[surfar]

If they think like that, then they better quit doing what they are doing.
In reality, they should be in the business of creating passion in people, to see and interpret the world, be imaginative.
"Selling gear" is only a capitalist prerogative, a prejudice of a current economic system that has worked out a certain way of production for more money making, not necessarily to satisfy certain human needs it 'apparently' wishes to satisfy. Humans can exist without such a mode of economy, and have existed without it.

A DSLR, produced in Japan by Asahi, or a rangefinder made by Leitz, on the other hand, came out not as a sales needed to make money, but as a creative exercise in solving of a particular creative problem to develop a visual expression. Whatever new came later on, wishes to compete against the established liberal art, and imposes itself as a sales tool. It has to. Therefore modern mirrorless is sales driven, care about real human need is secondary or tertiary concern, and takes all sorts of excuses telling us that "it solves problems". No, it is [U]a stolen excuse, it is a li

People still have same old same old eyes. Are we required to pluck them out when new artificial eyes arrive?

There is no clean sheet in anything. Clean sheet mean totally destroying the old paradigm, even the memory of it. That is also a false preset of the evolutionism — just a quick glance at a complex world or different organisms around shows it is an utterly wrong view, forced by competitive and merciless capitalism, which destroys itself because it follows such a 'clean sheet view'. That is a parasitic view, but even parasites stop at a certain obstacle — when there is no enough food, or the environment is too hostile. Yet 'clean sheet' view is so irrational it itself alive.

It is destructive, as is visible from trends that arose in various forms in economy and politics from WW2 onwards. It is sustainable insofar as there is lots of propaganda and deluding of audience, and enough of 'old environment' to draw the energy from. But when the old environment is gone, gone is life too.

'Clean sheet' is too blind to see it.

Yeah,that universe you look at up there is so pure!

[Uluru]

Yeah,that universe you look at up there is so pure!

Universe is complex. People seek false happiness in it by rejecting its complexity and settling for easy euphemisms and fake promises.
Fact is that the mirrorless could not even exist as an idea today if we hadn't have SLRs and rangefinders of yesterday, and now the digital mirrorless wishes to impose itself as an evolutionary "replacement" for both. It is same or similar carelessness of a water buffalo, that cries next to a dam that its horns and muscles are the pinnacle of strength and smarts of the outback. But let it come close to a watering hole, he is snatched by a crocodile, a remnant of a world we think it's long gone. But it's still there, lurking in depths. And the buffalo could not even survive, have food to eat or aims to digest it, without other organisms that preceded buffalo by billions of years.

Reality tells we need both technologies, or better to say, we need all sorts of available technologies and problem solving approaches, and also liberal arts approach, because not a single one is 'the fittest'. When Asahi developed an SLR, they did not treat Leitz as they were piece of garbage, as today's mirrorless fanboys treat DSLRs and everything else. In fact, parts of design and tech was exchanged, and the photographers used both. That tells that those two have developed differently, along each other, outside the post-modern merciless capitalist evolutionism that feeds on established paradigms, and then tries to nuke them in order to create 'brave new world' in its own image.

[MarkJerling]

In the same way, I fear, as various digital formats were touted as the bees knees and took over from LPs to CD's to MP4's etc, we're now seeing the humble LP making a major comeback. Why? Because it sounds better.
And so it goes with technology. Often, the latest and greatest is not that great. That's pretty much how I view EVF. EVF would need to improve a lot to come anywhere near the good old glass prism and mirror.

[RobA_Oz]

I shoot weddings and the A7II shutter is loud. Louder than the K-1 which is my primary camera.

Interesting note. I hadn't heard that before (pun unintended).

---------- Post added 8th May 2017 at 09:52 AM ----------

Yeah,that universe you look at up there is so pure!

Clear skies in the Outback - pure, but still complex.

[reh321]

Camera-makers are in the biz of selling gear. Starting and then growing a new mount, like the EOS M, is a way to sell lots of new equipment. I would not rely on the old DSLR brands to just sit there and keep iterating the same old same old. Sooner or later, they will want to start with a clean sheet if only to secure future production savings and appeal to a new generation of customers. Maybe not tomorrow but it will happen, I think.

People still have same old same old eyes. Are we required to pluck them out when new artificial eyes arrive?

There is no clean sheet in anything. Clean sheet mean totally destroying the old paradigm, even the memory of it. That is also a false preset of the evolutionism — just a quick glance at a complex world or different organisms around shows it is an utterly wrong view, forced by competitive and merciless capitalism, which destroys itself because it follows such a 'clean sheet view'. That is a parasitic view, but even parasites stop at a certain obstacle — when there is no enough food, or the environment is too hostile. Yet 'clean sheet' view is so irrational it itself alive.

