Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
10-04-2017, 07:17 AM   #556
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 27,606
QuoteOriginally posted by johnmflores Quote
Thanks for the detailed response. I agree with a lot of what you say but I'm still uncertain of the size of the new entrants to the camera market. Yes, volume of entry-level product is certainly down but are new entrants moving up to mid-level products? Are they skipping the entry level Canikon and going straight to a smaller but higher-priced mirrorless? And if so, how many are there? It would be interesting to see more data on this.


I do think that new entrants are critical to the continued viability of the market otherwise the market will eventually age out and manufacturers will continue to make up for lost volume with higher prices. What to sell to them and how is the million dollar question.

---------- Post added 10-04-17 at 08:19 AM ----------





Ten years ago nobody would have predicted that the phone would have decimated the camera industry. And ten years ago it would have been difficult to believe the image quality of the latest phones.With that recent history, I'm open to the next ten years bringing progress that I can't imagine now. The Light L16, for example, has a 150mm lens in its array. They've fit it in there with folded optics. The camera looks to be twice as thick as a phone though but who knows what the next 10 years will bring?
The Light L16 seems to get trotted out a lot. The L16 concept is interesting, but not particularly useful from a phone standpoint (to put it in a phone you would no longer be able to have phone functions due to space limitations). It is weak in many respects -- relies on digital zoom for intermediate spots in the zoom range, has quite a bit of noise in low light, and has no stabilization and therefore will need pretty high shutter speeds to control shake (or use of a tripod).

The ergonomics of it look terrible. If I wanted to spend 1500 dollars on a camera, I would rather have just about any APS-C or micro four thirds camera on the market than this camera.

Edit: I'm still trying to figure out where some would be interested in a Light L16 over a decent one inch sensor compact camera like the G9x or Sony RX100 III. Cost is no comparison and the Light L16 is quite a bit bigger with questionable improvement in image quality.


Last edited by Rondec; 10-04-2017 at 07:30 AM.
10-04-2017, 07:27 AM   #557
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Romania
Posts: 15,132
If ten years ago "nobody would have predicted that the phone would have decimated the camera industry", it means we should not put much faith in predictions. Including this one.

We're not talking here about mere technological progress, but physics. The smartphone's camera module is tiny... and OK, you could put 2, maybe 3 in there but they're still tiny, still limited.
This is a matter of miniaturization, because otherwise we already had some attempts - the Panasonic CM1, the Samsung Galaxy Zoom... which made no difference.

The L16 is a dedicated camera, larger than a smartphone, which still can't do what you said. And you still can't buy it.

But, IIRC we had this discussion before.
10-04-2017, 08:30 AM   #558
Senior Member




Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 156
Still comes down to vast majority of Pentax products are bought by current Pentax owners. Pentax fails to attract new customers even though they have a superior product, for now. IMHO, if Pentax concentrated on what they do best, making cameras that are better than the competition for less, & then go on an evangelistic crusade, sales would increase. Creating everything from viral videos to demo events at photography groups to conventions to putting ambassadors across the country and more, is not that expensive.

Also, Pentax is missing a revenue opportunity from a Service standpoint as well. It would save Ricoh's struggling Service business. And/or, enlist the many camera shops that are still alive and create local service centers all across the country. Not just great from a Service standpoint but from a Marketing standpoint as well. It's how my former Service company helped manufacturers many years ago. Not covered in MBA school though.

Focusing on being the best in it's category has gotten Pentax recognition, they should build on that. Best MF, best FF, hopefully soon best ASP-C. And stop there! Be great, not semi-good for everyone.

Last edited by MarkJerling; 10-05-2017 at 07:42 PM. Reason: Brand bashing comment removed.
10-04-2017, 08:33 AM - 1 Like   #559
Veteran Member
johnmflores's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Somerville, NJ
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,361
QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
The Light L16 seems to get trotted out a lot. The L16 concept is interesting, but not particularly useful from a phone standpoint (to put it in a phone you would no longer be able to have phone functions due to space limitations). It is weak in many respects -- relies on digital zoom for intermediate spots in the zoom range, has quite a bit of noise in low light, and has no stabilization and therefore will need pretty high shutter speeds to control shake (or use of a tripod).

The ergonomics of it look terrible. If I wanted to spend 1500 dollars on a camera, I would rather have just about any APS-C or micro four thirds camera on the market than this camera.

Edit: I'm still trying to figure out where some would be interested in a Light L16 over a decent one inch sensor compact camera like the G9x or Sony RX100 III. Cost is no comparison and the Light L16 is quite a bit bigger with questionable improvement in image quality.
QuoteOriginally posted by Kunzite Quote
If ten years ago "nobody would have predicted that the phone would have decimated the camera industry", it means we should not put much faith in predictions. Including this one.

We're not talking here about mere technological progress, but physics. The smartphone's camera module is tiny... and OK, you could put 2, maybe 3 in there but they're still tiny, still limited.
This is a matter of miniaturization, because otherwise we already had some attempts - the Panasonic CM1, the Samsung Galaxy Zoom... which made no difference.

The L16 is a dedicated camera, larger than a smartphone, which still can't do what you said. And you still can't buy it.

But, IIRC we had this discussion before.
I've not seen any reviews of the L16 yet so I'm withholding judgement. But put that camera aside and think about what Apple and others are doing with dual cameras - modules with different focal lengths and different sensors, and algorithms to blend them together. And look at the iPhone X Face ID. It's basically creating a 3-D mesh of a person's face and then overlaying graphics over it in real time. This article shows how it's miniaturized the Microsoft Kinect from 10 years ago into a tiny module at the top of the phone:

iPhone X basically has a Kinect on the front to enable Face ID | TechCrunch

Yes, I know that physics is physics, I'm an engineer by schooling. But these new techniques are applying sampling and data manipulation in new and interesting ways. We are at the very beginning of what some are calling computational photography. Apple, Google, and others probably have camera development teams that rival Canon and Nikon but are looking at traditional photography challenges from an entirely different perspective. I'm sure there are hundreds of engineers and developers working on the telephoto problem because if one company solves it first they'll have a competitive advantage.

Even once-staid Microsoft is innovating:

Image Composite Editor - Microsoft Research

I'm excited about where it will take us. And these innovations will probably end up in phones first long before they end up in traditional cameras.

10-04-2017, 08:53 AM   #560
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2011
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 4,309
QuoteOriginally posted by wjjstu Quote
If we look at what Pentax has been doing:
. . . Releasing a toy mirrorless ILC
You clearly fail to understand the Q concept.
QuoteOriginally posted by wjjstu Quote
There's no reason why Pentax couldn't have been in a better position than Fuji in the MILC market right now.
"Couldn't have" is obviously hypothetical, but think about the investment needed to do what Fuji is doing with MILCs.
As we're finding out, Ricoh is not ready to risk that much money in an uncertain market.

---------- Post added 10-04-17 at 11:00 AM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by johnmflores Quote
We are at the very beginning of what some are calling computational photography. Apple, Google, and others probably have camera development teams that rival Canon and Nikon but are looking at traditional photography challenges from an entirely different perspective. . . .
I'm excited about where it will take us.
It will take us away from the "truth" that's at the heart of traditional photography,
and into a world of fake images.

Personally, I don't want some Google algorithm to dictate what my photographs show.
10-04-2017, 09:43 AM - 2 Likes   #561
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Romania
Posts: 15,132
QuoteOriginally posted by johnmflores Quote
I've not seen any reviews of the L16 yet so I'm withholding judgement.

I'm excited about where it will take us. And these innovations will probably end up in phones first long before they end up in traditional cameras.
Of course you haven't seen - the camera does not exist as an end product. There's nothing to review.
Regardless, the specs show that it doesn't have a particularly long reach, and it can't take any pictures as it doesn't exist yet. The L16, sorry, is a red herring.

And... you're changing the context, which was about smartphones incorporating "a decent zoom function" and supposedly making the DSLR market evaporate, and soccer moms standing on the sidelines. I have this bad habit of sticking with the original context until a conclusion is reached.

A traditional camera has no need to mess with images on people's faces. The computational techniques incorporated would likely be subtler, helping capturing an image as opposed to making it up.

P.S. I don't want to quench your enthusiasm for whatever emerging (???) technology, and I truly appreciate when someone is open minded and imaginative. I simply believe, and quite strongly, that enthusiasm should not be done at the expense - read: spreading doubt about the future - of existing, working technology.
To paraphrase Bjarne Stroustrup, "legacy" cameras differs from their suggested alternatives by actually working.

