[juu]

In a perfect world all these companies would share the same mount.

I agree, but it won't happen. BTW Oly claimed m4/3 was an open standard in their marketing but it's not really. In some ways an opportunity wasted, but noone wants to be the trailblazer for others.

m4/3's does look the most appealing for that reason (smaller sensor and all) even if Canikon and Sony do their own thing. At least we'd have 3 or maybe 4 companies to choose from.

I agree the m4/3 seems to present at least some choice between the vendors, especially if someone else joins Oly/Pana. Perhaps also 3rd party lens manufacturers will start making dedicated lenses for it as it's been around for a while now.

BTW Nikon will likely have a 1'' sensor, so smaller than m4/3. Not sure how it will work out.

[johnmflores]

However, EVs are cheaper to make, so the marketing people will continue to brainwash the non thinking segment of photosociety to create a demand for them.
And eventually, we'll be stuck with the things, whether we like them or not.

This is a sad but inevitable point. Time and time again I've seen craft and skill and knowledge replaced by technology. More often than not the technology is - from the point of view of the layperson - the near-equal of what it replaces and offers enough benefits (typically cost, size, speed, etc...) that most are willing to accept the small sacrifice in quality in exchange.

The craftsmen however - those whose livelihoods are at risk because of the technology - can clearly see the new emperor's clothes. They can see the small but significant-to-their-trained-senses ways that the technology doesn't match up. As you suggested, it's a losing battle, because very rarely does absolute quality win.

In just the last 2 decades we saw this with the rise of desktop publishing in the 90s (typography suffered), the proliferation of MP3 players (sound quality suffered), the transition from wired home phones to wireless phones (call quality suffered), etc... It happened with dSLRs too - they achieved market dominance long before they were the IQ equals of 35mm film. Some would argue that they still aren't, but that's enough long thread altogether...

But this happens with each generation. Hand calligraphers and letterers probably decried the birth of the printing press. Orchestras and music halls decried the birth of the record. Post-office and porch-sitters decried the invention of the telephone. And closer to home, medium format and large format photographers probably decried the rise of 35mm.

Is it right? Is it wrong? That's not for me to say. But this whole discussion pivots on the fundamental question - are EVILs the thing to replace SLRs? Based on the pattern described above, I think yes. And as trite as it is to say, what side of history does Pentax want to be on?

After all, Pentax was once the big dog, but saw their position erode with their late adoption of key technologies. They were late to implement autofocus (as others here have noted) and late to the dSLR transition as well. Is it possible that the issues that cause people to abandon the brand - poor autofocus, poor SDM, lack of FF, etc... are due to the simple fact that Pentax adopted those technologies later and are thus one or two or more generations behind Canikon?

Make no mistake, Pentax is on a tightrope here. Besides the case laid out above, there are strong arguments that the market will move towards affordable full-frames - imagine a body 5 years hence about the size of the K-x with a FF sensor for $900. How awesome would that be?!

So Pentax must choose and choose soon. The tough part is that there are wolves down each fork in the road, and the longer Pentax waits, the bigger the wolves get.

[Art Vandelay II]

In bright-to-medium light, the G1/GH1 EVF is a joy and wonder to behold. Like an ultra high-end HDTV set. It's only in low light that its shortcomings are obvious.

That's why it's good to have choices. I don't concern myself much with low light photography because if the light is crap the photo usually is to. However, I know other people need different things. Now if I had the sensor from a Nikon D3s in a camera the size of a K7 I may change that outlook a bit. Being able to shoot at ISO12,800+ with nothing but a street lamp lighting the scene could open up some new possibilities. That's what makes the D3s such a shame, it has the perfect street shooter sensor, but it's in a body about 4x too large. Hopefully they'll put that sensor into a camera body not aimed squarely at sports shooters.

I will occasional break out Ilford ISO3200 B&W film to take night pics, but it's very rare that I ever see a pic worth taking at night. Besides, on a nice LCD like on the back of my Canon G10 it really doesn't bother me to use live view P&S style in the dark. Canon has implemented a nice "gain up" feature to boost the brightness of the screen in low light that I find very easy to work with. Olympus should steal that trick. In order to boost the LCD on the E-P1 you have to dig deep into the menu and turn on the boost manually.

[juu]

..

Very good post, johnmflores, with accurate points succinctly put.

I'd like to note that with the slight loss in some aspect of quality generally comes a significant gain in ubiquity, affordability and/or other qualities - this is the case in all the examples you posted. E.g. with MP3 players the sound quality may arguably be worse than vinyl (?) but you couldn't bring your entire record collection with you and listen to it on the go.

---

Last edited by juu; 01-15-2010 at 01:46 PM.

[Biro]

So Pentax must choose and choose soon. The tough part is that there are wolves down each fork in the road, and the longer Pentax waits, the bigger the wolves get.

Excellent post, johnmflores. I just cropped the quote to save room. Technology has been trumping skill and craftsmanship to an ever-increasing extent throughout history. There are positives and negatives with every example which bring both excitement and opportunity as well as a bit of sadness. Which side of history will Pentax be on? I believe we all want the company to be on the side that sees it surviving and thriving.

[Slowpoke Rodriguez]

This is just my 2 cents, but I have great hopes for EVF technology. I don't expect EVFs to trump OVFs today, and I don't even know if I would want an EVF in my next camera. But, it seems to me that this technology is very new and could someday provide products that are better, from a usability standpoint, than OVFs. I hope Pentax develops in this direction and is there and ready, when the technology is there and ready.

I envision a day when the EVF portrays what is in front of the lens with no perceptible lag, and is as bright as you tell it to be regardless of ambient conditions.

[lithos]

Ah, another strawman argument. Presume your opponents have said something they haven't, then refute it. None of the people you've been discussing this in the last few pages have claimed EVFs will get better than glass in 10 years. And they've been quite clear about that too.

What, just as how you assume I and Wheatfield are, quote, "luddites"? Wait, is this because I'm not Japanese, you racist bastard?

So, if EVFs aren't going to be better than glass, why replace 'em, hmmm? I care about the quality my photography and the ease of use of my gear. Not winning some technologically pissing contest.

I really don't care to be able to say, in some point in time that has yet to arrive, "Yeah, I was using those on Pentax before it was popular," like an insufferable indie music fan. At which point, if it arrives, you hypermodernists will probably be bitching about how Pentax isn't putting out a camera with a retina-projection display, because you're jealous now that every man and his dog has an EVF camera and it's just not cool anymore. I might be strawmanning there, but that's the only conclusion I can come to, since, you say yourself, EVFs offer no real advantages over glass, other than...well, there's space saving (that's why they used an EVF in the Auto 110, of course, or the Leica CL and Olympus XA,) although none of the current EVIL manufacturers have really shown they care about that. There is apparently, the money saved by using an EVF instead of a prism-

thump

Sorry, I was laughing so hard I fell off my chair. 'Scuse me. Yes, that's why the GH1 costs $2500 (in Australia; once again, my sincere apologies for not being in Japan,) which is about the same as a D300s without a lens.

What is significant is whether the general DSLR buyers (including P&S shooters moving up) are ready to trade an OVF/PDAF for an EVF/CDAF/live view while losing significant weight and complexity - and perhaps eventually cost - from their cameras.

And are they? Note: you're mixing tenses. You're asking if people will trade their current cameras for something from the future. That's easy to do. Also, last time I checked, pretty much every consumer DSLR out had CDAF and Live View. Also, those cameras tend not to cost as much as the Pens and Pannies.

You can, as they say, wish in one hand and shit in the other and see which gets filled first. I might be using my own opinions, experience and needs in these posts, you're just running off speculation.

This thread is about whether Pentax should build an EVIL camera and not whether you, lithos, would likely buy it or instead gnash your teeth in anger.

Don't take it so personally and try to think about what the average K-x buyer cares about. If Pentax doesn't build an EVIL to satisfy his wants, then someone else will.

