Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
07-04-2014, 09:56 PM   #46
Banned




Join Date: May 2010
Location: Back to my Walkabout Creek
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,541
QuoteOriginally posted by Aristophanes Quote
The problems is that even multi-feature DSLRs have to come down in price...a lot. The whole retro thing with the Df is, frankly, a failure.

APS-C should be smaller. I have read the Canon SL1 sells quite well. It is the right price point and is compact. Well, Pentax has some nice compacts primes selling at decent profit to pair up with a compact DSLR. Then they have another DSLR called the K-3 for the top zooms and long glass primes. I'd dumpy the K-500 and make a mini. At some point the K-3 and K-50 will merge because the price points will be so close together.
Somewhere Pentax will and must answer the mirrorless paradigm; at least equal it in some way in terms of perceived size and shape of the camera. The K-x design will not do it completely. To some extent yes, but not entirely.

It is about perception problem, not about facts. People in general have a perception problem caused by hype and not facts, and to many of them, the T1 from Fujifilm is "small" and "walk around" because it is mirrorless, but it is not a small camera at all.

So in fact Pentax has two tasks to perform: come with a
1. clearly small DSLR (smaller than K50, so something like Canon SL1 you mentioned) to compare it favourably with smallest DSLR of today, and
2. with an alternative (flatter) camera form to compare it favourably to APS-C mirrorless cameras of today.

So it is not about "going retro", but matching the shape and perception of the current stock of mirrorless from Fujifilm, Sony, Leica, Olympus and preserving the mount. They have gone "retro" (rangefinder style) because such design makes a camera universally small, no matter what technology. So again we talk about another perception problem: it is not "retro" per se, but designing about logically smallest footprint and a shape, and a rangefinder shape offers that. Also SLR shape from 1960's- to 1980's is similar (almost identical) to that style.

If it succeeds in both mentioned above, Pentax will have some nice times ahead and the DA Limiteds will indeed make much more sense than today. Even sales may increase because finally there is a couple of bodies made for small lenses. But with a full magnesium alloy 800+ grams K-3, the need for quality zooms is more logical.

And IMHO, that task is even more important than an FF project. I do hope Pentax engineers have been very, very busy.


Last edited by Uluru; 07-04-2014 at 10:13 PM.
07-04-2014, 10:53 PM   #47
JPT
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Tokyo
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,235
QuoteOriginally posted by Uluru Quote
Somewhere Pentax will and must answer the mirrorless paradigm; at least equal it in some way in terms of perceived size and shape of the camera. The K-x design will not do it completely. To some extent yes, but not entirely.

It is about perception problem, not about facts. People in general have a perception problem caused by hype and not facts, and to many of them, the T1 from Fujifilm is "small" and "walk around" because it is mirrorless, but it is not a small camera at all.

So in fact Pentax has two tasks to perform: come with a
1. clearly small DSLR (smaller than K50, so something like Canon SL1 you mentioned) to compare it favourably with smallest DSLR of today, and
2. with an alternative (flatter) camera form to compare it favourably to APS-C mirrorless cameras of today.

So it is not about "going retro", but matching the shape and perception of the current stock of mirrorless from Fujifilm, Sony, Leica, Olympus and preserving the mount. They have gone "retro" (rangefinder style) because such design makes a camera universally small, no matter what technology. So again we talk about another perception problem: it is not "retro" per se, but designing about logically smallest footprint and a shape, and a rangefinder shape offers that. Also SLR shape from 1960's- to 1980's is similar (almost identical) to that style.

If it succeeds in both mentioned above, Pentax will have some nice times ahead and the DA Limiteds will indeed make much more sense than today. Even sales may increase because finally there is a couple of bodies made for small lenses. But with a full magnesium alloy 800+ grams K-3, the need for quality zooms is more logical.

And IMHO, that task is even more important than an FF project. I do hope Pentax engineers have been very, very busy.
I agree with this completely and just to visualise the concept, I'll post this picture, which I showed in another thread.



