[monochrome]

Wow, this post is chock full of assumptions, My friend!

Actually, they’re generalizations. There are always exceptions to generalizations, but there’s often a kernel of truth in them.

[Larrymc]

Actually, they’re generalizations. There are always exceptions to generalizations, but there’s often a kernel of truth in them.

I guess I land in the exception category, I don't fit those 'generalizations'. I don't make decisions based on the post by @photoptomist.

[reh321]

I guess I land in the exception category, I don't fit those 'generalizations'. I don't make decisions based on the post by @photoptomist.

I don't either - but I've been surprised by the number of people who have complaints about the KP, so there must be aspects of camera usage I don't understand.

[totsmuyco]

Buying a camera for me is like falling in love with a lady. First, there has to be some physical attraction. Next, I would look at her value. I would like to know if she's a low maintenance or a big spender. Then I would take a look her at her attitude, her faith, her talents. If like her, I will show some interest. If I get a good response, I propose.

Relating this to Pentax, except for one which I won't mention, I like the way Pentax cameras look. Pentax cameras are low maintenance. They're weather sealed, tough as a bull. It used to be that Pentax was a real value for money. I could discount that now as Pentax cameras are more expensive here in my part of the woods. But this can be off set by its weather sealing which makes it low maintenance. I showed some interest, and it gave me a positive response. My first pictures wowed me with its image quality. Like any marriage, it ain't perfect but, I learned to live with its defects and I focus more on its strengths. So in the end I decided to marry Pentax. Last Feb 2 was our 5th anniversary. We're happy together and we are quite a couple. I believe we'll have more years of love ❤ together.

---

Last edited by totsmuyco; 05-18-2019 at 07:22 AM.

[photoptimist]

I guess I land in the exception category, I don't fit those 'generalizations'. I don't make decisions based on the post by @photoptomist.

LOL!

Some say "standalone cameras are dying -- smartphones are the future" but there are exceptions.

Some say "DSLRs are dying -- mirrorless is the future" but there are exceptions.

Some say "APS-C & M43 are dying -- FF or MF is the future" but there are exceptions.

Us Pentax owners are all exceptions. We don't fit the lowest-common denominator generalizations of being satisfied with smartphones, Canikons, or MILCs. Perhaps it makes us exceptional!

And yet the challenge for Pentax is to find enough of us exceptions amongst the general herds of photographers to create a viable business. And that brings us back to the need for generalizations about what combinations of camera design features (sensor format, body size, frame rate, user interface, lens assortment, battery size, etc.) that will appeal to a sufficient number of these exceptional photographers to pay for all the R&D, capital equipment, labor, and materials to make Pentax's exceptional cameras.

Note that half of my "generalizations" are backed by basic facts in physics and engineering -- a larger sensor really will require more money, a larger body, larger lenses, bigger batteries, and take longer to read-out than will a small sensor. Finding engineering exceptions to these rules (without suffering other serious trade-offs) is much harder than finding exceptions to the personal preference generalizations. Those trade-offs in physics and engineering make some combinations of camera features infeasible and other combinations very very expensive which makes them inviable from a business standpoint. So those generalizations are also true from Pentax's perspective.

Anyway... I think Ricoh/Pentax is aware of all these issues. They know they don't need to jump on any trendy bandwagons because what they are making is not a mass-market camera. But they also know they need to find combinations of camera features that are attractive to enough people without being exorbitantly expensive in R&D or cost-of-goods.

[Larrymc]

LOL!

Some say "standalone cameras are dying -- smartphones are the future" but there are exceptions.

Some say "DSLRs are dying -- mirrorless is the future" but there are exceptions.

Some say "APS-C & M43 are dying -- FF or MF is the future" but there are exceptions.

Us Pentax owners are all exceptions. We don't fit the lowest-common denominator generalizations of being satisfied with smartphones, Canikons, or MILCs. Perhaps it makes us exceptional!

And yet the challenge for Pentax is to find enough of us exceptions amongst the general herds of photographers to create a viable business. And that brings us back to the need for generalizations about what combinations of camera design features (sensor format, body size, frame rate, user interface, lens assortment, battery size, etc.) that will appeal to a sufficient number of these exceptional photographers to pay for all the R&D, capital equipment, labor, and materials to make Pentax's exceptional cameras.

Note that half of my "generalizations" are backed by basic facts in physics and engineering -- a larger sensor really will require more money, a larger body, larger lenses, bigger batteries, and take longer to read-out than will a small sensor. Finding engineering exceptions to these rules (without suffering other serious trade-offs) is much harder than finding exceptions to the personal preference generalizations. Those trade-offs in physics and engineering make some combinations of camera features infeasible and other combinations very very expensive which makes them inviable from a business standpoint. So those generalizations are also true from Pentax's perspective.

