[gaweidert]

Thats just a story Adam Smith made up. He never even tried to show any proof of it. It got stuck as a story people tell because it sounds good and works as an argument. There is still no evidence that money developed to simplify barter. The reasons were different.

Consumerism and greed are separate things. The former is brand new.

This is a basis of a great discussion between us. But not on this forum. Much better at a pub or coffee shop over a beverage of choice. Since we know of currencies dating back thousands of years and have records assigning value to things going back thousands of years proves that there is a direct relationship to currency and trade. Using currency is a too convenient of a way to expedite trade not to have been invented and we humans are a pretty lazy lot.

To me the word consumerism is one of those post modern made up words that no one really knows what it means. Look at the accepted definitions of it below. Some definitions seemingly at odds with others. NOTE: I threw in the term "post modern" to show how intelligent, or dumb, I am.

consumerism kən-soo͞′mə-rĭz″əm►

• n.
  The movement seeking to protect and inform consumers by requiring such practices as honest packaging and advertising, product guarantees, and improved safety standards.
• n.
  The theory that a progressively greater consumption of goods is economically beneficial.
• n.
  Attachment to materialistic values or possessions.

As to the camera being delayed, nothing can be done about it so we wait patiently an make do. The one thing that I do know is that no matter how good it is, it will not make any of us better photographers and it may initially make some of us worse. You will still have to think your way through the moment.

[reh321]

Speaking as someone using an original K5 (with the lens release button held on by black electrical tape) I like the feel and build of my K5. I used to upgrade about every 18 months

Five years ago I thought in terms of upgrading camera body every ten years. That is clearly no longer feasible.

[MikeMcE]

At 332 posts about fantasy?


Hang up and DRIVE!

[Pål Jensen]

At 332 posts about fantasy?

Some facts here:

K-3 Mark III reviews in the Japanese press - PentaxForums.com

[MikeMcE]

Fantasy.... Until we touch it.


Hang up and DRIVE!

[Larrymc]

Fantasy.... Until we touch it.


Hang up and DRIVE!

Many of us won't touch until the one we order has arrived, so there is value in some of these reviews. Hopefully most will be unbiased reviews.

[tibbitts]

Five years ago I thought in terms of upgrading camera body every ten years. That is clearly no longer feasible.

Are you saying not feasible because the cost, even every 10 years is now so high as to prevent upgrading, or because you're being forced to upgrade more often than every 10 years to maintain compatibility with new components you want (KAF4, for example)? If you discount the film era, bodies certain seem to have a longer fairly competitive lifespan now. Today I can come closer to satisfying results with a ten-year old body (K-5, in this case) than I could have five years ago, when that 10-year old body would have been what... a K100? For my purposes, assuming I stay with Pentax, it will probably be KAF4 that eventually kills off the K-5, not the quality of the image output.

[thibs]

Are you saying not feasible because the cost, even every 10 years is now so high as to prevent upgrading, or because you're being forced to upgrade more often than every 10 years to maintain compatibility with new components you want (KAF4, for example)? If you discount the film era, bodies certain seem to have a longer fairly competitive lifespan now. Today I can come closer to satisfying results with a ten-year old body (K-5, in this case) than I could have five years ago, when that 10-year old body would have been what... a K100? For my purposes, assuming I stay with Pentax, it will probably be KAF4 that eventually kills off the K-5, not the quality of the image output.

Agreed. I moan about my K5 AF but hte possibility of adding a 55-300 PLM would have been great. Well...

[thibs]

Two year ago on this trip
A few shots from our 19 Day summer canoe trip, and a link to Tess's trip report. - PentaxForums.com

We did a thorough review of these K-5 images and images taken with my K-1.
It turns out for this type of image and these uses, the K-5 is adequate. I already own it so I don't have to pay for it. (Tess just picked up a K-5ii) And it is small enough to save considerable pack space for trips like this, because it fits into a smaller pelican case.

Sometimes the best thing for the job is what you already own. As far as I can tell there isn't a thing on this type of trip that benefits from a K-1 or a K-3.

Other people definitely have other needs and shoot in more demanding circumstances. But I'd be a fool to buy something because other people need better. I guarantee you if you go through Tess' blog you won't be able to tell which are the K-1 images and which are the K-5 images.

On a 4k screen you can't tell the difference.

For me camera use is a pretty natural thing, even with an SV (no AF, no in camera light meter etc.) My question is not how do I pack in the most features, it's "Can I get the job done." If it's marginally easier, if it's a little bit better, this way or that way, if It has the latest gizmo or buzz word, that's all irrelevant to me. I know with the K-5 I can get the job done. I also know that for what I do, it's not going to be easier or a better result with a better camera.

Looking back over the years, one of the biggest disappointments has been the little real world improvement in quality over my K-5, especially reduced to 3840x2160. Unimportant things have been incrementally improved. For those who complain about AF, for people who do what I do, understanding hyperfocal focussing is more important than what the AF system is like. IN day light, there is no downside to the K-5 AF system. The problem was always tungsten light. The fraction of a second better AF provides is usually meaningless.

I could go on and on... I haven't addressed battery life, DR (which is better than any of the 24 MP sensors to date) and weight, in a situation where every gram matters, because I have to carry 70 pounds, and my camera gear.

For me and cameras, it's all about what's the best set of compromises for the job? Not which is the best camera overall.
IMHO the K-5 is the best camera for this job.