One thing though, Uluru. When you say they "will" do this, do you have any reason to believe this beyond thinking it would be a good idea? Not trying to criticise - I just find that sort of comment hard to interpret. I'd like to believe it.
07-05-2014, 01:40 AM   #48
Pentaxian
RonHendriks1966's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2009
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,714
QuoteOriginally posted by Aristophanes Quote
What is missing for Pentax is a smaller DLSR, at least as small as the K-x.

Pair that with the DA Ltd lenses and you'd have a very good second body to a K-3. They might need to drop the AA batteries (groan) and lose the dual-dials from the K-50, but something with a control set more like the Ricoh GR and Tav mode using the 16MP sensor would be excellent value.

The reason why the K-x sold so well was its size and value. This is how DSLRs can compete, especially tapping an existing user base where a second or back up body is a complement.
Well here is a problem.

Pentax has made some things and uses them over generations of camera's:
- Then AA battery holder is one thing they made and probably want to use for a few more years.
- The Flu-Card is something we keep looking at for some generations
- The GPS thing seperate we won't loose.

The K-500 is probably an easy product for manufacturing, so not that big a deal. A new smaller dslr would be great. If it really should be a pair with the K-3 then I would like to see a version with the same D-LI90 inside.
07-05-2014, 03:09 AM   #49
Veteran Member




Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: N.E. Ohio
Posts: 535
QuoteOriginally posted by RonHendriks1966 Quote
Well here is a problem.

Pentax has made some things and uses them over generations of camera's:
- Then AA battery holder is one thing they made and probably want to use for a few more years.
- The Flu-Card is something we keep looking at for some generations
- The GPS thing seperate we won't loose.

The K-500 is probably an easy product for manufacturing, so not that big a deal. A new smaller dslr would be great. If it really should be a pair with the K-3 then I would like to see a version with the same D-LI90 inside.
Actually, no DSLR is "an easy product for manufacturing". Not even close: They are anachronistically labor intensive to assemble and adjust; they use FAR too many parts and a comically diverse number of different screw types to stick all those parts together... in short, they are a 1960's, 1970's design concept well out of step with modern manufacturing techniques and materials. The Nikon 1 cameras are said to use 1/10 the parts count of their low end DSLRs (you may have noticed that Nikon keeps trying to get DSLR prices for these things... until the fire sale; but that's another story). We're now in the era of computer file controlled "additive manufacturing", not the screw 'em together era. The writing's already on the wall for this one. It has nothing to do with what I may or may not like personally. That is the main thing wrong with them in the 21st Century.

No, I wouldn't care to attempt any predictions about the world running out of recruitable, trainable third-world-cheap labor. China has been for some time too expensive for most of this activity, and the cameras still get made. Maybe in 15 years we will, or someone will, still be buying DSLRs still highly reminiscent of today's -- assembled in the Central African Republic, perhaps. But I have my doubts.

Maybe our cherished DSLRs will live on somewhere... like Ladas (a.k.a., Fiat 124's) in the Soviet Union. And I wouldn't doubt that Leica priced old school DSLRs might have some future as a niche "retro" product. But economic factors are going to decide this one, not any opinion of mine. I just bought a DSLR, because at this time, it -- or the K3 in particular -- remained in front for delivering the best and most completely realized picture making device for the buck, which is adequately attuned to my needs. Adequate. But honestly, there's nothing it can do that can't be done in a 21st Century-attuned form.

Both Nikon and Pentax have hinted at "changes" or "surprises". Nikon has publically declared their imaging business "no growth", so they are diversifying. Tweaking the conventional DSLR to retain something like its current market share would not seem to be a viable strategy for very long. Maybe its just easier for me, as a semi-retired industrial design pro, to envision something like where this has gotta go. I certainly understand that neither Nikon nor Ricoh Imaging will be asking me, as an "enthusiast", where they need to go next.