Anyway... I think Ricoh/Pentax is aware of all these issues. They know they don't need to jump on any trendy bandwagons because what they are making is not a mass-market camera. But they also know they need to find combinations of camera features that are attractive to enough people without being exorbitantly expensive in R&D or cost-of-goods.

Apologies for not clarifying my earlier post, I should have quoted only the fourth paragraph "People with big hands, fat wallets, and slow-moving subjects will gravitate to larger formats. People with smaller hands, smaller budgets, and flighty subjects will gravitate to smaller formats". That was the only generalization that I thought I and many photography enthusiasts might be exceptions to.

I'm in basic agreement with what you are stating here especially the physics and engineering generalizations the physical generalizations not so much. Yes, Pentaxians are exceptional, why else would we choose Pentax Cameras to shoot with?

[Kunzite]

Some say "standalone cameras are dying -- smartphones are the future" but there are exceptions.

That is not possible unless photography itself will die (by being outlawed or something). No matter how many cameras you'd put in a smartphone, you can't fix it. This is not preference, nor stubbornness, but about the fundamental characteristics of a photographic tool.
Maybe, in all these cases, the exceptions are more fundamental than we'd think.

[biz-engineer]

Some say "APS-C & M43 are dying -- FF or MF is the future" but there are exceptions.

It's not quite what I meant in my previous post. I just wanted to say that I believe that MF crop still has room for becoming more popular.

[normhead]

It's not quite what I meant in my previous post. I just wanted to say that I believe that MF crop still has room for becoming more popular.

How do you take pictures of small birds with those MF cameras?
Useless pieces of junk.

[RGlasel]

the fundamental characteristics of a photographic tool.

I'm not sure what those fundamental characteristics are and even if I complete a list, my list is not likely to match anyone else's. This thread needs some pictures, the first one was taken with my smartphone so my wife could describe a plant (one of many!) she had purchased, the second is my best attempt to match it with my DSLR (I wasted an hour, by which time the sun had moved enough to make it impossible to get a better match). The smartphone photo is 12MP, with a 35mm equivalent focal length of 25mm, the DSLR photo was taken with an equivalent focal length of 27mm, which is as close as I could get for FOV with the lenses I have. This is not a scene where any camera is going to produce art, but it is certainly a suitable situation for taking photographs and who is to say the DSLR photo is more suitable than the smartphone photo? Many good to excellent photographs involve a certain amount of serendipity and while a smartphone may be a tool with limited capabilities, which fundamental characteristic, of say a GRIII, is it missing?


---------- Post added 05-18-19 at 12:27 PM ----------

How do you take pictures of small birds with those MF cameras?

By cropping, of course!

[reh321]

How do you take pictures of small birds with those MF cameras?
Useless pieces of junk.

Depends on pixel density of the sensor. If they put enough pixels on the sensor, then you could crop down to 6mp or so {that is basically what I often do with my KP .... except for the wren that landed within 15 feet of me while I was sitting on the deck, and I had to quickly zoom out because I was using a 55-300mm lens with a 1.4X TC!
Now you see it .... - PentaxForums.com

[RobA_Oz]

It would be interesting, but I can't think of a practical way to mine for that data. How do you guessgauge the probability that sellers of used gear will use their proceeds to buy new gear of the same brand, instead of buying more used equipment, buying new equipment of a different brand or to get their outboard motor fixed?

I doubt it’s any place where you could search for it online. The obvious ways are to survey buyers and sellers, although the data would be based on access to buyers and sellers and having enough of them willing to take part. Marketers would keep that data very close to their chests.

[RonHendriks1966]

It would be interesting, but I can't think of a practical way to mine for that data. How do you guessgauge the probability that sellers of used gear will use their proceeds to buy new gear of the same brand, instead of buying more used equipment, buying new equipment of a different brand or to get their outboard motor fixed?

Well one difference is when that gear was new purchased handling as a company. When you buy and run a company then there are tax reduction that make those camera's and lenses cheaper. You have to keep them and use them for a while, but the write-off is mostly down to zero. So you can sell them secondhand and keep the proceeds. But with fewer people actually making money on photography and running a business with it.....that group gets smaller over time.

[Kunzite]

I'm not sure what those fundamental characteristics are and even if I complete a list, my list is not likely to match anyone else's.

I'm not saying you can't take good pictures with a smartphone. Of course you can.
I'm saying that, in many cases, a dedicated camera will be the better or only choice.

[biz-engineer]

But with fewer people actually making money on photography and running a business with it.....that group gets smaller over time.

On the other hand the number of pessimistic thought is growing, so that's a positive (growing = positive).

I'm saying that, in many cases, a dedicated camera will be the better or only choice.

I say, I wouldn't use a image file from a phone for making a $100 print, the result would be a waste of money. Now of course, it's possible that you never print but in that case using a camera with 24Mpixel, 36Mp, 42Mp, 45Mp or 51Mp is also a waste of money. Making decent size prints is paradigm shifting.