[ffking]

In studio setting the dynamic range is just not that important. You control the lights, the intensity of the shadows etc, in reality if you're doing too much highlight and shadow recovery from studio work then you messed up and need to control the lighting better in the first instance. This differs a little with outdoor ocf portrait work, but still you shouldn't need as much dynamic range as you think when bringing your own lights to the party. It's just a case of recognising the features of a camera that are more important. A parent will be more chuffed at their kid being captured at their best than an image with 5-10% sharper IQ etc.

You are in Hulk mode today, aren't you?

[Serkevan]

I hope so, too, TS, but pricing determines whether the improvement is incremental or a leap forward.

The DFA*50 was a leap forward, an entirely new class of lens much superior to a film era FA50 and even the DA*55 I currently use with my K-1, so why hasn't everyone bought one? It's that sort of conundrum.

Again, with another personal example, I will shoot forever with my DA12-24 on APS-C, I honestly don't intend to ever buy the DA*11-18, and yet that's demonstrably better.

See how maddening we are for the developers? Great products go unrewarded, and in the end, to these companies in a crashing industry, it's only the dollars returned that matter.

So the thing with the DFA*50 is that it's a great lens, makes incredibly beautiful pictures, but for less weight combined I'm bringing the M20, DFA 28-105 and either F50/1.7 or the 77 Limited on a hike or trip, and with those three lenses you can take very pretty pictures already. It's, of course, partly about cost (I've spent about the same for those 4 lenses* together as I would on a second-hand DFA*50), but most importantly it's a question of "how much use would this see?" and "is it worth the money when the same amount of money can also get you all of this".


*Okay, my copy of the 77 was ridiculously cheap but the comparison more than stands if we just count the F50/1.7

[BigMackCam]

No, here silly billy, in this forum from our users People hoping it matches D500 etc. I'm saying that this is quite low expectations and I hope Pentax smash that out of the water. But if our demograph would be content with the next flagship having AF on par with a D500... that's not great imo.

And as for Pentax not being competitive, that's bs. They sell cameras and lenses, so does everyone else. That's competition! The fact they may not have gone to mirrorless does not mean anything, it could mean they'd love to but have short pockets and are making a gamble to stay with dslr. You interpret that as not trying to compete, others can see it as struggling to stay in the market, always playing catch up. Only time will tell and the success of their cameras/brand/lenses etc and whatever side of tech they decide to stay with. But make no mistake, they are competing. It's business.

My point is perhaps our users here have low expectations, if their new k-new camera costs $1500AUD, and its only on par with a 2016 Nikon D500... might be wise to cut the losses and choose another 2019/2020 brand crop sensor camera that out performs it (significantly so)

For me I can only stay loyal for so long before logic kicks in.

But I live in hope, I really hope it blows a lot of the competition out of the water and ends up being a really competitive choice. I hope to show my recently acquired Nikon D500 bird shooter friend that Pentax can really keep up with the competition in this genre.

I actually think Pentax is marketing itself towards Landscape and Wildlife, K-1 was Landscape, this will be Wildlife (all about the AF baby!)

In one post you've twice accused all your fellow forum members of having low expectations, and labelled my view "bs". Nice work. Maybe we're just not as advanced as you, Eddy... or maybe - just maybe - everyone has different requirements, and their expectations are different to yours, rather than "lower". Anyway, you've made your views on Pentax pretty clear, now, even in advance of the new camera. To avoid edging into brand-bashing, I'd leave it there if I were you.

I'm afraid I don't have the appetite to respond further... I'm getting really tired of sticking up for my chosen brand, in its dedicated forums, against a relatively small few dissenting voices. I think I need a break...

[monochrome]

It might take a decade for an initial production run to be sold. That hinders the development of their replacement product, too, if sales are so small they have to wait ten years (which no major camera company has these days) for a return on investment.

I think cameras are in pretty much continuous production. Components might be stockpiled, but most components can carry on to the next camera. It is a platform transition like this where a larger number of newly-designed components are ordered that raises the initial capital cost.

AFA the VF is concerned I think the larger VF has more to do with the new AF sensor covering the entire FF frame than it has to do with manually focusing the K-new. The K-new frame will appear as large as the K-1 frame to take advantage of all the AF points (using the joystick). The new AF sensor will also be used in the next FF body and the next 645 body (if there is one). Ricoh could conceivably order (or contract for term-delivery of) a multi-year batch of that component to lower unit costs.

