[reh321]

Only today the tools come with a plethora of crutches for the unable. As the consequence skills/users degenerate over time and start to define "proper tool" as a "proper tool" that also has the 101st additional crutch.

It's like assumed adults who think they can drive a car and start crying when confronted with a manual gear shift. Or when asked to cook a proper meal themselves.


I once sa.w a dystopian sci-fi where the average human was a bloated fat guy going everywhere in an fully automatic levitating comfy chair with inbuilt toilet, which they now are physically unable to ever leave due to degenerated muscles.

We're getting there faster and faster. The worst thing is a lot of people seem to think that this scenario is good.


On internet forums this gets the cream topping by the most incompetent voices making statements about how [the equivalent of the automated levitating toilet seat] is the ultimate sign of "professional" / "flagship".

Not all all - the 'proper tool' is designed to make doing the task easier and to do the task better.

I still remember the time sixty years ago when my Dad spent time the back yard putting brake shoes on the car.
He grunted and groaned all Saturday afternoon - but he did finally get the job done.

On Monday, his technician {Dad was an engineer} told him there was a tool the would have enabled him to do the job in half an hour.
Getting a job done can make us feel good - but doing the job quickly and well leaves our brains free to take on other tasks.

[Serkevan]

.... I bet it was named K-2020... and they had to nope on that one...
"new aps-c flagship" it is then

So "K-NAF"?

[Flubber]

... and honestly, it makes a decent amount of sense for Pentax to not want to keep pursing mirrorless markets.
To remove the pentaprism viewfinder for an EVF kinda flies in the face of what the name "PENTAx" stands for.

Leica still makes rangefinders.
Pentax still makes SLRs.

Everyone else is tripping over themselves solving problems we didn't know we had...

I'm actually pretty impressed with how Ricoh is managing the Pentax brand and how they are honouring the Pentax history and keeping with their morals.
Producing excellent cameras.

Not only that, but I don't think they have the R&D budget to chase the "big boys", so they are forced to carve out a niche for themselves if they want to keep the company alive. I believe that's another reason behind these decisions - it makes no sense trying to compete with the giants if you don't have the finances to do so.

[Zygonyx]

FozzFoster, may you allow me to be more specific...

...
Everyone else is tripping over themselves solving problems they didn't know they would have...
had they made up their mind since 2012 which was the digital photography market climax.

[Smolk]

This usage looks like a solution looking for a problem.

I'm not quite sure you're right. I have a mega-scanner, 1,5 meter long (in fact I own two of them), which produce results far beyond the Epsons. Software is a nightmare though, and it runs on a 1999 Mac. I am fortunate enough to also have 7 spare bulbs (no longer produced, original cost somewhere about $300 a piece). But this Screen Cezanne takes up a room and requires two strong people to move!

Within a Large Format forum, it was suggested that a long-term solution to replace these great but now gradually obsolete scanners would be to use a digital camera and stitching (if you want better results than the Epsons can give). My scanners can produce about 35Mb for 35mm, 100Mb for 6x6 (higher does not yield more detail). This is not directly comparable, though, to digital, it's a different kind of image, but it is good quality. I myself still need to find a solution for profiles and dust (in this regard the Epson is far more user-friendly), I've not given it enough time because of my work. I briefly owned an Epson which was no comparison in quality however. With the current scanners available, a camera can offer higher quality scans. In other words, a real solution.

In the past, cameras were also used to copy slides - it's not that odd.

[Flubber]

The question is not so much whether cameras have been used to copy slides before. The criticism is that the camera is not particularly suited for it because it doesn't have a flippyscreen, and that's an entirely different thought altogether. You can use a camera for scanning, but should you expect it to be tailored for it? That's what we are arguing against here. You can use a sword to cut butter, but it wasn't (and shouldn't be expected to be) designed for it.

[Serkevan]

I find it very telling that people are getting fixated on one particular example that - admittedly - has a relatively easy workaround and ignoring the much more common, much more problematic user case of "I want a camera with good AF but I want to be able to use that camera when I travel/hike/do macro instead of bringing several bodies which might not be feasible".

I'm sure people would complain if their favourite car model had never implemented power steering (Or, you know, dual SD slots, which flagships before the K-3 didn't have - obviously that means that the K-New should not have that either).

[reh321]

I'm not quite sure you're right. I have a mega-scanner, 1,5 meter long (in fact I own two of them), which produce results far beyond the Epsons. Software is a nightmare though, and it runs on a 1999 Mac. I am fortunate enough to also have 7 spare bulbs (no longer produced, original cost somewhere about $300 a piece). But this Screen Cezanne takes up a room and requires two strong people to move!

Within a Large Format forum, it was suggested that a long-term solution to replace these great but now gradually obsolete scanners would be to use a digital camera and stitching (if you want better results than the Epsons can give). My scanners can produce about 35Mb for 35mm, 100Mb for 6x6 (higher does not yield more detail). This is not directly comparable, though, to digital, it's a different kind of image, but it is good quality. I myself still need to find a solution for profiles and dust (in this regard the Epson is far more user-friendly), I've not given it enough time because of my work. I briefly owned an Epson which was no comparison in quality however. With the current scanners available, a camera can offer higher quality scans. In other words, a real solution.

In the past, cameras were also used to copy slides - it's not that odd.

You may use any tool that you want to.
I will use those made for the task.

Forty years ago I had a device while enabled my K-mount camera to copy 35mm slides.
It worked - but required several attempts - separated by processing a roll of film - to get them right.