Last edited by Kayaker-J; 07-05-2014 at 09:47 AM.
07-05-2014, 06:45 AM   #50
Pentaxian
D1N0's Avatar

Join Date: May 2012
Location: ---
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 4,266
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Kayaker-J Quote
Actually, no DSLR is "an easy product for manufacturing
What Ron Means is that the K-500 is basically a K-50 with weathersealing and VF led left out. A smaller dslr would have to be developed and produced separately, which would be more costly.
07-05-2014, 09:29 AM   #51
Veteran Member




Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: N.E. Ohio
Posts: 535
QuoteOriginally posted by D1N0 Quote
What Ron Means is that the K-500 is basically a K-50 with weathersealing and VF led left out. A smaller dslr would have to be developed and produced separately, which would be more costly.
Oh, yes, I get that, D1N0. I just have an alternative view. In that one, the real question, I suggest -- for all of us -- is not, "What should, or will, Pentax's next micro-market-share consumer level DSLR look like?" The question, as I see it, is more like, "O.K., Ricoh... are you going to be a genuine player, one that 98% of the camera buying public can't keep largely ignoring... or aren't you?"

I'll qualify that by saying that Pentax does enjoy a stronger position in other markets than the U.S. This factor will come to swamp some very provincial ideas I see regularly on PF, as the Asian middle class burgeons. The numbers just say so. Unlike a lot of Americans, I view this as an opportunity. ☺

You see, I think making just a conventionally "improved" K50/K500, economizing on parts, may in fact turn out to be the "more costly" option. At some point, more sooner than later, it will be, I am sure. I cannot predict confidently that THIS is the time. But I don't see what rationale there is to postpone making the right decisions.

If Ricoh doesn't step up and force people to pay attention -- and in particular, the blogging & published reviewers who mostly never seem to "get" System Pentax (and I can understand why) -- then nothing much will change. Or that "doomed" business will start to look less like an in-joke. If Pentax had 3x the marketing budget to put to the task, it still would be unlikely to materially change those "pull out the plastic" perspectives with just another "It's better than Canon, really!" DSLR. The big reason can be simply stated -- market share is the big thing, a powerful thing; and smart, successful companies protect their market share at almost any sane cost, even taking losses for years on end selling their goods and services at unsustainable (even negative) margins. This is a tough game now -- not for the timid, not for the unimaginative.

Take this example: The CEO of Panasonic has publically declared that any division of theirs that doesn't show sustained profit margins approaching approximately 6% is destined for the axe. Looking at industry data and the corporate reports, it does not appear to "expert" business analysts with long connections to the camera industry that Panasonic is making any net profit worth citing in imaging. I'm not talking about scattershot editorial bs-ers filling some info-tainment spot at the 'Wall Street Journal'. What would you think if you woke up one morning to read "Panasonic to Exit Camera Business"? Would you be shocked? The CEO has already told you, you shouldn't be.

Naturally, many enthusiasts will stagger to a chair, and then protest loudly, "But I LOVE my GH-4. It's a GREAT camera!" And the only sensible response at that point is, "So what? ...But you go have fun." There's this point I'm having a hard time getting across in the forums. I can't skirt over the business perspective when it comes to discerning the future of a consumer gadget, even in a thread like this. I try to cool down too much rhetoric from the enthusiast's perspective, because the latter is mostly a given here, and it's predictable enough. AS an enthusiast, I take the ultimate in a humble position -- they are not listening to me! Enthusiasts need to understand their niche group position.

Some forum folks (not pointing at you, D1N0) need to let it sink in a bit more that D5300 and lower tier camera buyers, from any manufacturer, simply don't purchase many lenses. And the camera is just a tool for most of them after the initial giddiness of purchase has passed. The telling question here is, what do they REALLY want? In the case of Nikon (just to give us a large sample with well-established buying habits), about 1 in 5 such consumers ever buy ONE more optic beyond the kit lens that came with the camera. So, YOU, card carrying Pentaxian, bought an FA77mm Limited AND the DA 35mm macro? For your K50? Well, so...? Anecdotes are not evidence and you are not a statistically valid sample. I didn't make that up. Why should fledgling Pentaxians be any different? I don't see how they can be -- especially those PROSPECTIVE customers the new camera is supposed to attract. Disagree? Then show me your data. Fair enough?