It is destructive, as is visible from trends that arose in various forms in economy and politics from WW2 onwards. It is sustainable insofar as there is lots of propaganda and deluding of audience, and enough of 'old environment' to draw the energy from. But when the old environment is gone, gone is life too.

'Clean sheet' is too blind to see it.

Depends on what you mean by the expression "clean sheet". My definition is different from yours. I would use the term "clean sheet" to describe what Canon went through thirty years ago when they "abandoned" all their old users, and replaced the FD-mount by the EF-mount. I would use the term "clean sheet" to describe what Pentax went through a few years ago and introduced the Q-mount, which is much more like the EF-mount than like the K-mount. I would absolutely love it if Pentax would develop a new M-mount for mirror-less cameras - basically a grown-up version of the Q-mount - because my Q-7's in-lens leaf shutter is so incredibly quiet. They would, of course, have to provide an adapter to make use of older lenses feasible.

That isn't going to happen, but I see nothing wrong with dreaming big.

[camyum]

Universe is complex... watering hole, he is snatched by a crocodile, a remnant of a world we think it's long gone. ..buffalo could not even survive... organisms ... buffalo...
...outside the post-modern merciless capitalist evolutionism that feeds on established paradigms, and then tries to nuke them ...

honestly I dont have any clue what all this has got to do with the new K-1 attracting or not attracting jumpshippers.

But I do know, that Sony sold more Full-Frame Cameras than Nikon the last year or so...
and some professionals jumped from Canon to PENTAXs 645Z or K-1.

All that makes me think that Uluru is somehow on the right path, when he says we need both worlds.
I would absolutely be the first in line to buy the next Full-Frame PENTAX which offers the best advantages of both worlds in one camera.

And I guess this "best of both worlds thing" Electronic Shutter plus Mirror(OVF or HVF) in accompaniment with a competitive AF-system really could be a dealbreaker and a reason for many to jump ship to the K-mount.

[camyum]

I shoot weddings and the A7II shutter is loud.

Try silent shutter mode.

[RobA_Oz]

In the same way, I fear, as various digital formats were touted as the bees knees and took over from LPs to CD's to MP4's etc, we're now seeing the humble LP making a major comeback. Why? Because it sounds better.
And so it goes with technology. Often, the latest and greatest is not that great. That's pretty much how I view EVF. EVF would need to improve a lot to come anywhere near the good old glass prism and mirror.

Neither of those audio media can completely replace a direct performance experience, Mark, but the thing is that a photograph, no matter what medium is used or how presented, is also only a depiction of reality, with all the attendant limitations. Analogue and digital reproductions are really only different in presentation - I don't see one as being superior in that respect to the other.

However, I agree with you about EVFs. The next generation will get the photographer closer to a direct optical experience, although the outcome (ie the photograph) will be much the same. In the end, it's a matter of likes and dislikes in how you get to it.

[reh321]

And I guess this "best of both worlds thing" Electronic Shutter plus Mirror(OVF or HVF) in accompaniment with a competitive AF-system really could be a dealbreaker and a reason for many to jump ship to the K-mount.

Could you re-state this?

I have absolutely no idea what you are trying to say.

[surfar]

I have absolutely no idea what you are trying to say.

Cant explain the unexplainable, take the first train to Clarkesville Then turn left at the Black Stump.....Yell out COOOEEEE....all will be explained( if the croc and the buffalo gods are in a good mood)!

[Winder]

Try silent shutter mode.

The A7II doesn't support silent shutter. The A7sII and A7RII both support it, but not the A7II.

[wjjstu]

I'm writing this while I still have 3-4 pages to read in this thread, but I can't help but be amazed at how HD resolution, which was great not so long ago, is suddenly completely inadequate for some people. I can understand some pros having to demonstrate that their work includes the latest tech, but for most people to say that 1080 is lacking in viewing quality is unrealistic.

Downsampled 4K to 1080 looks better than 1080 native. Nevertheless if the competition offers it as a basic feature then Pentax should at least make an effort to match. Have other non-resolution things like the codec, bit rates, and frame rates improved in the 1080 recordings? I remember they weren't all that hot in the first iterations.

So do I. But I haven't added anything to my Pentax kit since the K-3 body. I'm happy about the K-1 for those Pentaxians who wanted a full-frame option. But I'm not one of them. I made a decision to get away from the size and weight of that kind of gear more than a decade ago. And I'm certainly not going to pay the going rate for K-1 lenses.

I'm patiently waiting to see what the new APS-C flagship will be. I suspect it will be priced at about the same point as the K-1, given the price of the KR. If that's the case, Pentax will have had to advance by leaps and bounds in terms of autofocus and video capability in order for me to even consider it. I'm not holding my breath.

In the meantime, I have my micro-four thirds and Fuji gear to sustain me. I don't think I'm alone. I'm willing to bet that many other Pentaxians have been dealing with the limitations of their kit by quietly buying into other systems. That's money that isn't being spent on Pentax.

