[PJ1]

Is there a word for that kind of person?

Snake oil merchant. He is just a salesman who "believes" in whatever he is selling right now but really does not believe in anything.

---

Last edited by PJ1; 07-27-2020 at 08:44 PM. Reason: typo

[clackers]

Who is at fault though.... the person with the you tube channel or the people that watch this drivel.?

It is a fair point you make, Dave.

You can see Ricoh Imaging just don't attempt to seriously engage with mass culture, buying this social media influencer and bribing that pro to cross brands, it's poisonous.

They have a history of marketing B2B, not to the ordinary consumer, of selling to rational decision makers.

The president made clear: open minded customers who enjoy the physical act of photography will love Pentax cameras, and of course, the majority just won't have a clue, there'll be no attraction, so forget about pandering to 'em!

[totsmuyco]

There's no fairness, he's continued to bash, Totsmuyco.

He had a poll asking how many Pentaxians will switch brands if the K-New doesn't wow.

Ahead of the Ricoh president's announcement, he claimed he had an inside tip that it would be to declare Pentax was going to stop making cameras.

That was completely wrong - the opposite in fact, so after the second interview with the product manager, he bashed the K-new.

This is how he makes money now, attacking the brand he shot with and praised, because he discovered that gets more Youtube hits and likes. Is there a word for that kind of person?

Too bad, I enjoyed his review when he was positive with Pentax. He had basis as he was doing side by side comparison.

Sometimes people enjoy the ratings instead of the truth. I guess he changed his mind. But that's him.

[davidsladek]

One thing I am worried about on this war of DSLR and MILC is that review sites may end up only comparing MILC against MILC and DSLR against DSLR. Whilst it sounds like an advantage for Pentax once other brands escape that space, it really isn't, because reviews and comparisons of DSLRs will not happen anymore. And if the only reviews and comparisons on the web are then limited to MILC than Pentax will be unfairly excluded from peoples attention. I have learned through the years that quality of your product doesn't mean a thing if your customers have no visibility of it.

[Kunzite]

One thing I am worried about on this war of DSLR and MILC is that review sites may end up only comparing MILC against MILC and DSLR against DSLR. Whilst it sounds like an advantage for Pentax once other brands escape that space, it really isn't, because reviews and comparisons of DSLRs will not happen anymore. And if the only reviews and comparisons on the web are then limited to MILC than Pentax will be unfairly excluded from peoples attention. I have learned through the years that quality of your product doesn't mean a thing if your customers have no visibility of it.

Don't worry, they will compare Pentax' DSLRs with MILCs... how well they display live video in the viewfinder, focus peaking in the viewfinder, HUD-like viewfinder display, image review in the viewfinder, very fast frame rates with AF and AE locked, compact size (if applicable), the ability to adapt other mount lenses...

[bobbotron]

Why can't it have all three? A great Image Sync app that works flawlessly for remote shooting, an articulating screen that is rugged, and if you never want to use either of those just leave the screen in its place and never move it.

I’m sure they could aim for that and it’d be good, but even the most rugged flip screens will have more points of failure than a fixed screen. To me I like the simplicity of fixed for a field camera.

[normhead]

The D750/D780 example was just the one that came to my mind first, I'm sorry you find it disingenious.

If you would have said the D750/D780 which from the get go are inferior cameras with no IBIS, accelerator chip, astro-tracer and limited backwards compatibility with older lenses, no pixel shift would have been cool. Even the way things are right now, I don't want one of those cameras, at any price. So how would using them as example improve the clarity of your point?

One of the biggest flaws in forum discussion is people going on as if some other camera was the greatest thing since sliced bread, ignoring what they have with Pentax that they'd give up if they got one. If they value what the other brand has to offer, then they should go for it, no sweat off my back, but that means you don't value what's unique about Pentax. Which means nothing you say has any value to those of us who do value what Pentax has to offer.

Pentax doesn't need to compete with cameras that don't have the Pentax feature set.
They only have to compete with cameras that have the features I want. People are always comparing K-new vs D-750 or D500 or whatever, yet none of those cameras have the Pentax feature set. Comparisons are meaningless. I wouldn't buy one in place of my K-3, and I certainly won't buy one in place of the K-new, so of what relevance are they?

If the K-new approaches the D750 in FPS, buffer size and other performance, it will be the far superior camera because of all the features Nikon doesn't support. So there should be no problem if it's priced a little higher. To me an Pentax with 10 fps and a 100 shot buffer, and an incremental improvement in AF makes a D750/D780 a piece of junk, because I use those unique Pentax features and a camera that doesn't have them is just not as useful a camera for my shooting style.