---

Last edited by monochrome; 05-23-2020 at 06:03 AM.

[bertwert]

For a beginner, I'd recommend Nikon or Canon every time, for all the obvious reasons.

Can I ask what those obvious reasons are? When I first started out with photography, I came across the K-50 when looking for a camera. For the same price as the Canikon entry level offerings, I got much more for my money - a much more capable camera that I am still happy enough using six years later...

[Spodeworld]

I think that the new cam will offer some interesting stuff - at least from the speculation - definitely assume it will have the 5-axis IS, snappier, more accurate AF-C, including the addition of many more AF sensors covering much more of the frame (hopefully), and the larger VF sounds great. But, I really want a movable rear screen to help with very low perspective shots, which are a bitch to get when the screen is fixed. But, the images we've seen make it appear as if the cam has a fixed lcd on the back - which seems like a shocking miss in 2020. Who here thinks that that's either not an accurate representation or Pentax has innovated something that will surprise us and we'll get a tilt screen that is so flush that it looks like it's fixed? (Even better if it has touch focus - but I'm not holding my breath on that one.)

[normhead]

Can I ask what those obvious reasons are? When I first started out with photography, I came across the K-50 when looking for a camera. For the same price as the Canikon entry level offerings, I got much more for my money - a much more capable camera that I am still happy enough using six years later...

What's obvious to one is not always obvious to every one else.

But, the case Pentax for is pretty straight forward.
The entry level lenses are as good was anyone's.
The intermediate level lenses are as good as anyone's.
The pro level lenses are as good as anyones if perhaps not quite as numerous.
They have specialty glass, like the DA and FA Ltds. and now a coming's DFA ltd.
They have lenses like the DFA*50 1.4 and probably the coming 85 1.4 that other companies can't match.(To be sure they also have lenses Pentax can't match, but that can' be area for avoiding Pentax, it goes both ways.)

You look at this thread
Just three lenses, your pick? - PentaxForums.com and you look at the lenses people select many are designed for and are unique to Pentax... so you have to ask yourself, if those are the lenses they like, how would it have been an advantage to them to suggest Canon or Nikon as the camera to buy when they were beginners? So many get comfortable and stay with what they buy first.

It just strikes me as an odd thing to say.
You can't get everything from Canon or Nikon, you can get from Pentax.
You can't get everything from Pentax you can get from Canon or Nikon.

So why would you assume a person with no experience will end up a Canon, Nikon, or Sony shooter and not a Pentax shooter? It's a self fulfilling prophesy.

The only people likely to recommend Pentax to beginners will be other Pentax shooters. If we don't do it ,no one will.

People who like your images taken with your Pentax gear are the target market for any future Pentax growth. I can think of no objective reason why Pentax would be worse than any other camera for beginner. They make some really cool stuff. There are tons of people like those clowns over at Donkey Pee Review recommending other brands for totally bogus reasons. (Like a beginner cares if Pentax makes a 600mm ƒ4 lens. They only do because places like DPR tell them they should. (Hell, I shoot birds and I don't even care that Pentax doesn't make those lenses. But a beginner should. Too funny.))

---

Last edited by normhead; 05-23-2020 at 07:03 AM.

[reh321]

My philosophy has been since 1999 “Buy | Try | Sell”, which I think is a corollary to try it all. I capture moments, but I also enjoy using gear I dreamed about in my youth, and abhor the ascetic impulse to deny myself new gear experiences..

Of course the issue is I so rarely sell

The gear I dreamed of in my youth is now “obsolete”.
I never sell.
I have no need to use gear just because it is shiny and new.

[BigMackCam]

Can I ask what those obvious reasons are? When I first started out with photography, I came across the K-50 when looking for a camera. For the same price as the Canikon entry level offerings, I got much more for my money - a much more capable camera that I am still happy enough using six years later...

The vast majority of folks still shoot with either Nikon or Canon. There's a huge choice of AF lenses, flashes and other accessories, with something for every application and budget. If you book a workshop or attend a local evening class, chances are the tutor - and most of the attendees - are shooting one of those two brands, and fully able to cover both. There's no brand snobbery, smirking and ribbing, no chance of having someone look down their nose at your choice, if you shoot with Nikon or Canon. Both brands do all of the fundamental things well.

