[mee]

I come here to discover there are other weird Pentaxians like myself.

Are there any other kind?

[wjjstu]

But just 4 months ago we were told that for each Pentaxian buying K-1 another Nikon/Canon shooter jumped ship to Pentax! How could they be in trouble?

Is it too soon to joke about Ricoh hurrying up and re-issuing a few select legendary FA lenses "before they withdraw from the camera business" without people getting offended again?

I'm not surprised that Pentax is not doing well financially. I bought my K1 over a year ago and they have introduced NO new lens since then. I got tired of waiting and have spend substantial money on third party lens(Zeiss). I'd bet I'm not the only one!

You lasted longer than a lot of us. When all the rumours of a mirrorless system turned out to be the Q, many existing Pentax customers spent elsewhere. Just as you have now.

Looking at the sales data, they need a mid- to large sensor mirrorless system that adheres to the Pentax value system. The GR/GXR line is ready. Time to go.

But but but but bro that's completely pointless because mirrorless lenses become just as big as K-mount lenses once you make them 200mm and 1.4! The ostrich farmers told me so!

Pentax has to make cameras that people want to buy. A full featured DSLR that is compact and relatively light is a camera that people who hike, bike to scenic locations, people who don't want to carry a bulky camera, and are on vacation would like to have.

Those people would probably like a mirrorless camera even more and they have plenty of choices on the market.

Pentaxians wouldn't listen to marketing telling them how APS-C is "good enough" and "nobody really needs FF"; Pentaxians would've continued to jump ship, in order to get their FF.

For years plenty of people around here said APS-C was good enough and for years many others did jump ship to get "FF".

If so, why do people throw out more than 500 bucks for a smartphone? (most of those "normal" people do that once a year)

In America contracts hide the true cost of the phone. Zero money down!

At any rate I don't even think going mirrorless now could save Pentax. The time to do it was back when micro 4/3 was a baby and still trash and before Fuji, Olympus, Sony, and Panasonic got entrenched. It was unfortunate to have had Hoya around at the time doing their corporate raiding. Now with Canon in the picture and Nikon finally waking up and saying me too, that door is closed in my mind.

[Kunzite]

But just 4 months ago we were told that for each Pentaxian buying K-1 another Nikon/Canon shooter jumped ship to Pentax! How could they be in trouble?

Uhh... maybe they're not?
(To prevent some snarky comment: things are not black and white, it's not "either they're in trouble, or they have no worries at all").

Is it too soon to joke about Ricoh hurrying up and re-issuing a few select legendary FA lenses "before they withdraw from the camera business" without people getting offended again?

So you would intentionally say something that offended people, again? Why?

Those people would probably like a mirrorless camera even more and they have plenty of choices on the market.

Not necessarily. More people are preferring DSLRs than MILCs

For years plenty of people around here said APS-C was good enough and for years many others did jump ship to get "FF".

I'm not sure what you're trying to say... as you're going in two different directions at once.
My post stands: "Pentaxians wouldn't listen to marketing telling them how APS-C is "good enough" and "nobody really needs FF"; Pentaxians would've continued to jump ship, in order to get their FF." - in response to a claim that a Fuji-like approach would've been better.
The K-1 was a better idea than staying APS-C, period.

At any rate I don't even think going mirrorless now could save Pentax. The time to do it was back when micro 4/3 was a baby and still trash and before Fuji, Olympus, Sony, and Panasonic got entrenched. It was unfortunate to have had Hoya around at the time doing their corporate raiding. Now with Canon in the picture and Nikon finally waking up and saying me too, that door is closed in my mind.

Trying to take down the previous brand with FUD is, unfortunately, too often seen on the Internet. It's always nonsense, and it's ugly.

[Rondec]

But just 4 months ago we were told that for each Pentaxian buying K-1 another Nikon/Canon shooter jumped ship to Pentax! How could they be in trouble?

Is it too soon to joke about Ricoh hurrying up and re-issuing a few select legendary FA lenses "before they withdraw from the camera business" without people getting offended again?



You lasted longer than a lot of us. When all the rumours of a mirrorless system turned out to be the Q, many existing Pentax customers spent elsewhere. Just as you have now.



But but but but bro that's completely pointless because mirrorless lenses become just as big as K-mount lenses once you make them 200mm and 1.4! The ostrich farmers told me so!



Those people would probably like a mirrorless camera even more and they have plenty of choices on the market.



For years plenty of people around here said APS-C was good enough and for years many others did jump ship to get "FF".



In America contracts hide the true cost of the phone. Zero money down!

