[Kunzite]

"The windmills are fanboys [...]"; they, the fanboys you are fighting, are windmills i.e. imaginary opponents. I never thought someone could lose the context from one phrase to another.

My bad, I missed that post. It doesn't happen often, but I do make mistakes from time to time; that was one, and another was to keep talking to you (it's just like playing chess with a pigeon). But that's ending now.

---

Last edited by Kunzite; 05-16-2014 at 03:13 PM.

"The windmills are fanboys [...]"; they, the fanboys you are fighting, are windmills i.e. imaginary opponents. I never thought someone could lose the context from one phrase to another.

My bad, I missed that post. It doesn't happen often, but I do make mistakes from time to time; that was one, and another was to keep talking to you. But that's ending now.

Next time, write simple English and misunderstandings will be avoided. You might want to make a giant leap beyond your catechism and study some elementary logic as well.

[Bolt]

You might want to make a giant leap beyond your catechism and study some elementary logic as well.

You sir, are a hero to all the internet. May your superior intelligence and quoting ability lead us all into a greater future, in which my children and my children's children can 'win' arguments on internet forums through incomparable and unmatched debating techniques such as advising an individual to expand their obviously plebeian intellect.

You are an inspiration, telling someone to 'expand their logic' while you yourself are arguing online. Today, you win 10 internets.

You sir, are a hero to all the internet. May your superior intelligence and quoting ability lead us all into a greater future, in which my children and my children's children can 'win' arguments on internet forums through incomparable and unmatched debating techniques such as advising an individual to expand their obviously plebeian intellect.

You are an inspiration, telling someone to 'expand their logic' while you yourself are arguing online. Today, you win 10 internets.

If you are gonna quote, then do it the right way. If you are gonna evaluate the merits of different camera brands, then do it the right way as well, viz., by committing yourself to the principle of impartiality. If you have a dog in the fight, you rule yourself out of the reckoning.

[Bolt]

Considering I have owned and operated both top of the line Pentax and Canon Digital SLR cameras in extremely harsh conditions, and made my own judgements as to their ability to perform and endure harsh treatment based on observational evidence, then I think I have the right to make my own evaluation. I have also owned Lumix cameras, in which you have referenced. I believe that Pentax stood out amongst all of which I had owned as being the best built [Equal to my 1D-X], and as I stated earlier, I am definitely not a fanboy as I no longer own that gear.

The principle of impartiality is good in theory, but under the circumstances it is not practical. Rather than defining an objective measure, impartiality on your behalf is coming across as 'all cameras can be built equally well' or 'Pentax can not be the best built cameras because we do not have an objective measure/all these measures are subjective'.

The jargon of advertising departments and brochure literature has not provided us with a practical objective measure to use as a basis on all camera models. Not all brands use the same formula or criteria to measure the weather-resistance of their product, but they claim to be 'weather-resistant'. This is essentially the factor paralleled by opposing brands. Considering there is no definite objective measure, results must be made by subjective primary information provided by individuals with experience and results. Pentax has become synonymous with build quality, and stereotypes do not merely exist because they can, but rather are products of subjective information derived from observation.

No one is saying other brands cannot produce an adequately weather-sealed camera, they are simply stating that Pentax can produce a more-than-adequately weather-sealed DSLR, which they are renowned for globally. Unless every Pentaxian has made it their photographic-goal to spread the inconclusive and unobserved evidence that Pentax camera's are better built than the competition, I would state that the evidence to support the claim is not fanboy hysteria induced, but conclusive observational data.

[beachgardener]

Works fine if you have Wine loaded. Viewing it on my Ubuntu 14.04 box now.

Jack

Thanks mate, yes, i don't have wine installed. Maybe I should, but don't have much use for it as such, but, i have wondered if Lightroom will run properly in wine, do you know of if it does?

Unless every Pentaxian has made it their photographic-goal to spread the inconclusive and unobserved evidence that Pentax camera's are better built than the competition, I would state that the evidence to support the claim is not fanboy hysteria induced, but conclusive observational data.

You mean conclusive observational data like making a random google search, the futility of which has already been pointed out, or do you mean conclusive observational data like your readily admitting that you are indeed biased and that it is perfectly legitimate to be so on a Pentax forum? Or is it perhaps your admission that your view is merely an annex to the "the ideology surrounding the Pentax brand"?

In other words, no conclusive evidence to support your claim exists; hence there is no point pretending.

[Bolt]

You mean conclusive observational data like making a random google search, the futility of which has already been pointed out, or do you mean conclusive observational data like your readily admitting that you are indeed biased and that it is perfectly legitimate to be so on a Pentax forum? Or is it perhaps your admission that your view is merely an annex to the "the ideology surrounding the Pentax brand"?

In other words, no conclusive evidence to support your claim exists; hence there is no point pretending.

That is right, there is no evidence to support the idea that Pentax cameras have superior weather sealing, which is why they are renowned worldwide by professionals and amateurs as being of a superior build quality. Simple really. I suppose everyone except you is blinded by Pentaxian propaganda.

[jbinpg]

@beachgardener - Check out the Digital Processing, Software and Printing forum here and do a search for running lightroom in linux. There have been a couple of relevant threads over the past few years.

Jack

[beachgardener]

Ok thanks i will, maybe i'll set up a test box for the purpose. If lightroom runs without a hitch in wine i might just do that.

[Uluru]

Ricoh-Pentax has been promoting the use of their cameras in challenging environments but they don't give enough information on which to determine the risk of using the gear under various conditions.

