[c.a.m]

@JPT (and @Mistral75 and @Snakeisthestuff) -- thanks again for your reports and interpretations of CP+. Much appreciated.

KP Kustom: Good on ya, Ricoh Imaging! While I'm usually very pragmatic -- coming from an engineering/scientific background -- I kinda like the KP Custom (KP Kustom?) concept and their CP+ display.

The booth reflected a 'garage' type homebrew approach, with seemingly random stands, shelving and backgrounds -- surely the antithesis of 'corporate marketing'. While I wouldn't go so far as calling the display kitschy, it had a certain appeal with the faux brick panels, wooden barrels, and various artifacts. I think the dudes hit the mark with their backroom bootlegged project and display booth.

As noted in other comments, the "1%er" logo could give mixed messages, depending on one's age and country. However, I would trust that they had noble intentions in mind.

As for the Kustom concept itself, who knows, maybe it will be popular in some circles. Nothing wrong with a bit of fun and play in addition to serious gear. I wish them luck.

- Craig

---

Last edited by c.a.m; 03-04-2019 at 09:47 AM.

[biz-engineer]

Totally agree.totally agree. It's hard to understand the repeated dissatisfaction with the KP of people who do not use it.

The Pentax system lack education of its potential user base. Canon have less this problem because they educate they customers on how best use their products. It is a common problem of complex products that each have their own best way of being used, that's why most tech companies have experts who are responsible to educate customer so they can get the best our of products instead on complaining because they aren't actually using the product correctly. Fuji partner with pro photographers to organize workshops when customers are being let to know how to use the fuji camera the best possible way. Pentax doesn't do any of this, and so it is not surprising that the opinion on Pentax products is left to chance.

[reh321]

The Pentax system lack education of its potential user base. Canon have less this problem because they educate they customers on how best use their products. It is a common problem of complex products that each have their own best way of being used, that's why most tech companies have experts who are responsible to educate customer so they can get the best our of products instead on complaining because they aren't actually using the product correctly.

Canon also has a much broader lineup - they have a camera to meet almost every 'want', but to use a Pentax may requiring trimming expectations.

[RonHendriks1966]

KP Kustom: Good on ya, Ricoh Imaging! While I'm usually very pragmatic -- coming from an engineering/scientific background -- I kinda like the KP Custom (KP Kustom?) concept and their CP+ display.

The booth reflected a 'garage' type homebrew approach, with seemingly random stands, shelving and backgrounds -- surely the antithesis of 'corporate marketing'. While I wouldn't go so far as calling the display kitschy, it had a certain appeal with the faux brick panels, wooden barrels, and various artifacts. I think the dudes hit the mark with their backroom bootlegged project and display booth.

Yes to that.........except for the small detail that there is no product on sale.....

[biz-engineer]

Canon also has a much broader lineup - they have a camera to meet almost every 'want', but to use a Pentax may requiring trimming expectations.

Well, there is not successor to the 7Dii either... so I suppose a very large number of Canon customers should be complaining ? Canon made the EOS M series (not a sport line) and the 5DIV (not a sport line) and now the EOS R (not a sport line). How many year it took Nikon from the D300 to the D500 ? And how slow are the Z6 and Z7 compared to the D500 ?

[Chris Mak]

Well, there is not successor to the 7Dii either... so I suppose a very large number of Canon customers should be complaining ? Canon made the EOS M series (not a sport line) and the 5DIV (not a sport line) and now the EOS R (not a sport line). How many year it took Nikon from the D300 to the D500 ? And how slow are the Z6 and Z7 compared to the D500 ?

It's hard to lean down on Nikon and Canon though (although Canon should have updated their 7DII by now), since both have now fully stepped into mirrorless and have both offered very decent mount adapters to use their full lens catalogue on these cameras. AF can be greatly enhanced by future firmware updates, Nikon has jsut issued an update that includes eye AF to their Z cameras.

Chris

[biz-engineer]

mirrorless and have both offered very decent mount adapters to use the full lens catalogue on these cameras.

The EOS R boast 2.5 frames per seconds. The Z series no much better. End of story.

---------- Post added 04-03-19 at 18:33 ----------

Nikon has jsut issued an update that includes eye AF to their Z cameras.

Do you need eye AF for wildlife with the DA560 or Nikkor 500 5.6 FL ?

[reh321]

Well, there is not successor to the 7Dii either... so I suppose a very large number of Canon customers should be complaining ? Canon made the EOS M series (not a sport line) and the 5DIV (not a sport line) and now the EOS R (not a sport line). How many year it took Nikon from the D300 to the D500 ? And how slow are the Z6 and Z7 compared to the D500 ?

I'm no longer a Canon user, nor do I regularly rub shoulders with Canon users, so I don't know how they view various cameras. The Canon 7Dii is still in stock at B&H, while the Pentax K-3ii has been off most shelves for close to a year now, and at least some Canon users who shoot with white lenses, mount them on the 1Dx, which currently sells better than the 7Dii at B&H, so their situation is completely different. I know many Nikon users became impatient waiting for the D500, but I don't know of anytime stores ran out of D300 cameras, and today the D500, the D7500, and the D850 are all available

[RGlasel]

Later the industry sold an even smaller film called "Advanced Photo System" APS for easier use and smaller cameras.