At any rate I don't even think going mirrorless now could save Pentax. The time to do it was back when micro 4/3 was a baby and still trash and before Fuji, Olympus, Sony, and Panasonic got entrenched. It was unfortunate to have had Hoya around at the time doing their corporate raiding. Now with Canon in the picture and Nikon finally waking up and saying me too, that door is closed in my mind.

I actually have no problem with any of the moves Pentax/Ricoh has made to this point. They have released very nice products on the market. I don't think a mirrorless camera would have sold any more units than the K-1 sold unless it had more marketing behind it, which apparently wasn't in the cards.

I do wish that Pentax would increase the pace of development of lenses and improve their marketing. Understand that there are no bad cameras in the market right now -- all are compromises and folks choose on availability, price, brand awareness, specifications, and perceived value. Pentax would do well, if it was more available and if there was better marketing behind it.

As for APS-C versus full frame, this is a choice that needs to be available. Most folks can't afford full frame and even if they could, it probably isn't necessary. The K70 and K-P have pretty phenomenal high iso performance at this point. The thing is that plenty of people want full frame and if you don't have it available they will move on to another brand that offers it. We have seen many photographers move on from Pentax for exactly that reason.

[Aristophanes]

But but but but bro that's completely pointless because mirrorless lenses become just as big as K-mount lenses once you make them 200mm and 1.4! The ostrich farmers told me so!

Ummmm.....no they don't:

Compact Camera Meter

Find a different farmer.

[Rondec]

Ummmm.....no they don't:

Compact Camera Meter

Find a different farmer.

I hate to bring it up, but those aren't equivalent lenses. The equivalent lens to a 16-50 f2.8 on APS-C would be a 12-37 f2 lens on Olympus, which would basically be the same size. We see this all of the time. A 50-135 f2.8 on APS-C is actually the same size as a 70-200 f4 on full frame and will have almost exactly the same performance.

The fact that you can make slow lenses small is nothing new. But I'm not sure how big a seller a constant 24-70 f5.6 lens would be on a K-1.

If you don't need the faster apertures -- you never shoot at high iso and shoot everything stopped down -- then it probably doesn't matter, but putting an f2.8 lens on an Olympus camera is probably not going to give the same results as an f2.8 lens on a K3 or a K-1 would if you are shooting at f2.8 on all of them.

[Aristophanes]

I hate to bring it up, but those aren't equivalent lenses. The equivalent lens to a 16-50 f2.8 on APS-C would be a 12-37 f2 lens on Olympus, which would basically be the same size. We see this all of the time. A 50-135 f2.8 on APS-C is actually the same size as a 70-200 f4 on full frame and will have almost exactly the same performance.

The fact that you can make slow lenses small is nothing new. But I'm not sure how big a seller a constant 24-70 f5.6 lens would be on a K-1.

If you don't need the faster apertures -- you never shoot at high iso and shoot everything stopped down -- then it probably doesn't matter, but putting an f2.8 lens on an Olympus camera is probably not going to give the same results as an f2.8 lens on a K3 or a K-1 would if you are shooting at f2.8 on all of them.

The f-stop is constant, not relative.

The DOF is relative.

m43 lenses are still smaller.

[Kunzite]

I see you included a pancake prime, and a retractable kit lens (obviously, retracted) - to make the DA* 16-50mm look bigger, I presume?
If you want small with DSLRs, you'd use small lenses. DA Limiteds, the inexpensive DA primes - stuff like that. You don't necessarily need to match the small mirrorless, but just to get it "small enough".

By the way:
Compact Camera Meter
I couldn't find 200mm f/1.4s but this is much closer than a 12mm f/2 pancake!

[Rondec]

The f-stop is constant, not relative.

The DOF is relative.

m43 lenses are still smaller.

The issue isn't depth of field, it is performance. iso 200 on a micro four thirds camera will perform like iso 800 on a K-1 with regard to noise and dynamic range. This in spite of the fact that Olympus has over a stop difference in iso inflation, with DXO Mark measuring their stated iso of 1600 at iso 720 on the PEN F.

The point isn't that micro four thirds cameras aren't good, it is that they need faster lenses to achieve the same performance in the field. As I stated earlier, if you don't need high iso performance, high dynamic range at base iso, then these cameras will be fine, but they aren't pushing the extremes of camera performance at all. A K3 with a Sigma 18-35 f1.8 should be able to get close to a K-1 with a 24-70 f2.8 in performance, albeit with a more limited range of focal lengths.

