[TwoUptons]

Camera phones still don't even beat the Q with a good lens. I think they're way off from touching the enthusiast market and don't come close to professional use.

I agree, but they’re good enough that they prevent some people from becoming enthusiasts...

-Eric

[SSGGeezer]

Honestly, if when presented with a picture you're not capable of saying "ah, this is clearly the work of the [Evil Accelerator Unit]", then I would say it's mostly irrelevant. I went for the original version just by virtue of it being substantially cheaper. Like, around 30-40% cheaper.


Where is the F4 zoom? I would like to know if I have to look for an F-series 70-210, study the PLM option or wait!

Find a FA* 80-200, it is worth the "weight!" Since with the Power Zoom it is a bit of a chunky bit of kit. But oh, so nice!

[northcoastgreg]

The question is what will a mainly still camera be used for in another 10 years and what other technologies will cut into that, I would be curious to hear the views of Pentax on that topic.

This opinion has been voiced before, but I've never found it compelling. For many people, phones make terrible cameras. I was in Yellowstone in early September, and over and over again I found people struggling to take images with their phones. I would be waiting at some vista to get access to the best spot, and it would sometimes take people several minutes to get in an image with their darn smartphones. The fact that you don't have tactile buttons that manipulated without looking at them can make smartphones difficult to use in broad daylight simply because it can be hard to see the screen. With a real camera (i.e., a device design solely for photography, rather than a jack-of-all-trade, master-of-none device like a smartphone), it's very easy to get what you want out of it. I would step up to the vista point and in ten, fifteen seconds I would get the images I wanted. No fiddling with touch screens or any of that kind of nonsense.

Then there's the wildlife issue. At Yellowstone, people went insane over wildlife. They wanted to see wild animals and take pictures of them. A mangy buffalo walking along the side of the road could back-up traffic for miles. Cell phone cameras are very non-optimal for wildlife shots, because for all practical purposes, you can't put a long zoom lens on one of these devices and keep them small, compact, and pocketable. I saw a lot of bridge cameras at Yellowstone. And compacts with protruding lenses. That's what's needed for wildlife, even among cameras for mere sight-seers.

Then there's the issue of sheer quality. You go out to national parks and other scenic places in the west, you'll often run into quite a few landscape photographers. Go to Maroon Bells in the autumn, and at dawn there can be a close to a hundred photographers, almost all of them with APS-C or FF cameras on tripods, set up around the lake. Some of these photographers are quite competitive. If other landscape photographers are shooting FF with professional glass, they'll feel obligated to do likewise. Cell phones just don't cut it for serious landscape photography. You go out early in the morning to an iconic spot, and you may see quite a few ILC's, mostly on tripods, but very few cell phone cameras. For those who want to produce the kind of landscape images you see in magazines such as Outdoor Photography, you need a camera that produces raw files with copious amounts of dynamic range. There's no way to get around it.

[Rondec]

“I don't need half of you half as much as I should like; and I use less than half of you half as well as you deserve.”

An odd thought I've had lately is that we really need 3 more DA limiteds so that they can be used by "mortal men, doomed to die," while of course there are exactly the right number of FA limiteds for the "elven kings under they sky."

Weird, or what?

[luftfluss]

An odd thought I've had lately is that we really need 3 more DA limiteds so that they can be used by "mortal men, doomed to die," while of course there are exactly the right number of FA limiteds for the "elven kings under they sky."

Weird, or what?

I have, on more than one occasion, referred to the DA15 as The Precious.

[jatrax]

I know there has been zero information on this lens from Ricoh but does anyone care to speculate on whether Ricoh is holding back on it and possibly the DFA 85 to make a splash with the new camera?

[thibs]

I know there has been zero information on this lens from Ricoh but does anyone care to speculate on whether Ricoh is holding back on it and possibly the DFA 85 to make a splash with the new camera?

If they wanna splash, they'd come with DA* reworks IMO.

[jatrax]

If they wanna splash, they'd come with DA* reworks IMO

Yes that would be a splash alright. The new DA*11-18 plus new DA*16-50II, DA*50-135II, and DA*60-250II would certainly be a set to build to. Combined with a new APS-C flagship to take advantage of the new lenses................... wow.

[Serkevan]

Find a FA* 80-200, it is worth the "weight!" Since with the Power Zoom it is a bit of a chunky bit of kit. But oh, so nice!

The images it makes are certainly incredible, and now this has joined the D FA* 70-200 2.8 in scarily looking at me like "buuuuuuyyyy meee". But I really shouldn't go for such a heavy piece of kit

---------- Post added 10-04-19 at 01:01 AM ----------

An odd thought I've had lately is that we really need 3 more DA limiteds so that they can be used by "mortal men, doomed to die," while of course there are exactly the right number of FA limiteds for the "elven kings under they sky."

Weird, or what?

With the size of the DA limiteds I would say we only need one more to fit the Dwarf-lords in their halls of stone. But I would be open to having a couple more :P

[troenaas]

For those who want to produce the kind of landscape images you see in magazines such as Outdoor Photography, you need a camera that produces raw files with copious amounts of dynamic range. There's no way to get around it.

I agree completely! You can't get that from a phone camera.

[biz-engineer]

I found people struggling to take images with their phones. I would be waiting at some vista to get access to the best spot, and it would sometimes take people several minutes to get in an image with their darn smartphones.

Smartphone even give the worst pictures when taken facing mid day sun, but "why can't I get that picture that I saw posted on instagram?"

[Pedrodelta]

I agree completely! You can't get that from a phone camera.

+1

I hate phones but if I had one it would be to make calls not photo's. A phone will never hold a candle to a good dslr.

Unless that is, Ricoh build phone capability into the next iteration of 'K'? Arrgh! I can't believe I just said that... perish the thought

[biz-engineer]

Unless that is, Ricoh build phone capability into the next iteration of 'K'? Arrgh! I can't believe I just said that... perish the thought

I've tryed to stick my phone on my binoculars (x10) when I forgot my DFA150-450 at home, and that phone+binocular did produce a picture good enough if not enlarged more than the size of a stamp

[troenaas]

The only instance where a cellphone camera and Pentax DSLR might be equal is regarding weather sealing.... You can use both when it is raining....

[MJKoski]

Camera phones beat APS-C BW conversion already. This is taken with Huawei P20 Pro BW sensor and 720nm IR-filter in my own filter holder for the phone:



I ordered 1 meter wide print of that. It easily has ~20MP worth of details (BW sensor native resolution). Same story here:



Too bad that they removed the BW sensor from new models. It really is something special and kicks m4/3 seriously to the *beep*. And then some color from the 40MP RAW and ND400 & C-pol filter: