes are amazing for the money.

Now quit typing and start practicing!!!

[eddie1960]

I used the Pentax LX as a front line professional cameras in the 80's.

...Only using the (then) film versions of the Hasselblad 2000fc or a Pentax medium format when needed. And even though my present Hasselblad H4 is both able to be used as (perhaps switched over is the better term) aither a film or digital camera - I sure don't miss haing to spool a roll of film though at least two seperate backs.

Of course I never said Pentax didn't have pro users, i said they didn't have a big share in 35. Compared to the F3 and the 1981 version of the F1n I think the LX was the best overall system myself. It just never got the traction it needed to be a profitable system for Pentax

If I could afford a back and plate for my Bronica I'd certainly use it far more often. carrying multiple backs and a stack of film can be tedious (but i still enjoy shooting with it - however 90% of my output is apsc digital)

[oklahomakid93]

Medium-Format Pro. I completely agree with your post. Otherwise, cameras, like the Nikon D800 wouldn't be on what seems like a 5 year back order, and there wouldn't be as many of us on forums like this one talking about the desire for more full frame dslr models available, and we wouldn't be fuming over the dslr lens price increases.

[eddie1960]

Unfortunately I'll have to respectfully disagree. I don;t see dslr's going anywhere anytime soon - they'll still hold the market for both regular consumers and even semi-professionals

They've been around in mass since the 70's; and outside of minor technology advancements - haven't really changed all that much except for the imaging sensors. Sure there is more automation, but that's about it.

I can see medium format prices actually coming down to about the 5k to 6k range (for beginner camra medium format bodies) in about the next two to three years - if that. For true professionals and artists that might not be able to afford that - they'll still need a version of an slr (or perhaps even a mirrorless?!?) that can voth support an extensive lens line and lighting options (ie - on camera hotshoe and off camera lighting)

i agree some variant of an ILC system will be around for enthusiasts/pros/artists. Compared to current levels sales of DSLR though it willbe a smaller market. multi lens array cell phones will make apsc quality available in a cell phone in the not too distant future, that won't be good enough for enthusiast and pros and artists. We however represent a small percentage of the current slr market. a huge chunk of the current market is the people buying the entry level (be it Milc or slr) those people are buying because they can't get the image quality they want in a cell phone or P&S. Once they can they will have little incentive to move up I sold cameras in the 80s and there was an SLR crash caused by P&S, particularly once decent affordable AF ones came along. lot's of SLRs ended up in closets (thankfully because now I can find some great old bodies in excellent shape)

there is a good argument for this change coming again as tech improves (particularly given most people never print and just post pictures on the web.)

Edit so to make a long winded point, Pentax needs to move into the higher level (ie FF) to survive because that is where the SLR market is headed long term

[Docrwm]

Ha! Until, eventually, you found out it had a Fender name on it! Congrats!

Actually, the Squire's are well-made, and the newer Classic Vibes are amazing for the money.

Now quit typing and start practicing!!!

It's my son's now. He fancies himself a musician this week......

[oklahomakid93]

It's my son's now. He fancies himself a musician this week......

See? He's probably picturing himself on a big stage, wailing away as the pretty girls smile at him.....And he's doing it with a Fender. If he sticks with it, you'll be glad to know it's every bit as expensive a hobby as photography is....Gear acquisition syndrome affects us all on so many fronts.....Might as well be happy.

[monochrome]

Exactly. When I saw the news about the acquisition I was not at all surprised by the purchase price. Instagram is huge, and the fact that it's been offered as a free service misses the point: it has deeply entrenched mindshare in the market. FB could roll their own, possibly even superior (though that's dubious when facebook is involved) product, but the ol' Z-berg wants to be able to sleep at night, and assuming control of such an established product probably made good sense.

Now, whether the social web in general is a bubble waiting to pop is something else altogether...

Well I for one am curious to know how FB is going to monetize the IGram investment. After all, you don't drop a $Billion on someting and not expect to get money back.

[monochrome]

RE: Cell Phone Cameras - until I gradauated college I either borrowed a Spotmatic from the newspaper or used some iteration of a cheap Instamatic. My mother bought a new one every year or two. They never broke - most of them still work if I could get the 126 film easily and they were cheap. Flash cubes were a waste of money. I sort of skipped the flat era (was that 110 film?) and the Disk Cameras. For a long time my wife carried a Canon PnS film camera that we still have. I hauled out the KX or MESuper for special events and when I specifically went somewhere to use either camera for hobby and fun.

In our photo albums our vacation/children snapshots (that my wife is scanning and posting to a blog regularly) were generally taken with PnS and the good stuff I took.

I think young people use their cell cams the way we used the Pns - always there for an opportunistic snap, and easy to share on a social network - but a decent number of young families have and will continue to purchase a dSLR and Interchangeable lenses for more formal, planned uses and for a hobby. Saw more Easter pictures by young families done with a Canon dSLR than enything else, uncluding cell phones. Grandparents universally had a compact, kids used phones, in between 25 and 65 used a dSLR.

[jsherman999]

Exactly. Ignoring anything of importance is bad. Solely focussing on old people with high requirements just the same.

That being said, niches (which I consider DSLRs to be in the very near future), can be very profitable.
There are businesses thriving on astrophotography and other sorts of things.

You realize though that the use case for smartphone cameras sits squarely on top of the use case for point & shoot cameras - not on DSLRs space (or large-sensor, high-performance ILC space, if you don't want to call it 'DSLR')

There will always be a market for high-end cameras, and it will probably be about as big as it is now, if not bigger. What camera phones are going to destroy is the P&S, and what advanced-mirrorless is going to encroach on is entry and mid-level aps-c DSLR.

You just won't find people swapping a DSLR/advanced-mirrorless for a smartphone to shoot their kids soccer games The parents on the sideline using a smartphone to shoot that game are the same folks who would have been shooting it with a P&S - or nothing - five years ago.

And the general enthusiast market is exactly the same - gear-loving, looking for that extra 10% of performance wherever they can find it. smartphones do not answer that call in the same way, although they can be excellent always-with-you, capture-the-moment alternatives.

.

[Blue]

You realize though that the use case for smartphone cameras sits squarely on top of the use case for point & shoot cameras - not on DSLRs space (or large-sensor, high-performance ILC space, if you don't want to call it 'DSLR')

There will always be a market for high-end cameras, and it will probably be about as big as it is now, if not bigger. What camera phones are going to destroy is the P&S, and what advanced-mirrorless is going to encroach on is entry and mid-level aps-c DSLR.

You just won't find people swapping a DSLR/advanced-mirrorless for a smartphone to shoot their kids soccer games The parents on the sideline using a smartphone to shoot that game are the same folks who would have been shooting it with a P&S - or nothing - five years ago.

And the general enthusiast market is exactly the same - gear-loving, looking for that extra 10% of performance wherever they can find it. smartphones do not answer that call in the same way, although they can be excellent always-with-you, capture-the-moment alternatives.

.

Succinct and well stated.