[Serkevan]

I don't know what to think of the opinion that smartphones are good enough, reading such opinion in a camera forum. If I was Ricoh-Pentax, I'd be concerned about that line of thinking from my customers . It's disappointing.

Smartphones are good enough for their intended user base - it's never in a vacuum*. That's why the ILC market has collapsed on the entry level side. I don't like it either, but reality is what it is, and while a lot of people appreciate large prints or displays, it's only a bunch of weirdos like us who actually enjoy getting to that final product

*I've said many times that for me the K-1's AF is good enough, only to read everywhere that it's actually [expletive list] because it doesn't do things as well as other brands' systems for specific scenarios. Then we turn around and do the same with IQ? Ach no, I'm not doing that

[Dartmoor Dave]

I've never read such tripe in all my life.

We're so lucky to have you here as the supreme and infallible arbiter of quality.

[biz-engineer]

it's only a bunch of weirdos like us who actually enjoy getting to that final product

People using a phone for "photography as a hobby"or professionally are even more scarce, very rare. People using a smartphone don't do photography, they take snapshots for sharing online, that's not photography, that like clubbing or social networking kind of activity. A few years back, someone told me "photography is a solved problem, and Pentax doesn't innovate", he switched to Sony mirrorless, he took a few shots to test his new camera and stopped photography completely, haven't taken a picture since years. For me , when someone tells me that a smartphone is good, I expect his/her photography hobby or profession to be near end-of-life. I'm still having photography passion alive and I don't want to listen to someone who lost his mojo in photography telling me that a smartphone is good enough.

[Serkevan]

People using a phone for "photography as a hobby"or professionally are even more scarce, very rare. People using a smartphone don't do photography, they take snapshots for sharing online, that's not photography, that like clubbing or social networking kind of activity. A few years back, someone told me "photography is a solved problem, and Pentax doesn't innovate", he switched to Sony mirrorless, he took a few shots to test his new camera and stopped photography completely, haven't taken a picture since years. For me , when someone tells me that a smartphone is good, I expect his/her photography hobby or profession to be near end-of-life. I'm still having photography passion alive and I don't want to listen to someone who lost his mojo in photography telling me that a smartphone is good enough.

Agreed. And a lot of people using entry level ILCs or compacts while the market was booming were also not doing photography but using the minimum amount of camera possible to take snapshots. Same deal all the way back to film, honestly.
That, precisely, is what explains the fact smartphones are eating the ILC manufacturers' lunch: people, in general, want to take photos, not make them.

The reality of the situation doesn't change: 90% of the prospective market for a camera is happier using a smartphone. Those of us who aren't have to pay the cost, quite literally.

[johnmflores]

Where they will end up standing next to a dozen other middle aged blokes, each with thousands of dollars worth of high resolution gear of their own, all waiting to take their own identical version of that same waterfall that they've seen online a hundred times before. Then they'll all fly home and process their shots identically to get as close as possible to the way they know they scene is supposed to look because that's the way it always looks online. And maybe one of them will sell a print to a friend who wants to put it on his restaurant's wall, which makes him a "professional".

It's the sameness of most of the medium format landscape photography around these days that's so depressing -- actually the sameness of almost all the "professional" landscape photography (*) using any format. Same locations, same light, same processing, same absolute self-certainty that the sort of bland perfection that those guys enjoy is the pinnacle of the photographic craft. Give me a smartphone photo any day, if it's one where the photographer has captured something in their personal world in a way that tells me something meaningful about the wider world around us. Something I haven't seen before or thought about before.

(*) The couple of professional landscape photographers that I know here on Dartmoor make their livings almost entirely from leading courses, on which they try to teach keen amateurs with thousands of pounds of worth of gear how to take landscape photos that look as much as possible like all those other landscape photos that they've seen online. Deep sigh. . .

I used to think this about writing, after having met many people who wanted to write a book just to tell their story and say that they've written a book. Some were halfway decent writers. Others, not so much. Some had dreams of grandeur ("Maybe it will get on Oprah!") but most were realistic about their chances of success. To me, they seemed like so many Don Quixotes.

But then it dawned on me...you could say the same thing about most runners, another hobby of mine. Most runners aren't going to win Olympic medals or even national or local championships, but we do it anyway. Likewise bicyclists. Likewise so many other things humans do...playing in a band, performing in local theater, participating in a motorcycle trackday...and taking photos.

Why do we pursue these things knowing full well that we have no chance of reaching the top of the mountain, of being recognized as the best? To use the popular phrase, it's because the pursuit helps us become the best version of ourselves.