[mecrox]

The issue isn't depth of field, it is performance. iso 200 on a micro four thirds camera will perform like iso 800 on a K-1 with regard to noise and dynamic range. This in spite of the fact that Olympus has over a stop difference in iso inflation, with DXO Mark measuring their stated iso of 1600 at iso 720 on the PEN F.

The point isn't that micro four thirds cameras aren't good, it is that they need faster lenses to achieve the same performance in the field. As I stated earlier, if you don't need high iso performance, high dynamic range at base iso, then these cameras will be fine, but they aren't pushing the extremes of camera performance at all. A K3 with a Sigma 18-35 f1.8 should be able to get close to a K-1 with a 24-70 f2.8 in performance, albeit with a more limited range of focal lengths.

Largely irrelevant, imho. Go out and see if you find the results acceptable no matter what they say on DxO. And if they are, then no problem: the camera will deliver the shot. My experience is that M43 lenses are better at wide apertures than many DSLR lenses I've tried where a wider aperture isn't one you'd want to use unless you like mushy images.

[Aristophanes]

The issue isn't depth of field, it is performance. iso 200 on a micro four thirds camera will perform like iso 800 on a K-1 with regard to noise and dynamic range. This in spite of the fact that Olympus has over a stop difference in iso inflation, with DXO Mark measuring their stated iso of 1600 at iso 720 on the PEN F.

The point isn't that micro four thirds cameras aren't good, it is that they need faster lenses to achieve the same performance in the field. As I stated earlier, if you don't need high iso performance, high dynamic range at base iso, then these cameras will be fine, but they aren't pushing the extremes of camera performance at all. A K3 with a Sigma 18-35 f1.8 should be able to get close to a K-1 with a 24-70 f2.8 in performance, albeit with a more limited range of focal lengths.

The small sensor + IBIS + in-lens IS is making a HUGE difference. 2.5-4 stops in most scenarios, and IBIS may be getting better in the future on-sensor AF software just starting to get going.

"In the field" is relative...because in adequate light the "real world" differences are pretty much negligible for 99.999% of most viewing situations now outside of the extreme professional realm....a dramatically shrinking dynamic, and photojournalism being edged out substantially by video journalism etc. The testing scenarios now are basically some high-speed, BIF wildlife photography, high-end sports, and.......ummmm.......and.....hmmmmmm.....that's about it. The client list is limited. Smartphones are being used for product advertising at the agency level because the end result is viewing on an iPhone 7.

The market for massive images is shrinking. Prices for larger sensors are probably going up, and m43 and APS-C are looking like the non-smartphone sweet spot given how 1" (RX100 niche success aside) has not hit a value point. A LOT of this is going to revolve around video IMO. I see this demand everywhere.

[biz-engineer]

many DSLR lenses I've tried where a wider aperture isn't one you'd want to use unless you like mushy images

Yes, that's called Bokeh , that's the thing that m43 does not do as well as full frame ;-)

[Kunzite]

4 stops compared to a K-1 with its 5-axis SR disabled, perhaps. And Pentax is improving their SR as well.
Right how the priciest m4/3 is more expensive than the K-1, in some markets - and close in others (since the K-1's price was raised). We'll see.

[Rondec]

Largely irrelevant, imho. Go out and see if you find the results acceptable no matter what they say on DxO. And if they are, then no problem: the camera will deliver the shot. My experience is that M43 lenses are better at wide apertures than many DSLR lenses I've tried where a wider aperture isn't one you'd want to use unless you like mushy images.

Not sure what you are on about here. A K-1 with a nice prime, say a FA 77 or DA *55 should give nice, non-mushy results.





The whole point of depth of field is that you can choose how much you want to stop down, but not necessarily how much you can up open your aperture. Choosing good glass is only the start, regardless of the format you are shooting with.

The small sensor + IBIS + in-lens IS is making a HUGE difference. 2.5-4 stops in most scenarios, and IBIS may be getting better in the future on-sensor AF software just starting to get going.

"In the field" is relative...because in adequate light the "real world" differences are pretty much negligible for 99.999% of most viewing situations now outside of the extreme professional realm....a dramatically shrinking dynamic, and photojournalism being edged out substantially by video journalism etc. The testing scenarios now are basically some high-speed, BIF wildlife photography, high-end sports, and.......ummmm.......and.....hmmmmmm.....that's about it. The client list is limited. Smartphones are being used for product advertising at the agency level because the end result is viewing on an iPhone 7.

The market for massive images is shrinking. Prices for larger sensors are probably going up, and m43 and APS-C are looking like the non-smartphone sweet spot given how 1" (RX100 niche success aside) has not hit a value point. A LOT of this is going to revolve around video IMO. I see this demand everywhere.

