[normhead]

Just fine.

Good to hear. I always hope anything I say won't discourage people. After all, it's just another opinion.

[Wheatfield]

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

Well that's certainly disagreeable.

---------- Post added Aug 23rd, 2021 at 03:43 PM ----------

You are good. I can never get my car to look like that.

You need a better car.

[PDL]

And even the first one is doable if you use an iPhone. You shoot in what is called a live photo, then you edit, go into effects, and you can choose motion blur.

And nowadays, with the iPhone 11 and 12 pro models, we can shoot in raw and have huge editing capabilities available to us. The photos you see here are completely doable on an iPhone, and even printable at very high-quality at 11 x 14.

Yes, DSLRs are better. But…



Cheers,
Cameron

You do know that there are other phones that shoot RAW don't you? Mine does, (at 48MP) but it still is not up to par compared to my K-3II.

[Wheatfield]

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.

This is a strawman, and one that's been shot full of holes before it was posted.

What is being said, and it is absolutely, 100% true, is that smartphone cameras are good enough for the vast majority of people. All one needs to do is look at the steady march of sales of phones with better and better cameras while at the same time paying attention to the unwavering drop in sales of real cameras, the demise of the compact camera, the erosion of the bridge camera, the decline of the entry level ILC cameras

While you are debating the quality merits of one vs the other, you are displaying an astonishingly deliberate obduracy regarding the subset of this particular thread to the point that your posts, and those of at least one other member have become trolling of the lowest sort.

---------- Post added Aug 23rd, 2021 at 04:04 PM ----------

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.

Who effing cares? Just stop. You are spouting nonsense.
And yes, I know this is disagreeable, but I have never pretended to be a good person.

---------- Post added Aug 23rd, 2021 at 04:08 PM ----------

Are we gonna have a drag race?!

More like a drag queen.

[ThorSanchez]

I've got a Samsung with a 64mp camera. I remain thoroughly unimpressed with it beyond the phone. It's fine to send a picture via whatsapp to someone of a snap shot - but I cannot envisage someone even half interested in photography not wanting an entry level camera to start off with.

As we've said over and over, most people (read: the the vast majority of the population) have no interest in the technical aspects of photography or post-processing. That's always been the case. Brownies and 110s and Instamatics and Polaroids. They've always been a much, much larger share of the camera market than ILCs. Literally none of the photos in boxes in my parents' house would stand up as a keeper compared to anything I've shot in the past decade.


My five-year-old Google Pixel phone takes perfectly acceptable snapshots, much better than anything from the film point-and-shoot era. Pictures that don't look out of place at reasonable sizes in photo books alongside images from my K-30 or K-3 II or K-3 Mark III. I wouldn't print my phone pictures at 40" on a side and then view from 10" away. But nobody ever did that with an Instamatic or a Polaroid, either, and these phone images are dramatically better.

And the phone will go places the ILC never will because you just won't or can't take the ILC to dinner or a hundred other places.

---------- Post added 08-23-21 at 06:13 PM ----------

You do know that there are other phones that shoot RAW don't you? Mine does, (at 48MP) but it still is not up to par compared to my K-3II.

Does it have to be? A Swiss Army knife doesn't cut nearly as well as my Wusthof chef's knife, and yet they sell millions of Swiss Army knives and they're pretty useful for what they are.

[Aerolycea]

I know this is disagreeable, but I have never pretended to be a good person.

Ive been amused by this thread though I would have no reason to post on such a topic.....just wanted to say I love that last line. The entire post is correct but ending with pure honesty: priceless.

[Wheatfield]

This is my favorite shot from that 2017 eclipse. It's of an Eclipse cultist at a remote compound in Virginia, bowing before the sun-God in his ceremonial headgear.

Okay, it's actually my nephew staging an absurd pose with a homemade mylar-and-grocery-bag eclipse viewer. Doesn't even matter that it's out of focus and poorly exposed, that almost adds to it.

That's a Cabela's 6 man geodesic dome tent without the fly in the background isn't it?

---------- Post added Aug 23rd, 2021 at 04:17 PM ----------

Usually Pros don't post their paid shots online due to IP rights, unless allowed by customers.

