[mecrox]

There is some resistance in the market to larger file sizes as more and more people process off-PC and on tablets or even in the web. Speed overhead is becoming a larger par of he equation.

Yes, that's a very good point. However, I imagine it matters a little less as people move up the quality scale. Someone willing to pay 1000 bucks ++ on camera equipment likely is also more willing to spend time doing proper development using a PC.

[Ash]

Yes it is well recognised that a good camera needs a good photographer to show its worth, but all photographers being equal (an idealistic assumption, I know), the differences between some cameras (but more so the lenses) do matter depending on the subjects being photographed. Nevertheless, these days the camera sensors are so advanced that even the entry-level cameras boast excellent resolution and dynamic range that a great photographer can create top art with it. A 645D is great tool for some applications, but we all don't need one of those to enjoy the craft nor to get great results.

[timcatn]

Someone willing to pay 1000 bucks ++ on camera equipment likely is also more willing to spend time doing proper development using a PC.

I wouldn't bet on it. My experience is that it is not a correlation between investment capability and the willingness to learn, and invest time. I have overheard many conversations in camera shops where people buy crazy expensive lenses to compensate for bad pictures. They believe that if they throw enough money at it, it will automatically give great results. Here in Norway lots of amateurs buy the Canon 70-200 L F4 IS USM, and the Sigma 70-200 F2.8. I guess that is why there is always lots of them on the second hand market.

[Rondec]

There is some resistance in the market to larger file sizes as more and more people process off-PC and on tablets or even in the web. Speed overhead is becoming a larger par of he equation.

24 megapixel files are big. Amazing that even a relatively upper end camera like the D7100 only has a 6 or 7 RAW file buffer size.

[Aristophanes]

Yes, that's a very good point. However, I imagine it matters a little less as people move up the quality scale. Someone willing to pay 1000 bucks ++ on camera equipment likely is also more willing to spend time doing proper development using a PC.

I think the market is fracturing between those who are willing to PC edit and those who see the digital darkroom as a waste of time. I believe the former is a stalled market and for those who want the occasional super-edit for a big print, etc. web services will fill the occasional need.

At 9 megapixels we hit the "good enough" for 4x6 print equivalent for most cameras.

At 12 we got to 5x7 easily.

At 16-24 we are at 8x10 and then some.

All along ISO and DR and spatial issues have been improved.

But since web viewing is now by far the dominant experience, 16-24 is the sweet spot for larger monitor/HD experiences even with pixel peeping or aggressive cropping.

So with the print equivalences fading as technical merit, we're increasingly seeing the market shift towards a best-bang-for-the-buck web-viewing.

And that means editing on platforms also used for consumption of images. And since tablets are rapidly replacing both the laptop and desktop as digital consumption devices, that's where it is going regardless.

It's going to be very difficult to sell a prosumer camera on the assumption that that same consumer will also invest in a higher-end PC. So file size and bandwidth and connectivity will all have to take into account the tablet market as the dominant viewing AND editing platform.

I just bought a loaded Mac Mini to run Aperture, so I fall into the desktop camp. But I know most of the soccer parents with DSLR's at my kid's games are not going to reinvest in desktop PC's much in the future. Any company making DSLR's that takes the PC darkroom for granted will have sales issues in the very near future. People like me are going to be more the exception than the rule, and I will also be looking to supplement my Mac use with an iPad soon, too. I predict that camera manufacturers have already realized this and are going to curtail the megapixel add-on to make sure they don't fill up the bandwidth and storage capacities of tablets.

[troenaas]

Here in Norway many amateurs buy the Canon 5DMKII(I) and D800(e).

Is that a good thing?

For the shops selling them? - yes.

For the photographers that'll never print anything larger than letter size? - no.

Bigger is always better - or isn't it?

[cali92rs]

For the photographers that'll never print anything larger than letter size? - no.

Why is it a bad thing that people buy and enjoy what they want?
Who is it that makes the determination on how much a person spends on their hobby or on how big a camera an amateur is willing to carry?

[Asahiflex]

Here in Norway many amateurs buy the Canon 5DMKII(I) and D800(e).

Is that a good thing?

For the shops selling them? - yes.

For the photographers that'll never print anything larger than letter size? - no.

That's just one of the many reasons to buy FF or not. The resulting print size is way down on my own list. The big, bright viewfinder and sensor on which my 17mm lens is really a 17mm lens etc. are much more important to me and I think most FF shooters.

[Aristophanes]

Here in Norway many amateurs buy the Canon 5DMKII(I) and D800(e).

Is that a good thing?

For the shops selling them? - yes.

For the photographers that'll never print anything larger than letter size? - no.

Bigger is always better - or isn't it?

Norway is one of the wealthiest countries in the world...by a large margin. It's also a small population, so to project that observation onto worldwide market trends is very difficult.

Nothing against Norway. I was a big fan of Big Boss Koss.

[Rondec]

Why is it a bad thing that people buy and enjoy what they want?
Who is it that makes the determination on how much a person spends on their hobby or on how big a camera an amateur is willing to carry?

