[johnmflores]

Who defined it for the dictionary? That definition is lacking. It is an age old rule, that photography is the process of image taking with a light-capturing device which is able to control aperture of light and shutter speed for exposure (duration), which is too determined by the sensitivity of the photographic medium. If you take away any of those of three, it is not photography. Word is coined photo + graphy, to clearly illustrate what is necessary for the process, which I explained above.

---------- Post added 03-15-2017 at 12:22 PM ----------



If YOU set the camera in M, S, T or A modes, YOU have set it, because YOU had an established idea of the output in which YOU decided what parameter is allowed to be pre-set, and others to change. So you have full control of set and other parameters. Even on most primitive camera obscura the sensitivity of the medium is given, pre-set.

However, using camera in full program mode (Sensitivity, Aperture and Shutter speed decided entirely by the camera) definitely is not photography, same as person who uses that mode is not photographer, but a newbie who is learning basics of framing and camera operation. If you print such an image and call it your photograph, that is lying and cheating.

Lens can be operated in any manner — operation is irrelevant as long the aperture of light can be changed. If you want, you may block/unblock lens with your hand.

Pixels or silver halide, it is not important as long as the image is transferred visible in normal light and is final.

Yes, digital image alone is not representative of the photograph; photograph must be printed on paper / surface specified by the photographer, in size determined by the photographer, so that it does not alter its appearance (as it is altered in size and representation on different screens). And it must be framed / observed as the photographer indented.

If it is observed on screen only, it is still digital negative only, which has potential to become a photograph one day if printed accordingly. So any 'digital photography challenge' we see around is in fact digital-negative challenge.

To summarise from the above, assembled for smartphone 'photography': it is lying and cheating (you controlled nothing, smartphone did it all) about digital negatives, which even if printed, will never be true photographs, and never your photographs.

I admire your asceticism and I hope that it informs your photography.

But to me, this photo taken with an iPhone is more a photograph than a cat photo taken with a 645Z and printed, mounted, and framed.

[BigMackCam]

Who defined it for the dictionary? That definition is lacking. It is an age old rule, that photography is the process of image taking with a light-capturing device which is able to control aperture of light and shutter speed for exposure (duration), which is too determined by the sensitivity of the photographic medium. If you take away any of those of three, it is not photography. Word is coined photo + graphy, to clearly illustrate what is necessary for the process, which I explained above.

---------- Post added 03-15-2017 at 12:22 PM ----------



If YOU set the camera in M, S, T or A modes, YOU have set it, because YOU had an established idea of the output in which YOU decided what parameter is allowed to be pre-set, and others to change. So you have full control of set and other parameters. Even on most primitive camera obscura the sensitivity of the medium is given, pre-set.

However, using camera in full program mode (Sensitivity, Aperture and Shutter speed decided entirely by the camera) definitely is not photography, same as person who uses that mode is not photographer, but a newbie who is learning basics of framing and camera operation. If you print such an image and call it your photograph, that is lying and cheating.

Lens can be operated in any manner — operation is irrelevant as long the aperture of light can be changed. If you want, you may block/unblock lens with your hand.

Pixels or silver halide, it is not important as long as the image is transferred visible in normal light and is final.

Yes, digital image alone is not representative of the photograph; photograph must be printed on paper / surface specified by the photographer, in size determined by the photographer, so that it does not alter its appearance (as it is altered in size and representation on different screens). And it must be framed / observed as the photographer indented.

If it is observed on screen only, it is still digital negative only, which has potential to become a photograph one day if printed accordingly. So any 'digital photography challenge' we see around is in fact digital-negative challenge.

To summarise from the above, assembled for smartphone 'photography': it is lying and cheating (you controlled nothing, smartphone did it all) about digital negatives, which even if printed, will never be true photographs, and never your photographs.

These are the highly-personal opinions and ramblings of one who seeks to elevate the worthiness of their activities above those of others, and refuses to accept the progress of technology. By turns, elitist, narcissistic, embittered and - rather interestingly - demonstrating quite remarkable insecurity. Someone, perhaps, who prefers to be judged by their understanding of a relatively-simple process, rather than the quality of their results?