When I was still shooting professionally, I didn't turn off my skills just because I wasn't being paid. It seems strange that anyone would.

---------- Post added Aug 23rd, 2021 at 04:22 PM ----------

Ive been amused by this thread though I would have no reason to post on such a topic.....just wanted to say I love that last line. The entire post is correct but ending with pure honesty: priceless.

Thank you. Sometimes I do punch above my weight class.

[johnmflores]

Some datapoints for consideration.

One
In 2018, I flew down to Ushuaia, Argentina on a motorcycle assignment. I carried a backpack full of camera gear...and my phone, a state-of-2018 Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge. For one of the resulting stories, I submitted 40-50 photos of the trip. The editor chose 11 photos to illustrate my story without knowing which photos were taken with my camera gear and which photos were taken with my phone. Care to guess how many phone photos were chosen from the 11?


RoadRUNNER 2018-12 RR Patagonia Pt 2 by John Flores, on Flickr

Three. Not a bad percentage for an inferior imaging device. The key was that I was able to quickly pull it out of my jacket and snap a decisive and fleeting moment before it disappeared.


Martin takes a break by John Flores, on Flickr



Two
I did a photography article about visual storytelling for the same magazine. All photos used were taken with my phone:


RoadRUNNER 2019-02 Photomojo column "Visual Storytelling" by John Flores, on Flickr

Three
More recently, the creative director for the motorcycle magazine that I am Editor In Chief of noted that phone photos submitted for consideration have taken a big leap forward in the last year. He is now at the point where he's comfortable using a good phone photo on a full page and I think he's even used a phone photo on a two-page spread.

Are phones as good as "serious" cameras? No, but they're not high enough quality for publication. At the end of the day, it's the content of the photo that's most important.

[reh321]

Thanks for the thoughts. It was taken well before I was a full time pro. I fast discovered that landscapes, and landscapes alone were my forte.

and your comments apply only to "your forte".
Different standards apply to Street Photographs and Railroad Photographs, for example.
With photographs of railroads, larger f-stop values tend to be appropriate to capture that long equipment;
"clutter" is part of the environment in which the main subject exists, and sometimes busy backgrounds just happen - depending of how the track is laid.

For example, consider the two photos below.
I took the first one in 1984 - of a depot that was messy and had received little love in recent years,
My wife and I returned to Monticello IL this past weekend, and I took the second photo. The depot had been moved by the local RY museum. the building had been painted, and they now take care of the area.

[ThorSanchez]

That's a Cabela's 6 man geodesic dome tent without the fly in the background isn't it?

Probably, but it's my sister's so I'm not sure. I have a Big Agnes 4-man for my family.

[Wheatfield]

Probably, but it's my sister's so I'm not sure. I have a Big Agnes 4-man for my family.

I had the Cabella's 8 man dome tent for several years until I decided I was more interested in comfort and bought a hard shell trailer. Nice tents.

[biz-engineer]

Who effing cares? Just stop. You are spouting nonsense.

I disagree based on the people I know , friends, family and work, none of the hundred people I know use their mobile phone camera for photography. They take casual pictures on the go if something happens in the front of them, they take picture of a picture of a product in a shop to show send to their wife to confirm a purchase decision (is it photography? for me no), they take a picture of the bathroom leaking tap to show the plumber for repair (is it photography? for me it's not, it's utility, commodity,..). They don't travel to a location for making a landscape photograph, they don't move here and there to improve a composition, they don't wait for sunsets or wake up early for sunrises, they don't do long exposures, they don't setup strobe for photographing portraits with a backdrop, they don't print, they don't display on computer monitor (all pictures stay on the mobile phone), they just to care about photography, ah I forgot, yes they do a lot of selfies with backgrounds completely blown out.

---------- Post added 24-08-21 at 08:33 ----------

Some datapoints for consideration.

On a magazine page, six small images squeezed in a magazine page, phone is not problem, since the quality bar is very low, I bet my 17 years old Nikon 2Mpixels compact would work for that. As far as I'm concerned, the best phone out there is clearly insufficient for the fine art prints I do, even I find the Pentax K1 to be good but I need to squeeze every single pixel out of it, I'd be better served by medium format, but now that I'm fully invested in K1, it would cost me a substantial amount of money to replace it with medium format.