So my two cents is, you can't NOT take the long view. Other competitors (smartphones, and whatever's on the way next) have proven much quicker to respond to, and LEAD with promotion, what consumers really want and will want in the way of lifestyle gadgets. I think the big picture is what counts. The major camera manufacturers have plainly painted themselves into a corner. I understand that this is a minority (yep, very)... "alternative" perspective among Pentax enthusiasts on the Forum. Your humble, enthusiastic servant, F. 😉

Last edited by Kayaker-J; 07-05-2014 at 11:29 AM.
07-05-2014, 09:43 AM   #52
mee
Pentaxian




Join Date: May 2010
Photos: Albums
Posts: 5,873
I agree.

I suspect most entry level DSLR buyers (momtogs and the sort) never switch from the kit lens.. perhaps a 50mm plasticfantastic.. as the IQ is already better than the smartphone or small P+S camera. Plus it looks important.. that big camera.

Most entry level photographers don't even realize there is a difference between lenses.. in terms of image quality. And it makes sense they think this since they've been using fixed lens cameras for decades before that.. iPhone, Galaxy, P+S.. etc. So they come from a background of only having one option. Why would I spend 800 dollars on a lens when I spent 500-600 on the dSLR kit to begin with? It already has a lens!

The only issue I have is the mirrorless folk's desire to shrink the camera body and then consider it a smaller system overall. I mean physics shows that the properties of the world in which we live dictates conventional lens size. So, while the body of the camera might be shrinking tremendously, the lens is only minorly shrinking.

I was looking at Compact systems last night and was amazed that even the primes (outside of a few pancakes) were either as large or larger than the camera body. I don't see the point in that. It isn't pocketable.. it is just smaller than the traditional DSLR. So we went from adult sized to teenager sized. Teenagers are in an awkward phase of not being children (small) and not being adults (big). Strange.
07-05-2014, 10:02 AM   #53
Pentaxian
JimmyDranox's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Ploiesti, Romania
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,607
QuoteOriginally posted by Kayaker-J Quote
Actually, no DSLR is "an easy product for manufacturing". Not even close: They are anachronistically labor intensive to assemble and adjust; they use FAR too many parts and a comically diverse number of different screw types to stick all those parts together... in short, they are a 1960's, 1970's design concept well out of step with modern manufacturing techniques and materials. The Nikon 1 cameras are said to use 1/10 the parts count of their low end DSLRs (you may have noticed that Nikon keeps trying to get DSLR prices for these things... until the fire sale; but that's another story). We're now in the era of computer file controlled "additive manufacturing", not the screw 'em together era. The writing's already on the wall for this one. It has nothing to do with what I may or may not like personally. That is the main thing wrong with them in the 21st Century.

No, I wouldn't care to attempt any predictions about the world running out of recruitable, trainable third-world-cheap labor. China has been for some time too expensive for most of this activity, and the cameras still get made. Maybe in 15 years we will, or someone will, still be buying DSLRs still highly reminiscent of today's -- assembled in the Central African Republic, perhaps. But I have my doubts.

Maybe our cherished DSLRs will live on somewhere... like Ladas (a.k.a., Fiat 124's) in the Soviet Union. And I wouldn't doubt that Leica priced old school DSLRs might have some future as a niche "retro" product. But economic factors are going to decide this one, not any opinion of mine. I just bought a DSLR, because at this time, it -- or the K3 in particular -- remained in front for delivering the best and most completely realized picture making device for the buck, which is adequately attuned to my needs. Adequate. But honestly, there's nothing it can do that can't be done in a 21st-attuned form.

Both Nikon and Pentax have hinted at "changes" or "surprises". Nikon has publically declared their imaging business "no growth", so they are diversifying. Tweaking the conventional DSLR to retain something like its current market share would not seem to be a viable strategy for very long. Maybe its just easier for me, as a semi-retired industrial design pro, to envision something like where this has gotta go. I certainly understand that neither Nikon nor Ricoh Imaging will be asking me, as an "enthusiast", where they need to go next.
Yes, DSLR are not easy to manufacture, and they are somehow anachronistically labor intensive in this age. But, besides technological and economical factors there are two factors involved in this field hat are usually ignored. Ergonomics and optics.