If the K-P was 5mm shorter and free, I'd consider it. But that last 5mm won't let me close the smaller size pelican case. Something as simple as that can trump all the lasted greatest tech.

I hope that clarifies the issue.

I completely get it Norm. I still have my K5. It's no bad camera at all. But I stopped using it.
I may repurpose it to pancakes camera when I need to be light. Maybe.

I just wanted to say to Jeff that the K5 really isn't just a K1 in APS-C. AF is quite different (selection of points) and as you write it yourself, tungsten light.
If anybody do not care about tungsten light, AF may be adequate indeed. But this is important to know before buyiong a K5 to complement the K1.

[normhead]

Some facts here:

K-3 Mark III reviews in the Japanese press - PentaxForums.com

Some people don't have the ability to understand things they cant' see may yet be real.

[dicki]

Does the silver body has a silver Powergrib?

[reh321]

Are you saying not feasible because the cost, even every 10 years is now so high as to prevent upgrading, or because you're being forced to upgrade more often than every 10 years to maintain compatibility with new components you want (KAF4, for example)? If you discount the film era, bodies certain seem to have a longer fairly competitive lifespan now. Today I can come closer to satisfying results with a ten-year old body (K-5, in this case) than I could have five years ago, when that 10-year old body would have been what... a K100? For my purposes, assuming I stay with Pentax, it will probably be KAF4 that eventually kills off the K-5, not the quality of the image output.

In March 1983 I purchased my Pentax “Super Program”, which I used until I purchased my Canon EOS Elan in August 1995 to get auto-focus, which lasted until November 2007 when I made a purchase to get a Digital Canon Rebel. As far as I know, both of those film bodies still work today, and their life guided my expectations, so I was disappointed when that first Rebel died in October 2013, after a series of problems that probably indicated processor problems. Since this was unexpected to me, I purchased another Rebel, which lasted until May 2015 even though I dealt with apparent processor problems off-and-on for almost a year. I realize now that I had the possibility of upgrading the ‘sensor’ in those film bodies, so now I think of a digital body as a computer with a five year lifetime - but now at 73 my current KP may turn out to be my last body. So, this is a combination of money and of change in technology.

[Wheatfield]

Bingo. That word "supposed" there is doing a lot of work.

Many of us suppose (believe/trust/expect) that Pentax is a value-oriented brand. IBIS on all cameras so we don't have to buy IS on all of our lenses. Colorful choices of bodies and lenses so we can buy cameras with personality. Screw-driven lenses (either as primary or secondary focusing mechanisms) so we can use the same lenses for a decade or more. I've always seen the 645 cameras and FA★ lens lineups as the "premium, money-no-object" cash cows for the brand. I've seen the K-mount offerings, even including the DA★ lenses, as solid, fun, dependable products that cost only about 75% of what Canon/Nikon/Sony offer.

I suppose that my gear does most of what "prestige" camera gear does, but at a lower cost. And it can get rained on. Not that it often does.

But many of us take our suppositions and come out to a very understandable, if shaky, conclusion: Pentax is supposed (required, driven, destined) to be a value-oriented brand.

A lot of my joy in using Pentax gear has been my belief that I'm getting away with something. I have a zoom fisheye lens…and I can handhold it at 1/10s because I have Shake Reduction! And so on. Even though I can now afford a more expensive camera than the twenty-something me could have, I'd feel a little bitter about having to pay a premium to stay with Pentax.

Pretty soon you will have to feel bitter about changing brands as well. Every camera company is in the same boat with the market in free fall and their cash cow entry level market drying up.

Pentax doesn't have economy of scale helping them, so their products are going to cost more than companies with larger market share.

Get used to it. Real cameras are going to get more expensive. This is the reality of the marketplace.

[totsmuyco]

Agreed. I moan about my K5 AF but hte possibility of adding a 55-300 PLM would have been great. Well...

I'm gonna moan with you. I've been moaning over a fix so we can use the 55-300 plm on the the k-5 series. I'd be happy to get one if I can use it on my k-5II.

[tibbitts]

In March 1983 I purchased my Pentax “Super Program”, which I used until I purchased my Canon EOS Elan in August 1995 to get auto-focus, which lasted until November 2007 when I made a purchase to get a Digital Canon Rebel. As far as I know, both of those film bodies still work today, and their life guided my expectations, so I was disappointed when that first Rebel died in October 2013, after a series of problems that probably indicated processor problems. Since this was unexpected to me, I purchased another Rebel, which lasted until May 2015 even though I dealt with apparent processor problems off-and-on for almost a year. I realize now that I had the possibility of upgrading the ‘sensor’ in those film bodies, so now I think of a digital body as a computer with a five year lifetime - but now at 73 my current KP may turn out to be my last body. So, this is a combination of money and of change in technology.

I also kept my Canon film bodies for 25 years before moving to digital with Pentax, but I did that expecting to upgrade the bodies every few years. Realistically the savings on film and processing largely compensated for the cost of new bodies. And for a while I upgraded ferquently: 2007, 2009, 2011, and 2013 (the latter the K5ii.) But between then and 2021... well I did buy a spare K-5 for a very low cost but no new technology. I didn't feel there had been enough of a leap in features I cared about with the K-3. Even with the K-70 and KP, it was the same story: you gained some things and lost others. For all the previous cameras I'd bought, I felt I'd gained capabilities that were important to me, and not lost anything important.