I can only speak from personal experience. I typically shoot landscapes from a tripod and I see a significant different in how much I can push a landscape image with full frame versus APS-C. The K5 was good, the K-1 is a lot better. It is not unusual that I shoot underexposed by a stop or two to make sure that I don't blow out highlights. Whether I can then recover shadows is dependent on dynamic range. You can push any image regardless of the sensor size, but my experience is that when I use smaller sensors, the images start to look "pushed" for lack of a better word. Four stops is an awful lot of pushing for most sensors, even at base iso.

With regard to IBIS, that is neither here nor there. It is present either in lens or on sensor for most formats at this point. It doesn't eliminate subject movement and this is the biggest impediment to using it in high iso situations, in my experience.

I have no idea what will sell cameras going forwards. Maybe you are right, that video is the answer. But even that feels pretty hollow to me. The number of folks who actually own computers and software that can edit 4K video is pretty small. Even HD video pushes my desktop pretty hard these days. The reason Go Pro cameras have fallen on hard times is that people realized that they have a ton of unwatchable footage of them doing stuff that nobody else will watch, except mainly close family members. Video is actually a lot harder than still photography because it takes serious editing to make something that is viewable by someone else.

[Aristophanes]

Not sure what you are on about here. A K-1 with a nice prime, say a FA 77 or DA *55 should give nice, non-mushy results.





The whole point of depth of field is that you can choose how much you want to stop down, but not necessarily how much you can up open your aperture. Choosing good glass is only the start, regardless of the format you are shooting with.



I can only speak from personal experience. I typically shoot landscapes from a tripod and I see a significant different in how much I can push a landscape image with full frame versus APS-C. The K5 was good, the K-1 is a lot better. It is not unusual that I shoot underexposed by a stop or two to make sure that I don't blow out highlights. Whether I can then recover shadows is dependent on dynamic range. You can push any image regardless of the sensor size, but my experience is that when I use smaller sensors, the images start to look "pushed" for lack of a better word. Four stops is an awful lot of pushing for most sensors, even at base iso.

With regard to IBIS, that is neither here nor there. It is present either in lens or on sensor for most formats at this point. It doesn't eliminate subject movement and this is the biggest impediment to using it in high iso situations, in my experience.

I have no idea what will sell cameras going forwards. Maybe you are right, that video is the answer. But even that feels pretty hollow to me. The number of folks who actually own computers and software that can edit 4K video is pretty small. Even HD video pushes my desktop pretty hard these days. The reason Go Pro cameras have fallen on hard times is that people realized that they have a ton of unwatchable footage of them doing stuff that nobody else will watch, except mainly close family members. Video is actually a lot harder than still photography because it takes serious editing to make something that is viewable by someone else.

Almost every smartphone can process and edit 4k video!! Video is almost easier to edit (once exposed correctly at source) than photos. They teach video editing in Grade Four at my kid's school, but Photoshop isn't even offered in the high school!

The vast majority of the photo and video world doesn't not have a home PC (another declining market) and does little to no post-processing, PP fast becoming the "dirty phrase" of the photographic industry, something that turns even core consumers off.

Why do you think most of these cams still have an HDMI out port and USB connectors with slideshows? Most Asian markets do not rely on any PP and go straight from camera to viewing medium (TV, increasingly 4k), with the new intermediary being social media.

This is the same growth mark behind the rise of the DSLR and mirrorless. Try and do it all without a PP "workflow" (the WORST named aspect of this hobby). The reason why Aperture was killed by Apple (caveat: I was a tester for Apple) and why Adobe went subscription is due to the almost total disappearance—in a short period of time—of a middle class, semi-pro user base. This coincided with the near complete evisceration of the P&S camera market. Big, fast glass, has actually become the industry's problem, not its solution.

The reason why GoPro fell on hard times is their market stopped buying the necessary PCs/Macs to keep up with their growth expectations. Now GoPro is thinking that a subscription software model will fulfill their revenue ambitions. Nope. It's the same over-reliance on the inertia of the home PC market.

The number of users willing to push (or even capable of doing so) in post is shrinking. The whole point of many mirrorless is (partly) to remove that step (and Apple is going to help, I might add). The 40 million sales base for dedicated cameras will very soon be 15 million, with a decreasing of those owning a PC to do post.

Chasing shallow DOF is fine, but it can't make a system anymore. But we went though all this in 1984 when AF and reliable zooms came along!

My prediction: Watch for Adobe to raise their subscription rates considerably in the next year.

Even tripod sales are way, way, way down. It's a bloodbath out there.