1. Ergonomics. I remember that before the smartphone age, there was some years when manufacturers think that they can make smaller and smaller mobile phones. Until they saw that the costumers cannot use them properly, just because the small size.

2. Optics. The resolution of a lens is strictly proportional to the diameter. And until some new optics laws will be discovered, if a camera needs more resolution, the bigger the lens must be. So, take a 1,4 kg lens, like a 70-200mm f2.8, and mount it on a small mirrorless camera, and use it handheld. Not to mention bigger lenses. In this context, what's the point of a small camera, when you have to mount a big lens on it? From my point of view, a compact camera makes more sens then some of this small cameras, if you don't need high resolution. And the sales in America and Europe tell the same story. Not even in Asia, where people are somehow smaller, mirrorless don't pass in front of DSLR.

07-05-2014, 10:47 AM   #54
Veteran Member




Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: N.E. Ohio
Posts: 535
I don't believe I made any particular reference to small body size, per se, as something I'm after (if there's some confusion I've left behind). Lens size -- that's another story. True it may be, in the sense that most consumers might want "too small", then the rest of us might have to accept too small... if that realization isn't just a deal-breaker. I've always agreed with those who have found the NEXes, et.al., too small and not ergonomic. I'm an actual pro designer who simply insists, unsurprisingly, on excellence in design. And I may be 60+, but I insist, at least as a principle, on progressive, bang up-to-date design concepts. Simple.

I don't think we have any disagreement about ergonomics.

P.S.- Here's an example to consider. The K-01 got roundly criticized for being too fat and having a vestigial mirror box... when there's no mirror! O.K., not to defend that, but how many people simply missed grasping the fact that the K-01 is much easier to stow, and pull in and out of a compact bag, than is a K-30/K-50? Why not just get the DSLR? Well, there's one reason, for some folks (to whom I expect the 4 or 5 ounce weight savings is not a trivial matter, either).

Last edited by Kayaker-J; 07-05-2014 at 11:02 AM.
07-05-2014, 11:01 AM   #55
Site Supporter
Aristophanes's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Dartmouth, Nova Scotia
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,913
QuoteOriginally posted by Uluru Quote
Somewhere Pentax will and must answer the mirrorless paradigm; at least equal it in some way in terms of perceived size and shape of the camera. The K-x design will not do it completely. To some extent yes, but not entirely.

It is about perception problem, not about facts. People in general have a perception problem caused by hype and not facts, and to many of them, the T1 from Fujifilm is "small" and "walk around" because it is mirrorless, but it is not a small camera at all.

So in fact Pentax has two tasks to perform: come with a
1. clearly small DSLR (smaller than K50, so something like Canon SL1 you mentioned) to compare it favourably with smallest DSLR of today, and
2. with an alternative (flatter) camera form to compare it favourably to APS-C mirrorless cameras of today.

So it is not about "going retro", but matching the shape and perception of the current stock of mirrorless from Fujifilm, Sony, Leica, Olympus and preserving the mount. They have gone "retro" (rangefinder style) because such design makes a camera universally small, no matter what technology. So again we talk about another perception problem: it is not "retro" per se, but designing about logically smallest footprint and a shape, and a rangefinder shape offers that. Also SLR shape from 1960's- to 1980's is similar (almost identical) to that style.

If it succeeds in both mentioned above, Pentax will have some nice times ahead and the DA Limiteds will indeed make much more sense than today. Even sales may increase because finally there is a couple of bodies made for small lenses. But with a full magnesium alloy 800+ grams K-3, the need for quality zooms is more logical.

And IMHO, that task is even more important than an FF project. I do hope Pentax engineers have been very, very busy.
I think that is the role of the Ricoh GR and whatever the GXR morphs into.

Please keep in mind that the sales of higher-end mirrorless are not exactly stellar. Fuji moved to the XT-1 away from the rangefinder shape to garner more sales. The DSLR form factor is simply more versatile and easier to use.

There wis room i the market for bot DSLRs and mirrorless. Less of the former and more of the later.