A psychologist would have a field day with this...

[surfar]

Frontal lobotomy via iPhone, but can we find a photographer to perform the operation?

[MarkJerling]

I think we can get back on topic now.

[gazonk]

I think we can get back on topic now.

If there ever was a topic in this thread?

[MarkJerling]

If there ever was a topic in this thread?

Fair point.

[filmamigo]

I keep seeing this thread bumped to the top of the list and I keep hoping to read about a Pentax M-E mirrorless camera with APS-C sensor coming.

Don't judge a thread by it's title ;-)

[serothis]

Let's get this thread back on track or at least in the ball park(...am I mixing too many metaphores?)

IF Pentax made a another mirrorless here would be my wishlist:

• aps-c sensor with the obvious SR/pixel shift/astrotracer capabilities
• New mount (let's call it the ZF1-mount).
• I like the tilty screen from the k-1 but a little more tilt down would be nice.
  • Touch screen (could clear some buttons on the back)
  • OLED
• 120hz oled evf
• Weather sealed.
• wi-fi (please do it better than the k-1)
• I'd be ok with single slot SD card. (uhs-II would be nice)
• usb-c

ZF1 to k-mount adapter would need to be an early accessory.

(the below is just a bonkers idea that would be cool but I know I'm probably alone in want it)
6 dials total.
on the top would be:

• Shutter dial (with 'A' setting)
• Aperture dial (with 'A' setting)
• ISO (with 'A' setting)
• Ev comp (could be stacked under ISO dial)
• "function" dial. a dial with assignable functions (fn1, fn2, fn3, etc).
• The multi use selector dial we have on the front.

Admittedly this would get really cluttered on a small camera.

[redrockcoulee]

Let's get this thread back on track or at least in the ball park(...am I mixing too many metaphores?)

IF Pentax made a another mirrorless here would be my wishlist:

• aps-c sensor with the obvious SR/pixel shift/astrotracer capabilities
• New mount (let's call it the ZF1-mount).
• I like the tilty screen from the k-1 but a little more tilt down would be nice.
  • Touch screen (could clear some buttons on the back)
  • OLED
• 120hz oled evf
• Weather sealed.
• wi-fi (please do it better than the k-1)
• I'd be ok with single slot SD card. (uhs-II would be nice)
• usb-c

ZF1 to k-mount adapter would need to be an early accessory.

(the below is just a bonkers idea that would be cool but I know I'm probably alone in want it)
6 dials total.
on the top would be:

• Shutter dial (with 'A' setting)
• Aperture dial (with 'A' setting)
• ISO (with 'A' setting)
• Ev comp (could be stacked under ISO dial)
• "function" dial. a dial with assignable functions (fn1, fn2, fn3, etc).
• The multi use selector dial we have on the front.

Admittedly this would get really cluttered on a small camera.

I can agree with you on the wishlist. Also if mirrorless cameras take more power I would like to see it keep the same battery as the K01 and K1.

Back to off topic It is called pinhole photography and yet one cannot control the aperture size of the pinhole. Nor can you focus a pinhole camera.

[reh321]

I think we can get back on topic now.

If there ever was a topic in this thread?

With announcement of the Canon M5, I believe there are definite points to discuss, in particular, at least the following:


(1) What, if any, near-term prospects does MILC have?

My personal opinion is that MILC has a real market in three areas, some of which should be of interest to Pentax

(a) Introductory camera - many who are relatively new to photography will be open to a more compact package; my opinion is that this may threaten the economic viability of camera lines like the K-n0, so Pentax should at least have a K-02 {perhaps based on the K-70} in the wings if the M5 turns out to be more successful than the T7i.