Full credit to those that try to see things differently and try to do things differently, from the sea of sameness will rise a few shining stars. But I no longer disparage folks for being out there. In the big scheme of this big world, they may not be the main character, but in their storyline...they are.

[ThorSanchez]

People using a phone for "photography as a hobby"or professionally are even more scarce, very rare. People using a smartphone don't do photography, they take snapshots for sharing online, that's not photography, that like clubbing or social networking kind of activity. A few years back, someone told me "photography is a solved problem, and Pentax doesn't innovate", he switched to Sony mirrorless, he took a few shots to test his new camera and stopped photography completely, haven't taken a picture since years. For me , when someone tells me that a smartphone is good, I expect his/her photography hobby or profession to be near end-of-life. I'm still having photography passion alive and I don't want to listen to someone who lost his mojo in photography telling me that a smartphone is good enough.

I think we've (again) lost sight of the question we were asking, which was "should Pentax make an entry-level body?" The answer is almost certainly no. The people who still want to treat photography as a hobby, people who want to understand the photographic triangle, people who go buy more than the kit lens... they don't often use a new K-S2 with an 18-55mm kit lens to take all their shots. The folks who debate Lightroom vs. RawTherapee vs. ON1 aren't usually those with a $300 Canon Rebel. Those people shoot OOC jpegs. And after a while they usually figure out that having Google or Apple's AI do the Lightrooming for them is a lot easier and gets them similar results.

And if you have a 17-year-old kid who's decided to get obsessed with photography there are a million used bodies and lenses on KEH and eBay and Amazon with more capabilities than that new entry-level body for similar or even lower cost.

[Serkevan]

I think we've (again) lost sight of the question we were asking, which was "should Pentax make an entry-level body?" The answer is almost certainly no. The people who still want to treat photography as a hobby, people who want to understand the photographic triangle, people who go buy more than the kit lens... they don't often use a K-S2 with an 18-55mm kit lens to take all their shots. The folks who debate Lightroom vs. RawTherapee vs. ON1 aren't usually those with a $300 Canon Rebel. Those people shoot OOC jpegs. And after a while they usually figure out that having Google or Apple's AI do the Lightrooming for them is a lot easier and gets them similar results.

Yup, exactly. And those who are price conscious but still want to learn turn to ebay in the first place . Making a new K-70 makes sense, but only if it's positioned higher than it is right now (so "upgrading it" to KP build and features, but probably on a more standard body shape). I don't expect any Pentax body to be below 1000€ again.

[SFTphotography]

We're so lucky to have you here as the supreme and infallible arbiter of quality.

You are. Let's see the best of your work and put it against the best of mine. The fact I do run workshops and tours probably mean people do want to take pictures that look like mine. Do people want to capture pictures that look like yours?

[ThorSanchez]

Where they will end up standing next to a dozen other middle aged blokes, each with thousands of dollars worth of high resolution gear of their own, all waiting to take their own identical version of that same waterfall that they've seen online a hundred times before. Then they'll all fly home and process their shots identically to get as close as possible to the way they know they scene is supposed to look because that's the way it always looks online. And maybe one of them will sell a print to a friend who wants to put it on his restaurant's wall, which makes him a "professional".

It's the sameness of most of the medium format landscape photography around these days that's so depressing -- actually the sameness of almost all the "professional" landscape photography (*) using any format. Same locations, same light, same processing, same absolute self-certainty that the sort of bland perfection that those guys enjoy is the pinnacle of the photographic craft. Give me a smartphone photo any day, if it's one where the photographer has captured something in their personal world in a way that tells me something meaningful about the wider world around us. Something I haven't seen before or thought about before.

(*) The couple of professional landscape photographers that I know here on Dartmoor make their livings almost entirely from leading courses, on which they try to teach keen amateurs with thousands of pounds of worth of gear how to take landscape photos that look as much as possible like all those other landscape photos that they've seen online. Deep sigh. . .

Where I'll disagree is that my photo of Seljalandsfoss is my photo of Seljalandsfoss. There are a million photos of that waterfall online. Many of them spectacular. Mine are rather bland and mundane. It was raining, the clouds were low and heavy and the light was poor. It was in the evening of a long, wet day with a lot of driving. I didn't have the option of waiting days for the light and the weather to be perfect.

But it's my photo, not one I downloaded from an anonymous guy on the web to use as my Windows background. I have one of my two boys in bright orange raingear with the waterfall behind them, K-30 and kit lens slung over one of their shoulders. It's not a great picture, but it's mine and it evokes emotion and memories. I have another from a few minutes before taken with a tripod and a ND filter where the waterfall is silky. I won't ever even attempt to sell it, you can find endless technically better ones online for free, but mine is what Seljalandsfoss was the moment I was there. That one would have been difficult to replicate with a phone, it took a good amount of work in post to save it from the crappy light and rain and mist. But again, it's mine. I don't care that just that week 5000 other middle aged blokes took a picture from the same spot, they didn't take my picture.

