Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
12-15-2016, 10:23 PM   #241
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
RobA_Oz's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Tasmania, Australia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 5,279
QuoteOriginally posted by thibs Quote
Mmm it is a totally different system indeed but may I remind some of you that Tamron DOES have MF design although quite old.

Does Bronica brings any souvenir?
If you are of the school of thought that mirrorless requires a short(er) registration distance, then regardless of the age of any MF film lenses (except perhaps for those for the Fuji and Bronica rangefinders) you're still going to require adapters for most of them. If not, then any Pentax MF mirrorless could stick with the 645 lenses. There is something to be said for the square box format, when it comes to handling a MF camera, especially if you have a light weight body, as mirrorless might give us, and a hefty lens attached to it.


Last edited by RobA_Oz; 12-16-2016 at 06:16 AM.
12-16-2016, 12:09 AM - 1 Like   #242
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Feb 2015
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 6,023
The only thing that K-01 lacked IMO was an EVF because LV wasn't great for outdoor shooting especially in sunny weather. I'd love to see a metal finish version of the K1 without mirror, without tilt screen and pentaprism replaced by EVF, for shooting with primes. The K1 body itself isn't that large, it's usually the lenses that make it large.C'mon Ricoh, make a vintage K1 with EVF and a bunch of metal finish optically stunning primes.
12-16-2016, 12:56 AM   #243
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Romania
Posts: 11,526
Most of the MILCs don't have an EVF, yet they're received differently.
12-16-2016, 02:32 AM   #244
Veteran Member
zoolander's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Gold Coast
Photos: Albums
Posts: 346
QuoteOriginally posted by Kunzite Quote
Really? I think it's awful.
Well Sigma's gone past were heavily criticized for being useless, itty-bitty buffers, atrocious high ISO ....I think TCS described ISO 400 as having the quality of newsprint. Along comes the much larger, more purposeful looking quattro, looking like the equivalent of an AR15 for the camera world .......But, it is once again another flop, with horrendously poor performance. A high tech digital camera should look like a piece of modern machinery, and not like a fashion accessory .......IMO. It should look like something from Star Wars.

QuoteOriginally posted by D1N0 Quote
Originally posted by zoolander
Dude, face facts the Marc Newson design was disgusting.
You are calling something totally subjective a fact. That makes you an idiot in my book.
Dude, I'd buy a K-01 for the right price. In fact I nearly bought one ........but its an ugly camera that I have been interested to buy. I have a little Fujifilm camera, its a plastic little box with zero style. They can wrap those little Fuji's in black, White, Blue, Tan and Red leather and they still look stupid ...... IMO ......but I own one.

To say that a camera is ugly does not make a person an idiot, and nor is it subjective. If attractiveness is subjective, then why do Master Chefs heavily pursue the aesthetic when they present food on a plate. Aesthetics is not a subjective matter, it is an innate component of the human psyche.

Calling me an idiot is not allowed on this forum, no personal attacks are allowed.

QuoteOriginally posted by mecrox Quote
Ah, so they thought olde gold is still gold and the rest is history. In that case the answer is clear. No need for Marc Newson and Jony Ive to design a new mirrorless generation. Call for Fred Flintstone and Barney Rubble I suspect that the soooo smooth, rather over-designed work of Newson and Ive puts off as many people as it attracts so a more "rugged" take by Flinstone & Rubble Designers Inc. might well appeal anyway.
Marc Newson underdesigned the camera ......he is a minimalist in terms of his design. Most people would prefer MORE buttons and dials for functionality purposes. Given, there is such a thing as too many buttons and dials.

My Fuji one could say, could have been the product of Fred Flintstone or Barney Rubble.........if they got their hands on a plastic injection moulding machine (very tacky and rough faux leather in a plastic finish).

12-16-2016, 03:37 AM   #245
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Vylen's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Sydney, Australia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,260
QuoteOriginally posted by zoolander Quote
To say that a camera is ugly does not make a person an idiot, and nor is it subjective. If attractiveness is subjective, then why do Master Chefs heavily pursue the aesthetic when they present food on a plate. Aesthetics is not a subjective matter, it is an innate component of the human psyche.
Beauty (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

TL;DR attractiveness/aesthetics is subjective and objective depending on philosophical standpoint.

I like the camera, I don't think it's ugly.

