[mattt]

Feature + Benefit = value

Feature with No Benefit = no value

Portrait photographers need... Weather sealing? probably not. High FPS... probably not, Huge Buffer probably not, High resolution, maybe, Bayer Filter... well anti-mosaic-ing has its benefit in fashion. High Bit depth Raw? Sure.

Could you make a fabulous portrait with a 1DX? absolutely. If you only made portraits would a 1DX be a high value purchase... absolutely not.

Instead of pigeon holing photographers into particular genre's, the offering should help buyers navigate to fulfilling needs they have instead of forcing them to pay for something they'll never use.

[gaweidert]

I say this with love but why do Ricoh's presentations all look like they are done in a low rent early 90's insurance office ?

When Kodak was going full tilt, some of the offices and buildings I worked in were 100 years old and looked it. I kind of likes it for the sense of history.

[luftfluss]

Let’s be blunt: one of them is stoned. Hopefully Ricoh will supply translations soon.

I see what you did there...

[gaweidert]

So, why did they discontinue the KP?

And where is the portrait camera to go with the DFA* 50 and 85?

Probably because they could not get parts for it anymore. Digital electronic components are almost ephemeral. Just a whiff of scent in a breeze and then they disappear. Because of this manufacturing anything using digital electronic components is always a challenge.

---

Last edited by gaweidert; 03-08-2021 at 08:28 AM.

[Class A]

Edit: there's another...

Interesting.

At 32:21 the English caption reads "No image processing engine with Drivewalker Plum 5". Phew!

Also good to know (41:15): "The salty Sharp PlayStation isn't going to win and tune each of them.".

[UncleVanya]

Feature + Benefit = value

Feature with No Benefit = no value

Portrait photographers need... Weather sealing? probably not. High FPS... probably not, Huge Buffer probably not, High resolution, maybe, Bayer Filter... well anti-mosaic-ing has its benefit in fashion. High Bit depth Raw? Sure.

Could you make a fabulous portrait with a 1DX? absolutely. If you only made portraits would a 1DX be a high value purchase... absolutely not.

Instead of pigeon holing photographers into particular genre's, the offering should help buyers navigate to fulfilling needs they have instead of forcing them to pay for something they'll never use.

This is like buying a car with only the options you want. Rarely done these days. Your desired model would result in fragmentation and complexity. Imagine trying to sell your cameras later, and the only market you can sell to is very very niche. It makes much more sense to build broad features in with a few differences driven mainly by necessity.

[One3rdEV]

Personally I think Pentax's intention to define some differentiation in the product line portfolio makes good sense for the purpose of bundling design compromise choices, features and performance specifications between the various camera models in the future.

As far as portrait performance goes given the existing lens line-up (e.g. notorious FA limited 31,43,77) and more significantly in the recently released premier lens line-up DFA 50, 85mm (all of which are biased toward FF image circle coverage)... in the images of the users here, I can readily see in the improvements in 3D gain from the in-focus vs out-of-focus relationship when using the full designed image circle of the FF sensor. Therefore, I certainly see the FF rather than APS-c platform as Pentax's intended portrait emphasis product line.

More interestingly- As not yet stated in the prior comments of this conversation thread is... speculation regarding reason for inclusion of an additional statement to the effect that the 'K-3 Mark III is the core of the series (translation lost the III)'. I believe that the statement is intended to be more formal confirmation that the K3 Mark III will serve as the introduction of new foundational platform changes across the K-mount series moving forward (e.g. merger of Pentax and Ricoh menu GUI, optical viewfinder development).

[biz-engineer]

Probably by being FF. I think of the K1 as being the portrait camera, but they've classified it as "landscape".

Both cameras are landscape cameras, as they both have a sensor in landscape orientation.

[ThorSanchez]

Both cameras are landscape cameras, as they both have a sensor in landscape orientation.

You could have your subject lie down so they're in the correct orientation. Or, go to a zero-g context where orientation loses meaning.

[reh321]

Both cameras are landscape cameras, as they both have a sensor in landscape orientation.

Cameras intended for “landscape” have ‘flippy’ LCDs.
Cameras intended for “action” have superb focusing.
This is not difficult.

[TwoUptons]

Both cameras are landscape cameras, as they both have a sensor in landscape orientation.

So my Takumar-equipped 645 Mine Six and my Canon half-frame are both portrait cameras because the sensor is in portrait orientation. Genius.

Now I feel like a lomo hero flipping them sideways

-Eric

[biz-engineer]

So my Takumar-equipped 645 Mine Six and my Canon half-frame are both portrait cameras because the sensor is in portrait orientation. Genius.

Shouldn't a portrait camera be taller than its width?

[ThorSanchez]

Shouldn't a portrait camera be taller than its width?

The other day I was going to unlock the front door of my house, but my key was oriented 90 degrees off, so it wouldn't fit in the hole. I had to go down to the hardware store and get one made that was the correct orientation to line up with the keyhole. No, I couldn't have just rotated it 90 degrees, what kind of lunatic uses a portrait key in a landscape hole?

[reh321]

Shouldn't a portrait camera be taller than its width?

In the days of film, professionals used medium-format to take 'portraits'.
Which way they used it depended on how many people were photographed.
When they took a photo of my parents and all three children, they used it such that width was greater than height.
When they took a photo of my parents and youngest child, they used it such that height was greater than width.
When my parents were still around, they had a "rogues gallery" - one column for each child .... baby photo, h.s. graduation photo, wedding photo {bridge&groom}, all taken with height greater than width.
In all cases, they arranged the people so that they fit in the frame of the photo.

[mattt]

In all cases, they arranged the people so that they fit in the frame of the photo.

Better than chopping heads off...