There's quite some responsibility in recommending a camera system to someone, as it can be pretty expensive. Recommending Nikon or Canon is low-risk. The beginner is highly unlikely to be disappointed with their purchase. If they are, they'd probably be disappointed with any ILC, and might be better off sticking with their phone. There are good reasons why I prefer to shoot with Pentax, but they're unique to me and probably don't matter to most beginners. By the time they do, those folks should be perfectly capable of making their own decisions, and switching to Pentax if and when they feel it's suitable. If they do, I'd rather that decision lies with them rather than me.

There used to be a saying in business, way back when, "Nobody got fired for buying IBM". This is similar. You'll never go far wrong in buying Nikon or Canon. Pentax might be better for some, but I think folks need some experience to understand if it's the right system for them

[monochrome]

The gear I dreamed of in my youth is now “obsolete”.
I never sell.
I have no need to use gear just because it is shiny and new.

Need?

This is about choices. I make mine and you make yours.

I use Pentax specifically because I can mount “obsolete” film era lenses to digital bodies and make great images. I sell because there actually is a limit to how much money I can tie up in adult toys and I want to try both the old stuff and the new stuff before I die.

[Sandy Hancock]

Eddy. Seriously. Man up and stump up the cash for the gear you need to forge ahead with your photography career. Take out a loan. The interest and depreciation are tax deductible.

The K-new will be great, but if it's not what you need, move on. No one cares what brand you shoot, so why should you?

And for what it's worth, I too keep in contact with Chris Rankin, and it's clear he still has a soft spot for Pentax. To my eyes, it is pretty obvious which of his shots are made with which gear. The Sony + 85/1.4 looks lifeless. I will grant you that the Fuji + 56/1.2 is legitimately gorgeous, but his older work with the FA77 and FA*85 (despite the likelihood that his technique has improved since then) just shines.

[normhead]

There used to be a saying in business, way back when, "Nobody got fired for buying IBM".

That's an interesting concept. So you've basically constructed a mindset where Canon and Nikon = IBM of the past.
Where do you even buy an IBM PC today?
Apple on the other hand, you got promoted for ditching... common wisdom is often in error.

I'm probably on my 8th or 9th Apple computer now, because I went for utility in features, not popularity. I recommend it. Same with recommending Pentax.

So I'm really curious, what are these features that make Canons and Nikon better for beginners, beside's their place in pop culture?

[Dieseler]

My point is perhaps our users here have low expectations, if their new k-new camera costs $1500AUD, and its only on par with a 2016 Nikon D500... might be wise to cut the losses and choose another 2019/2020 brand crop sensor camera that out performs it (significantly so)

If I can get a "D500" brand new with K-mount, Custom user modes instead of useless settings banks, and IBIS, for AU$1,500, I will be very happy given that a new D500 is mostly around AU$2,500 still.

[BigMackCam]

That's an interesting concept. So you've basically constructed a mindset where Canon and Nikon = IBM of the past.
Where do you even buy an IBM PC today?
Apple on the other hand, you got promoted for ditching... common wisdom is often in error.

No-one knows what will happen with Nikon or Canon in future, so maybe they could go the way of IBM. My point was, if you recommended IBM back then, you were recommending a good system that ticked all the basic boxes. No-one could fault your recommendation if they bought that IBM system. That there may have been even better systems for specific applications was understood. IBM, though, was always a solid choice.

I'm probably on my 8th or 9th Apple computer now, because I went for utility in features, not popularity. I recommend it. Same with recommending Pentax.

So I'm really curious, what are these features that make Canons and Nikon better for beginners, beside's their place in pop culture?

I've already listed my reasons in response to bertwert earlier, Norm. It's not to do with features, but ease of ownership. I far prefer Pentax - that's why I shoot with it. But if someone is so inexperienced and/or lacking in confidence that they need my recommendation in choosing a system, I'm going to recommend ease of ownership. If they ask why I shoot Pentax, then of course I'll tell them. But I'm not taking responsibility for introducing them to the system. Life just isn't as straightforward shooting Pentax, at least for some folks.

If my views are seen as anti-Pentax and pro-Nikon/Canon, I've been very much misunderstood and/or I've explained myself poorly.

That's about all I'm going to say on this, and indeed, in the thread...

[luftfluss]

Where do you even buy an IBM PC today?

I know this is off topic, but of course IBM is out of the PC biz because they didn't want to deal with the low margins. However, IBM IP is still in every personal computer (they own a ton of IP patents and make big bucks from it), IBM still makes and services mainframes and offers a lot of high-level technology solutions. They are profitable and selling off their PC & portable units to Lenovo wound up being a smart move.

Personal computers were never a big part of IBM's business.