In the same way that my father considers the actress Meghan Markle to be ugly, I find her quite attractive.
12-16-2016, 03:52 AM   #246
Pentaxian
D1N0's Avatar

Join Date: May 2012
Location: ---
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 5,517
QuoteOriginally posted by zoolander Quote
To say that a camera is ugly does not make a person an idiot, and nor is it subjective. If attractiveness is subjective, then why do Master Chefs heavily pursue the aesthetic when they present food on a plate. Aesthetics is not a subjective matter, it is an innate component of the human psyche.
It is subjective. And I said calling something ugly as a fact is idiotic. Ugliness is always subjective. I don't find the K-01 ugly, I find it nifty. I don't really care about food aesthetics either. It's another mans hobby. So what master chef finds beautiful I find a tiny scrap of food, where is the rest of it? Let's go to a real restaurant next time and get more food for less dough and no hassle. The Sigma Quattro SD looks like a Franksteincamera to me. A box with a tube stuck on stapled to a grip. A Viewfinder stuck somewhere on top without really caring were.
12-16-2016, 04:25 AM   #247
Veteran Member
zoolander's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Gold Coast
Photos: Albums
Posts: 346
QuoteOriginally posted by Vylen Quote
Beauty (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

TL;DR attractiveness/aesthetics is subjective and objective depending on philosophical standpoint.

I like the camera, I don't think it's ugly.

In the same way that my father considers the actress Meghan Markle to be ugly, I find her quite attractive.
Well assuming that your father is a royalist, I'd say his dislike for Meghan is based on a political standpoint because she is an American and not British. She is clearly attractive. He would probably prefer that Prince Harry hook up with some British blue blood rather than being with a half white (Dutch and Irish) and African American woman.

The 5 Laws of Attraction | Laws of Attraction

Attraction in psychology stems partly from biology. I am a male, and I like cars which have curves that are reminiscent to the shape of a woman's body. When cameras are curvey they might appeal to the male psyche because they have attributes of a woman's body. However, males also like masculine designs of steel like what we see with machine guns ....they generally do not have any feminine elements. They are machines designed to kill and are attractive to some of the base instincts of the male psyche.

These retro designed cameras seem to appeal to males because they have that polished metal look wrapped with leather - or the skin of an animal - and that appeals to the basic male psyche. For females, they might be attracted to the retro camera because it has become fashionable, and that certain "era's" in style are important to the female psyche. Younger men might be attracted to the retro-look cameras because they are into fashion, and these are the characters whom are labelled hipsters ........young men who try to be fashionable first, putting form ahead of function. So the young male hipster bases his attraction to a camera based on social reasoning, so's he is accepted within his social group, rather than relying on his basic sexual instincts.

This leaves the K-01 in the art deco style which probably appeals to a more androgynous psyche ......... Smooth straight lines, and curves that are neither feminine nor masculine.

Looking at my K-3, it looks like a male camera, its metal, its tough, its angular and curvey at the same time - it looks tough. Looking at a Porsche 993 GT2 it looks like a hot woman with sexy sumptuous lines, hips and almost having breasts - but it still looks tough. The K-01 is neither here nor there, and thats why it did not appeal to the broader heterosexual audience. But the people who do use it really like it as a camera.

Attraction is not subjective, it is largely biological, and then also needs to be socially acceptable. Social psychology has identified this long ago.
12-16-2016, 04:35 AM   #248
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Vylen's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Sydney, Australia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,260
QuoteOriginally posted by zoolander Quote
Well assuming that your father is a royalist, I'd say his dislike for Meghan is based on a political standpoint because she is an American and not British. She is clearly attractive. He would probably prefer that Prince Harry hook up with some British blue blood rather than being with a half white (Dutch and Irish) and African American woman.
Nope, cause my father wasn't born here and couldn't give two-hoots about the monarchy or republican movement.

But that's a different topic altogether.

It doesn't matter if you want to play around with semantics or go into psychology/biology instead of philosophy, your opinion or unattractiveness to an inanimate object can differ from others and so calling the design disgusting and labelling it a fact is not the right approach.

12-16-2016, 04:35 AM   #249
Veteran Member
zoolander's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Gold Coast
Photos: Albums
Posts: 346
QuoteOriginally posted by D1N0 Quote
It is subjective. And I said calling something ugly as a fact is idiotic. Ugliness is always subjective. I don't find the K-01 ugly, I find it nifty. I don't really care about food aesthetics either. It's another mans hobby. So what master chef finds beautiful I find a tiny scrap of food, where is the rest of it? Let's go to a real restaurant next time and get more food for less dough and no hassle. The Sigma Quattro SD looks like a Franksteincamera to me. A box with a tube stuck on stapled to a grip. A Viewfinder stuck somewhere on top without really caring were.
Well next when you're at Mcdonald's looking at the menu, you'll notice how the pictures present the food in all its glorious perfectness. Yet when you open up your grease covered box Big Mac, you find its flopped over with ingredients misaligned, and it doesn't look nowhere near as appetizing as the one on the menu board.

Like I said, attractiveness is not subjective, it is biological and social. Social psychology identified this long ago. read my previous comment.