That's exactly what I did. I initially bought into Pentax ecosystem because of the compact system of SLR's, FA Limiteds, and others like the DA15. During the Hoya years I was hoping for Pentax to bring the same design philosophies and image quality to a compact APS mirrorless system while the market was still young but instead we got the Q... I put some cash into a micro 4/3 system and pancakes and couldn't be happier. Still have most of my Pentax gear but it doesn't get out much anymore. This is money Pentax could have had. I might yet still get additional Pentax gear but it would be a cheap part timer WR body or something special like the return of legendary lenses like the 200mm macro. It would not be my daily driver.

It's why I giggle at people who say removing the mirror and decreasing the registration distance doesn't matter because lenses cancel the difference or it's too small for my gorilla hands, or some other nonsense. They say an updated mirrorless K-02 won't sink the company and it would be the best of both worlds/just as good! A micro 4/3 body without a viewfinder hump + 14mm pancake fits into the pocket of my light running jacket. The DA15 with any K DSLR doesn't fit into any of my coat pockets of any type. They definitely missed the boat with me. The limitations are real.

[surfar]

Clear skies in the Outback - pure, but still complex.

Yes, but go to Parkes,NSW its the place for Astrotracing....the clearest of skies(its in the Premier state, which just happed to win the Championship last night as well!)

[wjjstu]

If they think like that, then they better quit doing what they are doing.
In reality, they should be in the business of creating passion in people, to see and interpret the world, be imaginative.
"Selling gear" is only a capitalist prerogative, a prejudice of a current economic system that has worked out a certain way of production for more money making, not necessarily to satisfy certain human needs it 'apparently' wishes to satisfy. Humans can exist without such a mode of economy, and have existed without it.

A DSLR, produced in Japan by Asahi, or a rangefinder made by Leitz, on the other hand, came out not as a sales needed to make money, but as a creative exercise in solving of a particular creative problem to develop a visual expression. Whatever new came later on, wishes to compete against the established liberal art, and imposes itself as a sales tool. It has to. Therefore modern mirrorless is sales driven, care about real human need is secondary or tertiary concern, and takes all sorts of excuses telling us that "it solves problems". No, it is a stolen excuse, it is a lie.



People still have same old same old eyes. Are we required to pluck them out when new artificial eyes arrive?

There is no clean sheet in anything. Clean sheet mean totally destroying the old paradigm, even the memory of it. That is also a false preset of the evolutionism — just a quick glance at a complex world or different organisms around shows it is an utterly wrong view, forced by competitive and merciless capitalism, which destroys itself because it follows such a 'clean sheet view'. That is a parasitic view, but even parasites stop at a certain obstacle — when there is no enough food, or the environment is too hostile. Yet 'clean sheet' view is so irrational it itself alive.

It is destructive, as is visible from trends that arose in various forms in economy and politics from WW2 onwards. It is sustainable insofar as there is lots of propaganda and deluding of audience, and enough of 'old environment' to draw the energy from. But when the old environment is gone, gone is life too.

'Clean sheet' is too blind to see it.

Hello in there. Tell me, what color is the sky in your world?

[surfar]

Hello in there. Tell me, what color is the sky in your world?

Its black, but only at night time.

---------- Post added 05-08-17 at 04:53 PM ----------

Downsampled 4K to 1080 looks better than 1080 native. Nevertheless if the competition offers it as a basic feature then Pentax should at least make an effort to match. Have other non-resolution things like the codec, bit rates, and frame rates improved in the 1080 recordings? I remember they weren't all that hot in the first iterations.



That's exactly what I did. I initially bought into Pentax ecosystem because of the compact system of SLR's, FA Limiteds, and others like the DA15. During the Hoya years I was hoping for Pentax to bring the same design philosophies and image quality to a compact APS mirrorless system while the market was still young but instead we got the Q... I put some cash into a micro 4/3 system and pancakes and couldn't be happier. Still have most of my Pentax gear but it doesn't get out much anymore. This is money Pentax could have had. I might yet still get additional Pentax gear but it would be a cheap part timer WR body or something special like the return of legendary lenses like the 200mm macro. It would not be my daily driver.

It's why I giggle at people who say removing the mirror and decreasing the registration distance doesn't matter because lenses cancel the difference or it's too small for my gorilla hands, or some other nonsense. They say an updated mirrorless K-02 won't sink the company and it would be the best of both worlds/just as good! A micro 4/3 body without a viewfinder hump + 14mm pancake fits into the pocket of my light running jacket. The DA15 with any K DSLR doesn't fit into any of my coat pockets of any type. They definitely missed the boat with me. The limitations are real.

....I look at other system forums, theres former Pentaxians and current ones there.But I can only recognise the ones who use the same name, so theres plenty more.


I prefer De Walt power tools but when they don't have something to do the jo0b I get another brand....RICOH are you listening?