[idontstairs]

I'm not going back and quoting specific comments from multiple pages in this topic regarding an entry level camera for Pentax being a possible new camera. I will comment in general on some of the thoughts and comments while adding my own opinion.

Pentax needs an entry level camera. Yes, I agree.


What exactly is an entry level camera in 2021 and could Pentax produce an entry level camera? This is where things go off the rails. In the year 2021 an entry level camera needs ... IBIS - in body image stabilization. It needs a screen that can flip, articulate, move, detach or otherwise isn't firmly fixed in a non-movable position. It must have 4k video. It doesn't matter if YOU don't do video. The rest of the world does video and they want 4k. Human and animal eye autofocus. A buffer that allows at least 100 uncropped images before the camera craps out and stops shooting. It doesn't matter if you only need one frame an hour. Entry level cameras from brands other than Pentax now have unlimited buffers. You can continue to shoot until your memory card fills or the camera gets so hot you have to set it down. A $1,000 USD price point. Millennials don't weather proof. Their pointy toed shoes don't into water, neither will their cameras.


Now let's use the KP as an example of meeting the requirements for an entry level camera in 2021. Flippy screen is a check. IBIS is a check. Buffer is a massive fail. Auto focus is a massive fail. 4k video? lol. Price point? Do they even make the KP anymore? Retail at launch in 2017 was $1,099 USD. So that's around $1,399 - $1,599 in the covid-19 era.

How can Ricoh/Pentax increase the specs of a KP camera and sell it for less than a 2017 KP in 2022? Therein lies the whole can of worms.


As for a new camera from Ricoh I'm hoping for a monochrome Ricoh GR before Fujifilm comes out with an X100M. The M is for monochrome. Some company is going to sell it if they make it. The Nikon Zfc should have been monochrome. That's what people want right now. Compact in size, retro in design, and black & white only.

[Serkevan]

Entry level cameras from brands other than Pentax now have unlimited buffers. You can continue to shoot until your memory card fills or the camera gets so hot you have to set it down. A $1,000 USD price point. Millennials don't weather proof. Their pointy toed shoes don't into water, neither will their cameras.

Absolutely lmao. The X-E4 does 20 raws on buffer. The Sony A6100 does 33.

Also, I'm on the younger side of millennial and I can guarantee that I'm more weatherproof than you are . Where I'm from, rain is a constant and one of the reasons I got a Pentax in the first place.

[Dartmoor Dave]

On a magazine page, six small images squeezed in a magazine page, phone is not problem, since the quality bar is very low, I bet my 17 years old Nikon 2Mpixels compact would work for that. As far as I'm concerned, the best phone out there is clearly insufficient for the fine art prints I do, even I find the Pentax K1 to be good but I need to squeeze every single pixel out of it, I'd be better served by medium format, but now that I'm fully invested in K1, it would cost me a substantial amount of money to replace it with medium format.

The key phrase in what you're saying is, "As far as I'm concerned. . ."

Your personal preference for making very large prints with a very high resolution camera is exactly that: a personal preference. Another photographer might have a preference for making 8"x10" wet prints from 35mm Tri-X negatives because they love the grain, and that person's preference is exactly and absolutely as valid as your own. Yet another photographer might shoot with an ancient low-res digital compact because their preference is to get results as far away as possible from the ultra-clean commercial photography style, and that preference is also a completely valid one.

Your preferences do not inhabit a level of objective rightness that entitles you to tell everyone else that their own preferences are invalid. I can understand why you might think they do, because after all resolution can be objectively measured so it's easy to assume that high resolution is an objective requirement for a good photo, but it's an unwarranted assumption (it's the fallacy of the undistributed middle).

Would it really be so hard to just accept that your preferred style of photography is just one among all sorts of other equally valid styles?

(As for new cameras from Pentax, I still want what I've always wanted. One knob on top of the camera to set shutter speed, one knob on top of the camera to set ISO, and ideally a ring on the lens to set aperture although another knob somewhere on the camera will probably have to do. And a 24 megapixel CCD sensor would be nice.)