(b) camera for dark conditions - sometimes even my K-30 can take acceptable-to-me images under conditions when the OVF gives me insufficient information for good framing, so I have to switch to LV; if I were to face that sort of thing sufficiently often, a camera with an EVF would be very tempting to me (*)

(c) camera to use with legacy lenses - an EVF works well with a lens in stopped-down condition; a K-02 could be designed so that it never opens a K-mount lens to widest aperture, but its ability to adjust gain to the EVF would still permit good framing and focusing regardless of what lens opening is set for an M42-mount or K-mount lens.


(2) What approach to MILC would work best for Pentax? We have talked some about this, but always seem to lose focus {no pun intended}. The two most obvious approaches are the K-01 approach of using a standard K-mount {perhaps just KAF4 or KAF3+KAF4, depending on target market} and the M5 approach of having a new mount with reduced register distance {and then having an adapter that would provide at least some K-mount variants};


(*) For example, I have a Sigma 10-20mm lens in my bag. Someone else might view it as just adding weight and taking up space, but when I need it, I need it; I don't usually recognize those situations in advance, and they happen just often enough that I don't begrudge that space and weight.

[monochrome]

A Mirrorless enthusiast camera has to have the best EVF possible - at least ballpark quality view of an OVF - if it is to be a Pentax. All the little electronic features have to be there (omitting one or two gives a reason to label it a typical Pentax). There has to be something unique that makes it NottaSony, whatever that is.

What would that be? 'A'-mount Limiteds? Isn't that Fuji already?


P.S. I think they have to let go of K-mount compatibility - even Adapter compatibility - so it has to be a Ricoh.

[Tony Belding]

(2) What approach to MILC would work best for Pentax? We have talked some about this, but always seem to lose focus {no pun intended}. The two most obvious approaches are the K-01 approach of using a standard K-mount {perhaps just KAF4 or KAF3+KAF4, depending on target market} and the M5 approach of having a new mount with reduced register distance {and then having an adapter that would provide at least some K-mount variants};

My big concern here is, how many lens mounts can Pentax support? I mean, Q-mount and APS-C K-mount and Full Frame K-mount and 645 mount. . . and then add yet another? The Q system has already languished for a long time while Pentax are busy with other things.

[reh321]

My big concern here is, how many lens mounts can Pentax support? I mean, Q-mount and APS-C K-mount and Full Frame K-mount and 645 mount. . . and then add yet another? The Q system has already languished for a long time while Pentax are busy with other things.

That's one of the reasons I suggested that providing a KAF3 or even KAF4 mount might make sense, depending on which use they're targeting.

[Mr Bassie]

I'm not sure making a new mount makes sense. It will stretch the limited resources of Pentax even further.

I just want a K mount camera with a great EVF. I have grown to like the WYSIWYG aspect of an EVF. Also focus peaking is great for my old manual focus lenses. I have trouble manual focusing a DSLR, they just aren't made for it.

The size is not such an issue for me. You can see many of the new pro-level mirrorless cameras are getting to be quite large. It is the EVF that is the primary benefit, so why not have that option available for those who want it?

Also 4K video would be great to have as well.

[serothis]

I'm in the latter group. Backwards compatibility can often mean great things but it intrinsically means compromise. We have to use old AF systems; we have us old data connect systems; we have to use the old flange distance; etc.

A new mount means clean slate. It can be designed to do anything a designer wants with minimal restrictions.

The most obviously is the flange distance. Using the K-mount means incorporating the same physical body characteristics, like the flange distance, into the body of the camera body. A new mount means you can redefine the flange distance and thus physical body characteristics.

A new mount also means much more potential for new electrical contract design. For example, panasonic uses a combination of in-body and in lens image stabilization to do incredible things. This would require more data transfer between lens and camera body.

If Pentax put accelerometers in the end of the lens that could mean more accurate measurements on the movement of the camera body and ultimately more accurate SR compensation. This would require more data to be transferred.

Imagine re-tuning the AF to be more accurate. Have dual systems, 1 to do large focus range changes and a second to do micro focus changes. This means more data has to be transferred.

In my opinion, if pentax does a mirrorless, they should go all-in instead of half-hearted trying to hold on to lens compatibility. They should absolutely make an adapter to use k-mount lenses but should make a new mount.