---------- Post added 07-05-14 at 03:03 PM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by mee Quote
I was looking at Compact systems last night and was amazed that even the primes (outside of a few pancakes) were either as large or larger than the camera body. I don't see the point in that. It isn't pocketable.
The bane of the Sony NEX system. It's a pack of cigarettes next to a can of beer.

You cannot really put a can of beer in your pocket.
07-05-2014, 11:11 AM   #56
Veteran Member




Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: N.E. Ohio
Posts: 535
QuoteOriginally posted by Aristophanes Quote
I think that is the role of the Ricoh GR and whatever the GXR morphs into.

Please keep in mind that the sales of higher-end mirrorless are not exactly stellar. Fuji moved to the XT-1 away from the rangefinder shape to garner more sales. The DSLR form factor is simply more versatile and easier to use.

There wis room i the market for bot DSLRs and mirrorless. Less of the former and more of the later.

---------- Post added 07-05-14 at 03:03 PM ----------



The bane of the Sony NEX system. It's a pack of cigarettes next to a can of beer.

You cannot really put a can of beer in your pocket.
But, of course, it doesn't have to BE an SLR camera. And you are right -- the X-T1 is not the camera that is going to catch fire for Fuji. Ask me again when it's $899.

"Less of the former and more of the latter." That's the sales trend, worldwide... if you're straining to find a growth segment in the camera biz these days.

---------- Post added 07-05-14 at 02:19 PM ----------

Re: cigarettes and beer... If I may insult Sony owners further 😉... I call the A7 and A7R the "Mr. Potato Head" cameras: substitute a bar of soap for the spud, and then add the stuck-on bits. Those of a certain age will know what I'm talking about. All in good fun, folks 😇. Not by a long shot the worst, of course. But still, not excellence in design.
07-05-2014, 11:40 AM   #57
Pentaxian
JimmyDranox's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Ploiesti, Romania
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,607
QuoteOriginally posted by Kayaker-J Quote
I don't believe I made any particular reference to small body size, per se, as something I'm after (if there's some confusion I've left behind). Lens size -- that's another story. True it may be, in the sense that most consumers might want "too small", then the rest of us might have to accept too small... if that realization isn't just a deal-breaker. I've always agreed with those who have found the NEXes, et.al., too small and not ergonomic. I'm an actual pro designer who simply insists, unsurprisingly, on excellence in design. And I may be 60+, but I insist, at least as a principle, on progressive, bang up-to-date design concepts. Simple.

I don't think we have any disagreement about ergonomics.

P.S.- Here's an example to consider. The K-01 got roundly criticized for being too fat and having a vestigial mirror box... when there's no mirror! O.K., not to defend that, but how many people simply missed grasping the fact that the K-01 is much easier to stow, and pull in and out of a compact bag, than is a K-30/K-50? Why not just get the DSLR? Well, there's one reason, for some folks (to whom I expect the 4 or 5 ounce weight savings is not a trivial matter, either).
Sorry, I don't want to contradict you. I forget to write that. for this moment, a camera without mirror and mechanical shutter it must be much easy to manufacture, but there are also other factors involved.

I personally think that for a while, both systems will be on the market. because both have advantages and costumers. More so, some days ago I saw an article about a zoom optical viewfinder, developed by Fuji, if I remember well. This will be a good improvement for DSLR.
07-05-2014, 11:45 AM   #58
Site Supporter
Aristophanes's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Dartmouth, Nova Scotia
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,913
Despite the K-01 the K-mount is a DSLR mount now.

Mirrorless will likely have to be a new mount, but there is also the trend towards mirrorless NOT having interchangeable lenses.
07-05-2014, 12:12 PM   #59
Veteran Member




Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: N.E. Ohio
Posts: 535
QuoteOriginally posted by JimmyDranox Quote
Sorry, I don't want to contradict you. I forget to write that. for this moment, a camera without mirror and mechanical shutter it must be much easy to manufacture, but there are also other factors involved.