The amateur does clearly. However, a lot of people choose poorly when it comes to deciding what camera to purchase. Some may actually purchase such a camera and then leave it at home a lot due to the size and clumsiness of handling it plus a couple of lenses. For me, a K5 without a grip and with a prime (DA 40, FA 31 or 77) is about the largest that I want to carry out for a lot of situations. Even when I am out hiking, I really don't like going over the size of the K5 with grip.

Image quality is important, but as has been said many times before, the best camera is the camera that you have with you...

[troenaas]

much more important to me and I think most FF shooters.

Printsize is just an example.

As more and more people buy cameras by the spec sheet, features and specifications have become more and more important. And manufacturers have loaded down their cameras with features to try to make them sell. Yet when it comes to the most important interface on the camera, most consumers are still ignorant of what the specifications mean.

When it comes to sensor size and wide angle lenses, I completely agree. That would be my main reason for going FF.

[ogl]

Ricoh was very interesting company...Before they bought Pentax.

And the progress of 2013 year from Pentax Ricoh looks like this

[mecrox]

I think the market is fracturing between those who are willing to PC edit and those who see the digital darkroom as a waste of time. I believe the former is a stalled market and for those who want the occasional super-edit for a big print, etc. web services will fill the occasional need.

At 9 megapixels we hit the "good enough" for 4x6 print equivalent for most cameras.

At 12 we got to 5x7 easily.

At 16-24 we are at 8x10 and then some.

All along ISO and DR and spatial issues have been improved.

But since web viewing is now by far the dominant experience, 16-24 is the sweet spot for larger monitor/HD experiences even with pixel peeping or aggressive cropping.

So with the print equivalences fading as technical merit, we're increasingly seeing the market shift towards a best-bang-for-the-buck web-viewing.

And that means editing on platforms also used for consumption of images. And since tablets are rapidly replacing both the laptop and desktop as digital consumption devices, that's where it is going regardless.

It's going to be very difficult to sell a prosumer camera on the assumption that that same consumer will also invest in a higher-end PC. So file size and bandwidth and connectivity will all have to take into account the tablet market as the dominant viewing AND editing platform.

I just bought a loaded Mac Mini to run Aperture, so I fall into the desktop camp. But I know most of the soccer parents with DSLR's at my kid's games are not going to reinvest in desktop PC's much in the future. Any company making DSLR's that takes the PC darkroom for granted will have sales issues in the very near future. People like me are going to be more the exception than the rule, and I will also be looking to supplement my Mac use with an iPad soon, too. I predict that camera manufacturers have already realized this and are going to curtail the megapixel add-on to make sure they don't fill up the bandwidth and storage capacities of tablets.

Interesting. You could well be right. It wouldn't be for me, though. I have an MX-1 and a cam in my phone for who cares, it looks vaguely OK, bung it on the web stuff. But boy, is there a difference between that and doing a proper job with a lens chosen for the shot.

Still, opportunities down the line. Imagine that with your Pentax camera comes a couple of phone/tablet apps and a starter subscription to Flickr instead of today's wonky PC software, and by that time a Flickr sub also buys you a suite of Flickr browser-based RAW-editing tools run off the cloud. Indeed if done right, the camera-makers would be paid to include such software rather than, as at present, carry it as a cost. Maybe it's already happening, perhaps with Google stuff.

I'm conflicted about tablets. I do wonder whether the consumption model on which they are based is here to stay or whether there will be a backlash in favour of devices powerful enough to create content too - a blend of tablet and laptop. A few early experiments are out there like the Lenovo Yoga line.

[Fogel70]

Ricoh was very interesting company...Before they bought Pentax.

And the progress of 2013 year from Pentax Ricoh looks like this

+ 8 other cameras, and 2 more lenses.
Think at least half of them is very interesting and show real progress. (MX-1, GR, Q7, K-50 and K-500).

[monochrome]

Looks good. I know they have to begin updating the line up at the bottom... But I'm very impatient to see what Pentax' interpretation of a pro system is.

In my years of reaading here (as an amateur, not very good, enthusiast) my interpretation of what our Forum members consider "Pro" to be includes Wedding and Sports/Action photographers. In those two areas Canon and nikon have built the institutional infrastructure to support the needs of those professional photographers.

Pentax seems to have a corporate ethos of quirky, small, well-engineered cameras that have consistent, very good ergonomics over time and across models. More recently they hve developed a reputation As an "Outdoors" camera brand (WR, IBIS, pancake lenses, tiny cameras) but little to know marketing or support infrastructure (at least in the EU, Americas and Australia).

Combine the two and we could foresee Pentax's approach to a professional camera as one (or two) lines built for Studio (645) and Landscape, (645 and a potential FF, plus the high-end APSc) with less infrastructure, and with the resultant conserved capital invested in additional features at a price point.

Would those types of prefessional photographers (and cameras) be any less Professional than Wedding and Sports/Action?