It appears contradictory indeed, and in my opinion it is a futile type of marketing — one that is only damaging the brand.
And that is no marketing.

It is ridiculous. On one side there is loud bragging about weather sealing to attract more users by comparing Pentax sealed cameras (K-30, K-50, etc.) with cameras of similar level from the brand X and Y, and then, inside the manual that comes with that "sealed" Pentax camera, to state water damage voids the warranty.

What is even worse, same or similar statement is found in manuals of the unsealed cameras by the brand X and Y. Which can still outsell any Pentax sealed camera by a huge margin.

It is such a desperate move it is beyond ridiculous. A total waste of time and marketing money. Because in fact Pentax has nothing truly different to offer (except from the SR technology) than any other DSLR brand, if the warranty voids any such advantage. So what's the deal then?

AF? AF is nothing special, it's just competent and at the level as other technologies others had years ago. And the only AF worth mentioning, unfortunately, is implemented only inside one relevant camera. All others use ages old AF system.

Is there any lens advantage? In form factor, in some small range of lenses, yes. Optical quality advantage? In few lenses only. In relevant focusing performance? Not quite; most reliable lenses in the range are those still using most ancient of all focusing technologies — the screw drive, which is out of question for video use for example, or where really smooth and silent action is needed. Etc.

Many people mistakenly believe marketing is about loud, and colourful advertising of some phrases. Some babble, some picture and some price tag next to it. Or, some well-wrapped lie. Indeed, we have all come to expect that today — some form of a lie, something with a catch and immediate appeal, and with a number of asterisks explaining all big statements in small print.

No! Real marketing starts in product design rooms, and is important ingredient of product manufacture. Because it starts from users — by clearly understanding what best of users are expecting. It is the embedded quality that is able to sell itself without much babble just because of that ingredient, which is user's request. For example, Canon has taken that approach of respecting pro-user's input to design uncompromising tech that keeps their entire system in high regard. There are no coincidences in good marketing: Canon sells and Canon is no. 1 because Canon LISTENS to its users, and responds quickly and efficiently. Would Canon allow an SDM issue to drag around so long? Or pretend to be deaf about so many lenses clearly missing in the lineup? Or about inconsistent and poor flash performance? And so forth.

So if Canon has finished a university degree in quality marketing, Pentax is still in primary school. And their new tutor Ricoh, looks like a teacher barely capable of delivering a high-school entry exam without teaching his student some cheating techniques because they both believe their audience is blind and numb, and will eventually give up in requesting this or that if they keep their mouth shut.

To cut the long story short, if they finally address the SDM issue, their sales results will not depend on lousy WR marketing statements. Sales will soar. And that is real marketing: fix one burning issue forever, and in turn stop wasting everybody's time by talking nonsense about a misleading one.

[Mistral75]

I(...)
Canon sells and Canon is no. 1 because Canon LISTENS to its users, and responds quickly and efficiently. Would Canon allow an SDM issue to drag around so long?
(...)

Ever heard of the flaw in Canon EOS 1D Mk III's autofocus design and the time it took Canon to admit, then fix it?

[Kunzite]

Uluru, an interesting post - it makes me wonder, why are you still with Pentax and didn't go the Canon way?

I mentioned before, Sony's waterproof (up to IP58) smartphones are designed to detect water ingress, in which case warranty is voided . Or if you want to stick with cameras, in the Nikon D4s manual (a much more expensive camera) it's written: "Dust or other foreign matter inside the camera may cause damage not covered under warranty"; and "Keep dry". The Olympus EM-1's warranty won't cover "any defect that occurs due to sand, mud, etc. entering the inside of the product casing." and they mention high humidity in several places. The Canon 1Dx has less restrictions during use, though apparently it might catch fire if stored in a dusty or humid environment.
Of course, we would love Pentax to be the only one with a "no matter what" guarantee; but is that realistic and reasonable? Or is just another random reason for complaining?

[Uluru]

Uluru, an interesting post - it makes me wonder, why are you still with Pentax and didn't go the Canon way?

Because of the part of Pentax offer that satisfies my need: exceptional lens quality is some range of the Pentax lens lineup. Being fussy and concerned about minute details in image rendering quality, I choose some Pentax lenses that posses qualities I am after.
However, I am aware that 85% of Pentax users are not like myself, and have different aims. However, that being true, it does not alleviate me from any possible concern and desire to state my opinion about an overall approach of the brand under Ricoh's management.
It is wanting, it is still very immature, and there is no more good enough reason to act like that.

---------- Post added 05-19-2014 at 11:06 AM ----------

Ever heard of the flaw in Canon EOS 1D Mk III's autofocus design and the time it took Canon to admit, then fix it?

Was it less that 5-8 years? If it was, then they are Formula 1 compared to Pentax issues.

[MMVIII]

Come on, a lot of polemics and internet experts bs.. You all are probably aware that an IP designation can be given only to a closed system, like a compact camera with fixed lens or a (smart)phone and that it is valid only if all flaps and doors are closed (no surprise). This is the reason why a camera with an opening the size of a K-mount can neither be tested nor named under any IP-conditions, too many variables. The manufacturer can say "we did our best to avoid water and dust to enter the camera, but if it does we have no chance to be sure there was no accident or user error, sorry," and therefore can not guarantee to cover such cases under warranty. Even IP certified closed sytems claim the same: trust us, that water leaks should be banned to a certain degree, but when they happen, which should be a magnitude less often the case than with non sealed tools, we will not guarantee they are covered. Seems fair enough to me, or how would you like to have a "full/more reassuring" statement?