Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
03-27-2010, 11:38 AM   #211
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
monochrome's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Kirkwood (St. Louis) MO
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 20,579
QuoteOriginally posted by rvannatta Quote
Of course if they brought out a FF it would be equally 'untested' As one who bought an 'istD', though, I thought they did a pretty decent job with their first 1/2 frame model.

I rather suspect one of the reasons for the Japan only introduction is to
supress sales early on so if the product starts to develop a Lemon Odor
it will be easier to manage. I don't see that as evidence of lack of confidence in the product as much as it is a prudent business practice
Possibly a secondary decision input.

QuoteOriginally posted by Kunzite Quote
More likely they want to make everything right on the home market (e.g. meeting the initial demand, study the market's response).
Btw, people are pre-ordering 645Ds. On amazon.co.jp top 100 sales it climbed on #51 for a while, now it's on #79 and going down... and I don't think we see often DMF cameras making in top100.
The real issue is demand might outstrip supply and support capacity.

  1. Pentax has a vibrant 645 film market in Japan
  2. Pentax has an established distribution, service and support network in Japan.
  3. It is said on other threads that production capacity is 500 units a month. Initial demand in Japan will consume that, after which time (whenever the high initial demand ends) Pentax will open Europe (where Pentax France has a decent market share and support network). IMO the US might never see domestic distribution of the 645D - there is no quality distribution or support here for what they currently sell, much less a $10,000 camera.
  4. In Japan people don't buy, try, and return things. In the US people buy, try, get buyers remorse and return. Why take that risk?



Last edited by monochrome; 03-27-2010 at 11:51 AM.
03-27-2010, 12:05 PM   #212
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Romania
Posts: 9,459
QuoteOriginally posted by WMBP Quote
I would like a camera with only four user modes: M, P (hyperprogram), B and USER. Hyperprogram makes Av and Tv unnecessary. Add auto-ISO in M and get rid of TAv.

I'd buy it.
Why unnecessarily cripple a camera? Those are not expensive features.
Auto ISO in M is no longer a M(anual) mode; you'll no longer know what exposure is set. In other words, a camera with no Manual mode... not a good idea, IMHO.
03-28-2010, 03:27 PM   #213
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: CT, USA
Posts: 499
QuoteOriginally posted by Gir Quote
I also hope that Pentax will release a camera based on the size of the K10D. The K7 is just a bit too small for my hands, it feels cramped in my hand. And no, I'm not overweight I don't need the size of a D300 (although it fits my hand nicely without battery grip, but the K10D w/grip is best).
Body size was ultimately my deciding buying factor. If Pentax keeps the smaller size then I'd seriously consider switching. Kind of a dilemma for Pentax finding the right size, isn't it?
QuoteOriginally posted by rparmar Quote
This means that they do have the right size. Since there are already several major manufacturers with larger bodies, those who want that size have lots of choice. Those who want something smaller than a mammoth Canikon will choose Pentax, or go for micro-four-thirds (whole different ballgame).

Pentax should stick with small and weather-sealed to differentiate themselves from all other brands.
I don't see how "K10D size" equates to Canon/Nikon size, just by being a bit larger than the K7. But more to the point, since the K7 lost the shake reduction control on the body (which the K10D/K20D have; on the K7 you have to dig into menus for it), I'd agree that Pentax has gone a bit too far on their efforts to make things smaller. When you don't have enough space on the body for important controls, it would seem that a slightly bigger body with the room for those controls would be better. A K10D/K20D sized body would still keep the body size differentiation intact.

I have an *istD (which is similar in size to the K7) and a K10D, and like the K10D's size MUCH better.
03-28-2010, 03:36 PM   #214
Veteran Member
rparmar's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,783
QuoteOriginally posted by 24X36NOW Quote
But more to the point, since the K7 lost the shake reduction control on the body (which the K10D/K20D have; on the K7 you have to dig into menus for it), I'd agree that Pentax has gone a bit too far on their efforts to make things smaller.
But that is not an important control. SR should always be on except for when MLU is used. The K7 (and previous bodies) turn it off automatically in those cases. So where is the harm in removing a control that is not needed?

I am of the opinion that to improve ergonomics there should be fewer controls on the body. But since no-one can agree on which controls are important, there should be mappable soft controls and a user-configurable menu. This would allow everyone to create their own perfect camera interface.

And since such functionality requires no advance in technology there is no excuse for why it doesn't already exist.

03-28-2010, 04:15 PM   #215
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: CT, USA
Posts: 499
QuoteOriginally posted by rparmar Quote
But that is not an important control. SR should always be on except for when MLU is used. The K7 (and previous bodies) turn it off automatically in those cases. So where is the harm in removing a control that is not needed?

I am of the opinion that to improve ergonomics there should be fewer controls on the body. But since no-one can agree on which controls are important, there should be mappable soft controls and a user-configurable menu. This would allow everyone to create their own perfect camera interface.

And since such functionality requires no advance in technology there is no excuse for why it doesn't already exist.
I wouldn't agree that SR should always be on except when using MLU; any time your camera is tripod mounted, it should be off, and not all situations when your camera is tripod mounted call for MLU.
03-28-2010, 04:22 PM   #216
Veteran Member
Nomad's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Maine
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 406
Gimme a k20d with excellent high ISO performance and I am sold. Make another little body like the k7 and I won't buy it.
Just my $.02 and I am eagerly awaiting the next flagship from Pentax maybe in 2011 to replace my k10d which is my first dslr.
03-28-2010, 04:42 PM   #217
Veteran Member
mickey's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Japan
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,074
QuoteOriginally posted by 24X36NOW Quote
But more to the point, since the K7 lost the shake reduction control on the body (which the K10D/K20D have; on the K7 you have to dig into menus for it), .
Not really a problem.
It's not really a function that you need very quick access to.
Besides, my K10 was one of many the the switch broke off. Got it repaired though.
03-28-2010, 08:51 PM   #218
Veteran Member
rparmar's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,783
QuoteOriginally posted by 24X36NOW Quote
not all situations when your camera is tripod mounted call for MLU.
I realise we are going OT, but I am interested in this. I use the timer whenever on a tripod to avoid shake induced by the shutter button. Is there a reason I shouldn't?

03-28-2010, 09:12 PM   #219
Pentaxian
thibs's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Belgium
Photos: Albums
Posts: 5,292
QuoteOriginally posted by 24X36NOW Quote
I have an *istD (which is similar in size to the K7) and a K10D, and like the K10D's size MUCH better.
Thought so too (about K10D vs istD) but in the end understood the problem was the grip: very uncomfortable on the istD. The K10D has excellent grip indeed.

I thought the K-7 would ike the istD but it isn't, it handles way better.
03-28-2010, 09:47 PM   #220
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Western Canada
Posts: 4,159
I haven't gone through all the posts, but it was mentioned that the only 18 something`ASP-C sensor was the Canon at 18. something.

Given that the new MF 645 uses a Kodak sensor...why not work with Kodak to develop a 18-20 ASP-C sensor ?
03-29-2010, 12:50 AM   #221
Pentaxian
thibs's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Belgium
Photos: Albums
Posts: 5,292
QuoteOriginally posted by lesmore49 Quote
Given that the new MF 645 uses a Kodak sensor...why not work with Kodak to develop a 18-20 ASP-C sensor ?
Because no current APS-C CCDs (Kodak only produces CCDs) has been fitted with LiveView/Video, ever AFAIK. Don't even look further. No way.
03-29-2010, 01:19 AM   #222
Pentaxian
Arpe's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: New Zealand
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 4,346
QuoteOriginally posted by rparmar Quote
I realise we are going OT, but I am interested in this. I use the timer whenever on a tripod to avoid shake induced by the shutter button. Is there a reason I shouldn't?
When your subject is running away?
03-30-2010, 03:01 AM   #223
Pentaxian
Class A's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 9,242
QuoteOriginally posted by 24X36NOW Quote
I have an *istD (which is similar in size to the K7) and a K10D, and like the K10D's size MUCH better.
+1

QuoteOriginally posted by rparmar Quote
But that is not an important control. SR should always be on except for when MLU is used.
It should also be turned off for panning shots.
I also turn it off when I use flash. There is anecdotal evidence that SR can interfere with shutter speeds near the flash sync speed (causing funny double exposures).

As Arpe mentioned, even on a tripod you may not be able to afford the delay caused by a timer (e.g., when birding).

I think removing the SR button was a bad idea for the above reasons but also regarding alerting potential customers to the difference between in-body and in-lens image stabilisation.
03-30-2010, 03:23 AM   #224
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
SteveM's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Vancouver Island, BC, Canada
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,295
QuoteOriginally posted by Nomad Quote
Gimme a k20d with excellent high ISO performance and I am sold. Make another little body like the k7 and I won't buy it.
Just my $.02 and I am eagerly awaiting the next flagship from Pentax maybe in 2011 to replace my k10d which is my first dslr.
I would be surprised if Pentax went away from the size of the K7. When I received mine, I was a little disappointed as it was way too small, the buttons had moved, but eventually I got used to it. I sold it recently thinking I could make do with the K20d only to find, ironically, that the K20d now feels too big. So I have a K7 coming and the K20d will go. My point is that you might find yourself growing into the camera, especially if you add a grip. The K7 is still huge as compared to older 35mm film bodies...
03-30-2010, 04:14 AM   #225
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 16,395
I just don't see Pentax going bigger, nor do I want them to. Canon and Nikon make a living on selling huge cameras. If Pentax has a camera that basically looks the same as theirs, but just has slower auto focus and less lens selection, where does that get them?
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
attributes, camera, k7, output, pentax, pentax news, pentax rumors
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:08 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top