I personally think that for a while, both systems will be on the market. because both have advantages and costumers. More so, some days ago I saw an article about a zoom optical viewfinder, developed by Fuji, if I remember well. This will be a good improvement for DSLR.
Oh, I agree. I don't believe the DSLR is going away soon. That's fine for Canon and Nikon, if they can somehow manage to be "progressive" enough not to be caught with their pants around their ankles as things continue to change. Of course, by the evidence of recent history, I might be a bit concerned if I were much invested in some respect with either of them. Nikon's clogged, somewhat obsolescing inventory chain has been... ...well, let's just say the picture there has been a head-scratcher. They made a change to distribution and hinted at new plans: but this is Nikon, right? One would be shocked if one were shocked by their next move, if you catch my drift. Canon has hinted at a next big thing. We'll see.

The zoom finder thing is interesting. But then, my little Olympus Penlight, circa 2012, already does that... via EVF, of course. My main gripe about the APS-C DSLR as a user is that in no serious respect is it designed to support critical focusing of manually focused lenses -- which would include your AF lenses, in many circumstances. This is particularly irrational in the case of an image stabilized body. Let the D800 crowd set up the tripods to manually focus their 70-200mm/2.8 zooms in live view; why should K3 users have to be similarly handicapped in circumstances when AF isn't dependable enough? Don't misunderstand me -- the accommodate-the-masses status quo may not be irrational in the business sense. But I'd pay for the difference.

---------- Post added 07-05-14 at 03:27 PM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by Aristophanes Quote
Despite the K-01 the K-mount is a DSLR mount now.

Mirrorless will likely have to be a new mount, but there is also the trend towards mirrorless NOT having interchangeable lenses.
And that's fine with me. I'm thinking that to finally get the 28-32mm FF-equivalent prime lens I want in APS-C for walkaround, and for landscape plus other border-to-border IQ-critical subjects, I'm going to have to wait for a 24mp no-AA filter GRi. After the price drops by a helpful margin, of course.

Last edited by Kayaker-J; 07-05-2014 at 12:29 PM.
07-05-2014, 12:32 PM   #60
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Romania
Posts: 9,238
QuoteOriginally posted by JimmyDranox Quote
Sorry, I don't want to contradict you. I forget to write that. for this moment, a camera without mirror and mechanical shutter it must be much easy to manufacture, but there are also other factors involved.
For sure. Cheaper/easier is not always the answer, not for everyone. What do you lose in return? Perhaps something important?

I remember the ultra small phones, now the industry is moving in the opposite direction. Who can comfortably hold a 5"+ screen phone? (but, well, it's easier to read on them).
Anyway, I don't think we have to "accept too small" - we do have a saying, I'm talking about people buying the more expensive stuff. We just have to keep buying what we want, regardless of the masses

QuoteOriginally posted by JimmyDranox Quote
I personally think that for a while, both systems will be on the market. because both have advantages and costumers. More so, some days ago I saw an article about a zoom optical viewfinder, developed by Fuji, if I remember well. This will be a good improvement for DSLR.
The zoom optical viewfinder is not for SLRs, which don't need such workarounds. It's for viewfinder systems using a separate optical path - perhaps for a zoom equipped X20 or even X100s.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
beer, camera, depth, dslr, dslrs, follow, fuji, iso, k-50, k-60 rumors, k30, lenses, market, mirrorless, models, mp, ovf, pentax, pentax news, pentax rumors, perception, race, rangefinder, rumors, sales, screen, shape, sony
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
No Camera yet. Set on a K-50 though Smokinthunder1 Welcomes and Introductions 13 11-21-2013 07:42 PM
People No bad girl this year---YET charliezap Post Your Photos! 9 07-14-2012 03:07 PM
K-7 iso 3200 images: No NR, yet the faces look plastic. (11 images) pcarfan Pentax DSLR Discussion 43 08-31-2010 08:13 AM
The Ricoh GXR is no K-mount (yet?) thibs Non-Pentax Cameras: Canon, Nikon, etc. 7 11-11-2009 07:53 PM
No any rumors about NEW AF SYSTEM ogl Pentax News and Rumors 31 12-30-2007 11:08 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:35 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top