It's a very different story if you have convinced yourself that your picture is so much better than everyone else's, and yours is going to sell, and you and your gear is are just the best. There are a billion fine pictures in the world, after a while they all look the same unless there's an emotional attachment to you.

[johnmflores]

You are. Let's see the best of your work and put it against the best of mine. The fact I do run workshops and tours probably mean people do want to take pictures that look like mine. Do people want to capture pictures that look like yours?

Are we gonna have a drag race?!

[noelpolar]

Most everyday people get better shots from their phone then they did from their DSLR in the past. Like most things today... the masses get better results from things that think for them.... than things that require them to think.

Peak collective human intelligence for the western world population occured about 20 years ago.... we are living through the era of the "reverse Flyn effect".

[ThorSanchez]

You are. Let's see the best of your work and put it against the best of mine. The fact I do run workshops and tours probably mean people do want to take pictures that look like mine. Do people want to capture pictures that look like yours?

What you fail to understand, and I'm not being mean or even saying your photos aren't great, but mostly nobody cares. It's great that you have a business and a 645Z and a bunch of expensive glass and make money and people like your photographs. But that's irrelevant to the discussion.

The overwhelming majority of people will never even conceive of spending $8000 on a camera kit and thousands more on classes and software, and spend hundreds or thousands of hours working at their hobby, all so they can try to get a photo that looks like yours. They will get more emotional satisfaction out of their picture they took in the moment with whatever camera they had on hand, that wonderful Tuesday in 2022 when they and their friends and family were at that awesome spot when the sun was going down and the clouds were beautiful. A tiny, tiny sliver of the world would be happier with a Rebel and kit lens, but that's almost nobody.

The emotional impact of their photo, taken simply and easily and not screwed up >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ooh look, I can pull an extra stop out of the shadows with my MF body.

I'm sure you're an excellent photographer. But on my next vacation I'm not going to hire you to take my pictures. That's what I'm there for, with my relatively modest kit and skills. And I'll take any number of photographs that I'll cherish forever. Some of them will probably be with my phone.

---------- Post added 08-23-21 at 08:55 AM ----------

Most everday people get better shots from their phone then they did from their DSLR in the past. Like most things today... the masses get better results from things that think for them.... then things that require them to think.

You say "like most things today" as if it's ever been any different. How much deep thought and contemplation over the exposure triangle and the golden hour was going on in a typical press of a Brownie Box camera or a 110 automatic or a Polaroid? For the last century+ those have been 95% of all photography.

Today has as much claim on being a mythical golden age as any other day.

[Dartmoor Dave]

Do people want to capture pictures that look like yours?

Gosh, I hope not. I hope that most people would want to take photos that look like their own.

You keep trying to elevate one particular style of photography to a level of status from which it's entitled to judge all other styles, and you've made it clear that you consider your own photos to be exemplars of that style. As for me, I think there's room enough in the world for all sorts of people take all sorts of photos, and I don't think anyone's entitled to be the photographer-king who gets to tell everyone else whether their stuff is any good or not. Personally I think that the photos that you've posted in this thread are boring, and I'm sure that you'd consider my own stuff to be appalling examples of amateur bodgery, and I've got zero interest in finding out who can piddle highest up the wall.

[normhead]

(*) The couple of professional landscape photographers that I know here on Dartmoor make their livings almost entirely from leading courses, on which they try to teach keen amateurs with thousands of pounds of worth of gear how to take landscape photos that look as much as possible like all those other landscape photos that they've seen online. Deep sigh. . .

I take photographers out into Algonquin Park, where there are many places to get great photos only accessible by canoe. Because I carry FF gear into these places, and only shoot in great light, some of my photos are unique. Like the ones I take on day 10 of a 20 day trip. I can get you there for $2100 each if you can find 3 other people to go (total $6300) But I can't guarantee the light. But, I digress. I took out the COO of a major IT corporation a while ago. The year before he been taken on a photography tour of Yosemite. We bush whacked into a water fall made famous by a famous Canadian painter. When we got there I started setting up to shoot, he asked "Where do I stand?" I was like "What?" "Last year when I went to the Yosemite <photographers name> showed us where to stand to take the picture." I kid you not.

[Dartmoor Dave]

Are we gonna have a drag race?!

It'd be more fun than this thread, but I'll need to hit the shops for some lipstick and nice new dress.