---

Last edited by normhead; 07-28-2020 at 07:04 AM.

[Serkevan]

If you would have said the D750/D780 which from the get go are inferior cameras with no IBIS, accelerator chip, astro-tracer and limited backwards compatibility with older lenses, no pixel shift would have been cool. Even the way things are right now, I don't want one of those cameras, at any price. So how would using them as example improve the clarity of your point?

One of the biggest flaws in forum discussion is people going on as if some other camera was the greatest thing since sliced bread, ignoring what they have with Pentax that they'd give up if they got one. If they value what the other brand has to offer, then they should go for it, no sweat off my back, but that means you don't value what's unique about Pentax. Which means nothing you say has any value to those of us who do value what Pentax has to offer.

Pentax doesn't need to compete with cameras that don't have the Pentax feature set.
They only have to compete with cameras that have the features I want. People are always comparing K-new vs D-750 or D500 or whatever, yet none of those cameras have the Pentax feature set. Comparisons are meaningless. I wouldn't buy one in place of my K-3, and I certainly won't buy one in place of the K-new, so of what relevance are they?

If the K-new approaches the D750 in FPS, buffer size and other performance, it will be the far superior camera because of all the features Nikon doesn't support. So there should be no problem if it's priced a little higher. To me an Pentax with 10 fps and a 100 shot buffer, and an incremental improvement in AF makes a D750/D780 a piece of junk, because I use those unique Pentax features and a camera that doesn't have them is just not as useful a camera for my shooting style.

That's an awfully long way of repeating what I said in a couple posts .

I used the D750/D780 comparison because Nikon are charging much more for the new model when Nikon users in the market for a D780 can pick up a D750 for half the price and get more than 90% of the D780. Nothing more.

[AggieDad]

I have a question rather than a comment.

Somewhere in the midst of all this discussion, there were comments (and cheers) about still having 2 SD card slots. I am wondering if there is really any reason for this anymore. Today SD cards are available in very large capacities – up to 512 GB. I have two 64 GB cards in my K3-ii. That's about 2200 RAW images.

With this kind of capacity why bother with a second SD slot?

Just wonderin' on a hot summer day...

Don

[Bunch]

I have a question rather than a comment.

Somewhere in the midst of all this discussion, there were comments (and cheers) about still having 2 SD card slots. I am wondering if there is really any reason for this anymore. Today SD cards are available in very large capacities – up to 512 GB. I have two 64 GB cards in my K3-ii. That's about 2200 RAW images.

With this kind of capacity why bother with a second SD slot?

Just wonderin' on a hot summer day...

Don

So you can write the same thing to both cards, in case of card failure. Important for professionals.

[c.a.m]

With this kind of capacity why bother with a second SD slot?

A good question, I think.

Some users might find the second card to be useful as a 'back up'. In my use, the second card has saved me on several outings -- I neglected to re-install Card No. 1 after downloading images from the previous session. So, Card No. 2 saved me from my own stupidity of not following my usual practice.

I've been using 16 GB and 32 GB cards. On occasion, I have filled up the first card and my subsequent shots were stored automatically to the second one.

- Craig

[normhead]

It says right in the video, peace of mind for pros.

[gatorguy]

So you can write the same thing to both cards, in case of card failure. Important for professionals.

Or write JPEGS to one and RAW images to the other. So why would you want to do that?

If all you do most of the time is post to social sites or print smallish photos or send pics to family, and you're happy with the color and contrast the camera is doing for you, then those JPEGS may be perfectly suitable. Personally I enjoy processing but not everyone does.

But what about that one or two (hopefully more!) particularly good photos from a session that you might want to do more with? That's where those RAWS can be invaluable. JPEGS processed in camera do not allow the same level of manipulation. Some imaging is processed in, the original file data lost, and that data cannot be replaced.

[Bunch]

I'm aware that's an option, but I never bother. When processing I'd rather delete 1 raw file than 1 raw and 1 jpg. The more valuable function is the backup for paid gigs.

Or write JPEGS to one and RAW images to the other. So why would you want to do that? If all you do most of the time is post to social sites or print smallish photos for yourself those JPEGS may be perfectly suitable. But what about that one or two (hopefully more!) particularly good photos from a session that you might want to do more with? That's where those RAWS can be valuable. JPEGS do not allow the same level of manipulation, some imaging is processed in, the original file data lost and cannot be replaced.

[normhead]

I'm aware that's an option, but I never bother. When processing I'd rather delete 1 raw file than 1 raw and 1 jpg. The more valuable function is the backup for paid gigs.

I write to the second card at reduced size for facebook etc., but all I've ever used them for is checking my shutter actuation count.