---------- Post added 12-16-16 at 09:42 PM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by Vylen Quote
It doesn't matter if you want to play around with semantics or go into psychology/biology instead of philosophy, your opinion or unattractiveness to an inanimate object can differ from others and so calling the design disgusting and labelling it a fact is not the right approach.
I'm sorry, when did philosophy beat the SCIENCE of Social Psychology ........... when did this happen ? Maybe I was off flying around the galaxy in my galactic space ship shooting aliens, and people back on earth started putting philosophy ahead of the sciences ! Industrial Design is a science at the engineering department in University champ ! And not at the philosophy department !
12-16-2016, 04:45 AM   #250
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Vylen's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Sydney, Australia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,260
QuoteOriginally posted by zoolander Quote
I'm sorry, when did philosophy beat the SCIENCE of Social Psychology ........... when did this happen ? Maybe I was off flying around the galaxy in my galactic space ship shooting aliens, and people back on earth started putting philosophy ahead of the sciences ! Industrial Design is a science at the engineering department in University champ ! And not at the philosophy department !
Hey champ, you're talking to an engineer, who happens to be posting on a forum about the art of photography. Thank about that.
12-16-2016, 04:48 AM - 1 Like   #251
Pentaxian
D1N0's Avatar

Join Date: May 2012
Location: ---
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 5,517
QuoteOriginally posted by zoolander Quote
Well next when you're at Mcdonald's looking at the menu, you'll notice how the pictures present the food in all its glorious perfectness. Yet when you open up your grease covered box Big Mac, you find its flopped over with ingredients misaligned, and it doesn't look nowhere near as appetizing as the one on the menu board.

Like I said, attractiveness is not subjective, it is biological and social. Social psychology identified this long ago. read my previous comment.
Social psychology is not hard science. it is very subjective and easily manipulated in accordance with ones views. Just because there is a convergence on what the general public finds beautiful doesn't mean it is an objective fact. It is a culturally determined perception. So if a camera doesn't look like other cameras people view it as ugly because it doesn't live up to their expectations what a camera should look like. Not objective at all but prejudice.
12-16-2016, 05:10 AM   #252
Veteran Member
zoolander's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Gold Coast
Photos: Albums
Posts: 346
QuoteOriginally posted by Vylen Quote
Hey champ, you're talking to an engineer, who happens to be posting on a forum about the art of photography. Thank about that.
Yes yes everybody is an "engineer" on Pentax forums. I will "Thank" about it for zero seconds ...... chuckling !
12-16-2016, 05:13 AM - 1 Like   #253
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Vylen's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Sydney, Australia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,260
QuoteOriginally posted by zoolander Quote
Yes yes everybody is an "engineer" on Pentax forums. I will "Thank" about it for zero seconds ...... chuckling !
UNSW graduate with a Bachelors of Engineering, First Class Honours... quite proud of it really.

Regardless, we are arguing over a single statement you made
QuoteOriginally posted by zoolander Quote
Dude, face facts the Marc Newson design was disgusting.
That's definitely something to think about.
12-16-2016, 05:16 AM   #254
Veteran Member
zoolander's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Gold Coast
Photos: Albums
Posts: 346
QuoteOriginally posted by D1N0 Quote
Social psychology is not hard science. it is very subjective and easily manipulated in accordance with ones views. Just because there is a convergence on what the general public finds beautiful doesn't mean it is an objective fact. It is a culturally determined perception. So if a camera doesn't look like other cameras people view it as ugly because it doesn't live up to their expectations what a camera should look like. Not objective at all but prejudice.
Yes yes Social Psychology is just hocus-pocus and based on prejudice .......yeah good one ! Yeah they use the scientific method, and use experiments with repeatable outcomes etc etc Yeah there's nothing "sciencey" to it, its all based on opinion and prejudice ! How much beer and liquor are we drinking tonight ?
12-16-2016, 05:18 AM   #255
Pentaxian
D1N0's Avatar

Join Date: May 2012
Location: ---
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 5,517
QuoteOriginally posted by zoolander Quote
Yes yes Social Psychology is just hocus-pocus and based on prejudice .......yeah good one ! Yeah they use the scientific method, and use experiments with repeatable outcomes etc etc Yeah there's nothing "sciencey" to it, its all based on opinion and prejudice ! How much beer and liquor are we drinking tonight ?
I have just banned you to my ignore list where you belong with the other trolls.
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!
body, camera, display, engineering, evf, fuji, grip, hoodman, illumination, k-01, k-30, k1000, lcd, lenses, light, mirror, mirrorless, mode, ovf, pentax, pentax mirrorless camera, pentax news, pentax rumors, press, release, ricoh, sensor, success
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Lens Size Comparison between Mirrorless and dSLRs interested_observer Non-Pentax Cameras: Canon, Nikon, etc. 16 09-28-2016 05:03 AM
For Sale - Sold: Pentax K-01 Mirrorless Camera Fat Albert Sold Items 3 07-03-2015 06:45 PM
Some Thoughts on the K-01 and Mirrorless From Pentax Biro Pentax Mirrorless Cameras 108 06-25-2014 03:20 PM
New K-01 mirrorless camera coming Mister Horrible Pentax News and Rumors 2067 02-21-2012 09:09 PM
Pentax k-x and Pentax k1000 (old camera) question huskies4ever Pentax DSLR Discussion 14 08-23-2010 08:48 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:23 AM. | 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