I had one of those cameras, it wasn't much (if any) smaller than "standard" compact 35mm cameras, but it allowed for three different aspect ratios. The image circle covered a rectangle of film 30.2mm by 16.7mm for a 16:9 aspect ration (1.25 crop factor); if you wanted a "classic" 3:2 aspect ratio you moved a baffle in front of the film to reduce the image to 25.1mm by 16.7mm (1.44 crop factor) or at the tradeoff of image quality, you could move the baffle to get a "panoramic" 3:1 aspect ratio on 30.2mm by 9.5mm (1.36 crop factor). The problem with the panoramic images is that enlarging them to get a height of 6 inches in the print meant visibly poorer resolution (or if you got the entire roll printed on 4x6 paper, you got big white margins on the top and bottom and a cramped 2 inch high photo).

[TwoUptons]

I had one of those cameras, it wasn't much (if any) smaller than "standard" compact 35mm cameras, but it allowed for three different aspect ratios. The image circle covered a rectangle of film 30.2mm by 16.7mm for a 16:9 aspect ration (1.25 crop factor); if you wanted a "classic" 3:2 aspect ratio you moved a baffle in front of the film to reduce the image to 25.1mm by 16.7mm (1.44 crop factor) or at the tradeoff of image quality, you could move the baffle to get a "panoramic" 3:1 aspect ratio on 30.2mm by 9.5mm (1.36 crop factor). The problem with the panoramic images is that enlarging them to get a height of 6 inches in the print meant visibly poorer resolution (or if you got the entire roll printed on 4x6 paper, you got big white margins on the top and bottom and a cramped 2 inch high photo).

The better APS cameras encoded the format in the photo data, with no physical mask. There was a magnetic coating on the film that could be used for exif-like data.

The printer simply read the encoded data and printed it that way. If you wanted the full APS-h, it was still there. Only the cheapest cameras had a physical mask.

-Eric

[ThorSanchez]

I had one of those cameras, it wasn't much (if any) smaller than "standard" compact 35mm cameras, but it allowed for three different aspect ratios. The image circle covered a rectangle of film 30.2mm by 16.7mm for a 16:9 aspect ration (1.25 crop factor); if you wanted a "classic" 3:2 aspect ratio you moved a baffle in front of the film to reduce the image to 25.1mm by 16.7mm (1.44 crop factor) or at the tradeoff of image quality, you could move the baffle to get a "panoramic" 3:1 aspect ratio on 30.2mm by 9.5mm (1.36 crop factor). The problem with the panoramic images is that enlarging them to get a height of 6 inches in the print meant visibly poorer resolution (or if you got the entire roll printed on 4x6 paper, you got big white margins on the top and bottom and a cramped 2 inch high photo).

I had a film Canon Elph APS camera and it was pretty tiny. Like Ricoh GR small. Something like this (this is the digital version, but almost the same size):

I have a bunch of pictures from that camera from trips to Iceland, Germany, Alaska, Yellowstone. Some good, some not so good. Much of the not so good owing to my 25-year-old self's lack of skill and knowledge as much as anything.

The fact that existed probably convinced me that was the perfect sized camera, since it could almost always be in my pocket. When the digital version came out circa 2002 that was my first digital camera, and I stuck with that line until I got a K-30 in 2012.

[TwoUptons]

Those initial APS Elphs were remarkable in a lot of ways...

And their little leather belt pouches before we all had phones to carry around...

But I still thought the Pentax 35mm 928 was one of the best of that vintage...

-Eric

[RGlasel]

Only the cheapest cameras had a physical mask.

True enough, but I remember paying the same for mine as what a "standard" compact 35mm camera cost at that time, which might explain why the format never took off. Consumer digital cameras were starting to come out then, but for customer testimonials and presentation materials, I was still scanning prints because the resolution of digital cameras in a similar price range wasn't as good.

[reh321]

I'm no longer a Canon user, nor do I regularly rub shoulders with Canon users, so I don't know how they view various cameras. The Canon 7Dii is still in stock at B&H, while the Pentax K-3ii has been off most shelves for close to a year now, and at least some Canon users who shoot with white lenses, mount them on the 1Dx, which currently sells better than the 7Dii at B&H, so their situation is completely different. I know many Nikon users became impatient waiting for the D500, but I don't know of anytime stores ran out of D300 cameras, and today the D500, the D7500, and the D850 are all available

The D850 is 7 fps and the Z-7 is 9 fps; each is essentially a "D500" in crop mode. When the D850 first came out, Nikon users were speculating that most users who would have purchased a D500 would purchase a D850 instead. A year ago I was wondering if Pentax had similar aspirations with respect to the K-1ii, but it is essentially a K-5 in crop mode, not quite a K-3.

[reh321]

True enough, but I remember paying the same for mine as what a "standard" compact 35mm camera cost at that time, which might explain why the format never took off. Consumer digital cameras were starting to come out then, but for customer testimonials and presentation materials, I was still scanning prints because the resolution of digital cameras in a similar price range wasn't as good.

I sent some slides off to a professional, and determined that his 3000 x 2000 scans were giving the same detail I was getting from Kodachrome 25, so I decided I would purchase a digital camera once something with 3000 pixels horizontally was in my price range; in the meantime, I purchased a Nikon LS-2000 film scanner, which could produce good 3000 x 2000 scans, and scanned the slides / negatives produced by my 35mm film cameras.