Last edited by Kunzite; 10-04-2017 at 10:18 AM.
10-04-2017, 11:13 AM - 2 Likes   #562
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 27,606
QuoteOriginally posted by johnmflores Quote
I've not seen any reviews of the L16 yet so I'm withholding judgement. But put that camera aside and think about what Apple and others are doing with dual cameras - modules with different focal lengths and different sensors, and algorithms to blend them together. And look at the iPhone X Face ID. It's basically creating a 3-D mesh of a person's face and then overlaying graphics over it in real time. This article shows how it's miniaturized the Microsoft Kinect from 10 years ago into a tiny module at the top of the phone:

iPhone X basically has a Kinect on the front to enable Face ID | TechCrunch

Yes, I know that physics is physics, I'm an engineer by schooling. But these new techniques are applying sampling and data manipulation in new and interesting ways. We are at the very beginning of what some are calling computational photography. Apple, Google, and others probably have camera development teams that rival Canon and Nikon but are looking at traditional photography challenges from an entirely different perspective. I'm sure there are hundreds of engineers and developers working on the telephoto problem because if one company solves it first they'll have a competitive advantage.

Even once-staid Microsoft is innovating:

Image Composite Editor - Microsoft Research

I'm excited about where it will take us. And these innovations will probably end up in phones first long before they end up in traditional cameras.
The question is really how these "new techniques" benefit the photographer over traditional techniques. It isn't really cheaper. The actual images are probably pretty comparable to similarly sized cameras already available and despite announcements of its impending release, the L16 doesn't actually exist yet.

It is easy to forget what can be done with decent optics and a 1 inch sensor, but those cameras are already on the market and so they don't have the same wow factor that the L16 has. Maybe the L16 is going to be awesome, but as of now, Lytro has been working on it for four years and still seems to be struggling to get it to work.

Beyond all that, would you really be willing to pay an extra 1000 dollars in order to have a 150mm zoom for your phone?

10-04-2017, 12:05 PM - 3 Likes   #563
Pentaxian
photoptimist's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2016
Photos: Albums
Posts: 5,113
The rise of computational photography is going to further widen the gulf between different types of photographers (and photography). Those that just want a pretty picture to show their friends will be thrilled by all the clever processing that Apple, Google, Microsoft, etc. can throw at the tiny noisy pixels of a smartphone image. And those that want an authentic photograph of the truth will be horrified.

Apple, Samsung, and L16 all use variants of automagically merging multiple frames into a composite. Nothing stops the smartphone makers from adding a few more cameras to create a 15mm, 30mm, 60mm 120mm, & 240mm-equivalent set of cameras on the back of a phone and using a mix of optical, digital, and computational techniques can almost equal the performance of most P/S and low-end ILCs. It won't even cost that much (Apple pays only about $30 per camera module so adding a few more doesn't have to cost much.)

That evolution in computational photography will offer huge benefits to many candid, consumer, travel, online journalist, and street photographers. And some artists and pros might embrace it just for the challenge or to prove that it's not the $10,000 in gear that make great images. Physics guarantees that a 300mm f/2.8 lens will always be huge. But human aesthetic and pragmatic considerations imply that maybe a 40/5.6 lens on a 1/3" sensor can replace the 300/2.8 on an FF sensor for 99.9% of imaging scenarios.

Yet it certainly won't address the needs and desires of photographers that shoot in high volume (poor ergonomics), low-light (too noisy), have unusual subject matter (confuses the computational algorithms), make big-prints (limited resolution), or like vintage equipment. The niche of purists, professionals, artists, and technical/nature/astro photographers will still want (and buy) large sensor cameras with bright (large) lenses.

(And film photographers will continue to scoff at both the smartphone and D-ILC photographers.)
10-04-2017, 12:16 PM - 1 Like   #564
mee
Veteran Member




Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 7,403
Again this all goes back to different people using different devices for different reasons. It isn't an all or none situation. Even if the market, as a whole, trends one way it doesn't mean the rest of the market is out of touch or doomed to failure.
10-04-2017, 12:34 PM   #565
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 27,606
QuoteOriginally posted by mee Quote
Again this all goes back to different people using different devices for different reasons. It isn't an all or none situation. Even if the market, as a whole, trends one way it doesn't mean the rest of the market is out of touch or doomed to failure.
I guess the basic underlying question is whether there is a future in which cell phone cameras completely replace ILCs? I don't think that that is what John is positing, but certainly there is an undercurrent present on the forum which says that traditional forms of photography will eventually be replaced by "new" forms.

I do think cell phone cameras will gradually improve -- whether from better software applications or addition of another camera or two. But those things won't really move the needle, in my opinion, from where it currently rests. A good chunk of the market will continue to use cell phone cameras for most of their needs and people who are enthusiasts or actually shoot professionally, will continue to purchase ILCs.

If even 10 percent of families get a new ILC every five to six years, that's plenty of units generated on a yearly basis. Not enough to return to the glory years of the early digital camera era, but certainly enough to make sure that there will be ILCs on the market for a long time.
10-04-2017, 01:32 PM - 2 Likes   #566
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
RGlasel's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Saskatoon
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,225
QuoteOriginally posted by johnmflores Quote
are new entrants moving up to mid-level products?
Without interviewing a good sample of camera buyers, it is hard to know for sure. However it seems reasonable that different products and different marketing strategies will be more attractive to first time buyers than experienced buyers and camera manufacturers are no longer directing their efforts to gain business from first time buyers. Everything coming out is geared to upgrading existing bodies or getting a DSLR owner to buy mirrorless. Looking at the history of digital ILC sales, they hit 12 million units in 2010, peaked at 20 million in 2012 and appear to have bottomed out in 2016 at 11.6 million. That's a strong indication that a very high percentage of consumers who would like to own an ILC have already bought one.
QuoteOriginally posted by johnmflores Quote
Are they skipping the entry level Canikon and going straight to a smaller but higher-priced mirrorless?
Based on January to August 2017 results, there is a significant uptick in mirrorless sales this year compared to the slow decline that occurred from almost 4 million in 2012 to 3.16 million in 2016. Anecdotally, my 25 year old daughter did what you suggest is happening, after putting together a photo book of iPhone pictures from her 4 months of travelling around Europe in 2016, she wanted to get a better camera for just taking photographs. She tried out my DSLR for a trip to the Rockies and came back wanting something smaller, but had no interest in even high end Panasonic P&S cameras and after looking at APS-C Sony cameras, decided to buy an Olympus E-M5. However, on a global scale, the CIPA numbers still suggest my daughter is an outlier, not part of a macro trend and in my daughter's social circles, she is unique in recently buying a standalone camera.
QuoteOriginally posted by johnmflores Quote
I do think that new entrants are critical to the continued viability of the market otherwise the market will eventually age out and manufacturers will continue to make up for lost volume with higher prices. What to sell to them and how is the million dollar question.
Unless current technology is displaced by something that requires radically different manufacturing processes, camera manufacturers that have "right-sized" their operations can continue to build cameras at the same cost. Where the opportunities for obtaining the ROI required by shareholders lie is in offering "better" products for a higher price, which provides better margins to cover fixed costs even when sales volumes drop. I think it is inevitable that future camera buyers will have fewer options with higher average prices, but not to a degree that it is no longer viable to offer anything but very expensive equipment targeted to professional photographers and accumulators of luxury goods. On a global scale, a market with annual sales of 10 million units with good margins, using mature technology, is always going to see some action.
10-04-2017, 07:03 PM   #567
Pentaxian
reh321's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: South Bend, IN, USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 23,130
QuoteOriginally posted by wjjstu Quote
If we look at what Pentax has been doing: K-1 FF is released but promised new FF lenses are slow to arrive with little indication of what's happening.
Maybe Ricoh believed what was being said here for the past few years. Maybe their primary interest was in keeping long-term users onboard by giving them a digital camera on which “a 50mm lens acts like a 50mm lens; maybe they thought most purchasers would use legacy lenses they already had.

---------- Post added 10-04-17 at 10:16 PM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by johnmflores Quote
A large volume of those DSLR owners over the last 5-10 years have been soccer moms and dads that bought an entry level Canon or Nikon DSLR with one or two kit zooms. They stand on the sidelines and shoot in P-mode, Green mode, or if they're lucky and someone that knows a little bit about camera, the little Running Human mode.

If the phone evolves to incorporate a decent zoom function for youth sports, that high volume end of the DSLR market will evaporate overnight.
The sports parent / grandparent market is one Pentax is already prepared to address, especially during indoor sports seasons, with the high ISO values provided by the K-70 / KP, but they would have to find some way to get their attention. Pentax must have had some reason to develop that capability; now we need to wait and see what, if anything, they do with it.
10-05-2017, 12:27 AM   #568
Veteran Member




Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,854
QuoteOriginally posted by MarkJerling Quote
Luckily, fitting a decent zoom into a 6mm thick phone is not that easy!
Why luckily ? Ultimately what best for all... For me that would get everything a 645z does for quality with D5 does for reactivity in the size of a A6500 for photographer that want decent ergonomics and a 5-6" smartphone for others.

Most of the problem with sensor size is the size of the lenses. You could very well fit a 24x36 sensor on the back of a phone if you wanted. If we where able to solve the lens issue, then we would all get fantastic photo (technically) with basic gear.