I gave up, and sent slides in to Kodak to be copied, and spent my time taking new photos,
Today I have an Epson scanner I use for my old 620 negatives as I find them and an old Nikon scanner I use for 35mm media as I find them ..... and use my KP to take new photos.

[Smolk]

The question is not so much whether cameras have been used to copy slides before. The criticism is that the camera is not particularly suited for it because it doesn't have a flippyscreen, and that's an entirely different thought altogether. You can use a camera for scanning, but should you expect it to be tailored for it? That's what we are arguing against here. You can use a sword to cut butter, but it wasn't (and shouldn't be expected to be) designed for it.

Ah, I see. Still about that flippy screen? Really, some of these threads are too long! Back to my cabin!

[c.a.m]

Interesting discussion with various perspectives!

Of course, we can think of tools that we use in the kitchen, workshop, or at our workplaces. Dedicated tools are usually best at their task, compared to multi-use tools. When I was younger and went on multi-day backpacking or canoeing expeditions, weight and volume were of utmost concern and most items served more than one function, including the spork and knife, a single shallow bowl, and a mug.

A multi-tool is okay for occasional jobs, but proper pliers, knives, and screwdrivers are much better. On the other hand, my iPhone 5s is one of my most used and appreciated 'multi-tools' (but I use a pocket Filofax for my calendar planner -- go figure).

But, I digress. When the new APS-C camera is launched and we know all about it, I'll consider whether its features and performance are attractive enough to replace my still-usable K-3 II. Simple as that.

- Craig

[Flubber]

Ah, I see. Still about that flippy screen? Really, some of these threads are too long! Back to my cabin!

Hahaha, yeah, you'd think people had gotten the message already that it isn't going to have a flippyscreen, and that's it. All the arguments in the world in favor of flippyscreens isn't going to make them put one on it. Either buy the camera or refrain from buying it, that's the choice. I'm going to buy one myself.

[reh321]

Hahaha, yeah, you'd think people had gotten the message already that it isn't going to have a flippyscreen, and that's it. All the arguments in the world in favor of flippyscreens isn't going to make them put one on it. Either buy the camera or refrain from buying it, that's the choice. I'm going to buy one myself.

Yes, there are good arguments for a flippy screen - such as a low or a high view. My KP handles those just fine. This is a camera with a special viewfinder. Within a few days, we may discover other special features it has that my KP also cannot match. I don't believe I need any of those capabilities, but time will tell. Instead of complaining what it does not have, we should be celebrating what it can do.

[Henk T]

More often than not I end up carrying two cameras on shorter hikes. Why? I try to avoid doing lens changes in the field, my sensors seem to be preloaded with bug bait and dust attractants. So one camera gets a macro (DFA100WR) and the other a telephoto (DFA*200 or *300). With that said there are rarer times I'll carry just one and a zoom, maybe a 12-24 if landscapes or 70-200 if critters, even if I prefer primes. I'm also one of those guys who doesn't use the flippy screen even tho it's there. I wouldn't miss it if it wasn't, but I agree the K-1's is wonderfully adaptable to just about any shooting position. I've tried it two or three times.

If I'm attending a public outdoor event I ALWAYS carry two cameras and for the same reasons. Even a dozen people can raise a good bit of hair, fuzz, and dust in the air and I simply won't remove a lens, though the choice of which ones to use might be different.

Of course I also take my second body (K-5) along for the occasional social events for safety and to make sure I don't loose time switching lenses.
In the field I only use the K-1 and do change lenses for different subjects (e.g. butterflies vs. flowers or mushrooms).

[ThorSanchez]

Thanks for being a voice of reason in this increasingly absurd debate, reh321.

I've gotta say that the whole scanning issue comes across as bizarre nitpicking to me. If your biggest criticism of a camera is that it isn't suited for copying or scanning, then that's really no criticism at all, because that was never the intended purpose of the camera anyway. Yes, you can use a camera for scanning, but that's not an intended feature of it, it's just an unintended side benefit. Would you criticize a car for not being suited to winning a demolition derby?

Scanning with a camera was just an example of one of a number of things that a flippy screen makes easier. Almost all but the most basic features of a camera are optional, where the line is drawn is somewhat arbitrary. Pentax has chosen to go their way, others would have done it differently. Neither is wrong, but in any modern device it's risky to go backwards and drop features present in previous models.


You might not criticize a car for not being suited for the demolition derby, but you might criticize if it didn't have Bluetooth or heated seats or an interface for your smartphone. None of that is strictly necessary, but has become pretty standard across even cheaper cars. Yes, you can buy cars like an Ariel Atom or a Lotus that drop features like that in the name of performance, but those are very specialized.

[Flubber]

But you're the one defining the lack of a flippyscreen as a "backwards" move. It's all subjective. That's the same as calling the Ariel Atom backwards. But it's not. The Ariel Atom is a perfect machine for what it's intended purpose is - the problem we are facing in this discussion only arises because people expect it to be something it's not, and something it clearly wasn't intended to be. I agree the Ariel Atom is very specialized, but it was intended to be. Who's to say the case isn't the same with this camera? From all the emphasis on the optical viewfinder, I would say it was intended to be very specialized. They market this as a flagship, not a standard camera. It reminds me of my argument earlier that you wouldn't criticize a Ferrari as being backwards because it doesn't have the seating of a family van, or the storage space of an SUV. Flagship does not mean Swiss army knife, it means doing select things extraordinarily well. In the case of this camera, having a great OVF (among other things, I'm sure).

Pentax doesn't lack the ability to install a flippyscreen on the camera. They've chosen not to.