I am not into being elitist.

Last edited by Nicolas06; 10-05-2017 at 01:01 AM.
10-05-2017, 01:13 AM - 1 Like   #569
Senior Member




Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 175
QuoteOriginally posted by MyTZuS Quote

Focusing on being the best in it's category has gotten Pentax recognition, they should build on that. Best MF, best FF, hopefully soon best ASP-C. And stop there! So sick of crappy KP's for example. They are distractions. Be great, not semi-good for everyone.
To offer the best is not enough to make your business a winner.
You need to make your customer's target want to buy your products, which is driven by multiple considerations, technical performance being only one of them.
And I am not sure Ricoh-Pentax still can offer a much better photographer's experience than its competitors.

Pentax cameras have an outstanding ergonomy and haptics, but Ricoh-Pentax AF-C performance and ergonomy are obviously outdated when compared to what Canon or Nikon, or even top end recent mirrorless ILC currently offer.

I am not chiming into the "Pentax is doomed" or "DSLR are doomed" choirs. My K3 and lenses are still what I pick when photography is my priority and I think the DSLR size and weight wont matter. But, there are many occasions where I value something less intrusive and much smaller, like a high end compact or a small M43 kit.

IMO, too many posters fail to see the facts, and statements like "sick of crappy KP" or "Q is a toy camera" only prove the poster ignorance or blindness.

I did handle a KP in a brick and mortar shop.

It feels very much like my K3, but with some different ergonomics and design choices which I can understand.
I dont know whether the KP will be a winner, the price tag is high and the competition is fierce in the declining camera market.
I wont buy one because my K3 is less than 2 years old and fulfills all my needs, save the AF-C performance and ergonomy, which is the same in KP. But it is a nice camera, whith which feels reliable and user's friendly to an old Pentaxian.

Last edited by MarkJerling; 10-05-2017 at 07:40 PM. Reason: Personal comment removed.
10-05-2017, 01:26 AM - 4 Likes   #570
Pentaxian




Join Date: Feb 2015
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 12,178
QuoteOriginally posted by Tatouzou Quote
And I am not sure Ricoh-Pentax still can offer a much better photographer's experience than its competitors.
Well, that's interesting. I was recently in Japan and I was stunned by how many Ricoh Theta I saw in the streets. Now, what is the Theta experience?: Press one button and with seamless pairing with mobile phone post direct on social media, browse the picture with one or two fingers, zoom in zoom out, change the viewpoint. Ricoh Theta does what Canon, Nikon, Sony and Fuji don't. You can't have the Ricoh Theta experience with a D850, although D850 costs 10 times more than the Theta. There is recent post about image quality pixel peeping of the K1 vs D850... tiny difference mostly irrelevant for real life shooting, especially given the cost of a D850 system upgrade.That made me realize that Ricoh understands better the market than pentax forum users hanging on traditional DSLR and now I understand much better why Ricoh purchased Pentax and why it takes forever to release a couple more lenses for the K1. Basically, the trend isn't into increasing image quality, the trend is about providing more fun to take pictures, Ricoh does it well with the Theta, that is something that can't be done with either a DSLR or a phone. Based on growing Ricoh Theta, I guess most criticism is missplaced here with regards to Pentax lagging behind in the DSLR/mirrorless arena. For example, there is a lot of criticism of Ricoh not making a mirrorless system... I would say that a mirrorless camera brings nearly nothing more than what a DSLR can do, a 360 camera brings a lot more fun for the money.

Last edited by biz-engineer; 10-05-2017 at 01:37 AM.
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!
3d, business, businesses, camera, cameras, company, components, devices, environment, equipment, f2.8, figures, i.e, images, lenses, money, pentax, pentax news, pentax rumors, people, period, photography, products, profit, q1, ricoh, semiconductor, vision
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Nikon's Year (Financial Results) - an analysis interested_observer Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands 10 05-13-2017 05:49 AM
Ricoh Financial results - FY2017/03 Kunzite Pentax News and Rumors 373 04-28-2017 06:10 AM
Sony financial results - A7 etc. camera collapse with interesting insights beholder3 Photographic Industry and Professionals 29 12-10-2016 01:55 AM
Ricoh Imaging is not doomed (or: Ricoh Financial Results Q1 2016) Kunzite Pentax News and Rumors 69 10-24-2015 10:31 AM
Pentax Financial results Q1 FY14 Zav Pentax News and Rumors 38 08-20-2013 05:44 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:01 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