Ah. So that's why everyone's buying EVILs instead of consumer DSLRs. No wonder Canon and Nikon are scrambling, since they've lost the top-selling camera spots to the M4/3 guys. Sarcasm, by the way.

Y'see, if the K-x user wanted an EVIL, they'd have bought one. Or has that logic escaped you? Yes, I know your imaginary Pentax EVIL would totally kick the K-x's arse, but unfortunately, the Pentax EVIL isn't real. Sorry.

To use your words, you think they should gamble on the MF and not EVIL, as they cannot do both. I think this is one of the few reasonable arguments you've made in this thread, especially given how they're already committed to MF. We'll see if they really cannot do both and whether the MF gamble pays off.

Fun fact: Pentax have a history of MF cameras, much like Panasonic has a history of DVD players and gadgets. Another fun fact: the 645D is about 90% done, unlike the Pentax EVIL you're harping on about. Another fun fact: There are lenses out there for it (note: this is not the be-all, end-al, digital-designed lenses will be still be needed,) along with a user base. Fun fact: the 645D, like all MF cameras, are not aimed at a notoriously fickle consumer base with the attention span of a goldfish. Fun fact: Pentax will not be cranking out as many of these as they would (hypothetical) EVILs. Fun fact: apples are not oranges.

Having said that, the 645D's development is a long and troubled one, and may have been a key reason Pentax got bought out by Hoya, due to people losing faith in Pentax's products and ability to deliver. Before digital, the 645 and 67 market was a good one for Pentax - the Pentax 67, for working photographers in the magazine industry, for example, were often more highly regard than Hasselblad (mostly due to the 67 format and the history of Pentax and the lenses available, as well as the price.) The 645 was a field tool, not studio-bound like a lot of clunky MF cameras, and later came with AF.

I'm sure there were a few people who were pissed at its delay, and ended up with Mamiyas. Maybe we'd have better APS-C or even full-frame DSLRS. Ultimately, Pentax got bought out by Hoya.

Luckily, they're doing well, which, frankly, no one could've predicted with certainty. There was a good chance, say, Hoya would scrap everything and just stick the Pentax marque on some el-cheap 8MP point and shoots, like what's happened to Agfa and Rollei. Or the biggie - Hoya was only in it for the medical division.

Is the Pentax 645D going to rock the world and skyrocket Pentax to the top of the charts? I hope so. I don't really know, as I'm not that psychic, beyond being able to tell you that a piece of fruit will go rotten if you don't eat it.

[juu]

you assume I and Wheatfield are, quote, "luddites"?

Ah, again you have problems with reading comprehension. Let me explain. I did not say you and Wheatfield were literally luddites. I used the word in a hypothetical analogy based on your quite pointed comparison of DSLRs with CRTs and EVILs with LCDs and didn't even point it at you and Wheatfield, but the rest of the hypothetical CRT-lovers, although perhaps it would have been appropriate:

What you're saying is that if Pentax was a monitor company you'd want them to keep turning out CRTs in this day and age for you, Wheatfield and a few luddites.

is this because I'm not Japanese, you racist bastard?

lol.

So, if EVFs aren't going to be better than glass, why replace 'em, hmmm?

I've said this once already. Because they will be good enough. Or perhaps worse in some ways like resolution and acutance, while better in others, like being able to zoom in upon focus and show realtime DOF/exposure/etc preview.

I really don't care to be able to say, in some point in time that has yet to arrive... [..] you hypermodernists

Well, that's the thing. You seem to be stuck in about 2008 when EVILs hadn't arrived yet. It is now 2010 and they have ~15%+ market share in some of the key markets and are gaining it.

It is a testament to how fast technologies develop that someone from 2008 would consider 2010 as "hypermodern".

you say yourself, EVFs offer no real advantages over glass, other than... well, there's space saving

The space and weight savings comes largely from the mirrorless design and the GF1 and EP-1/2 demonstrate it nicely. EVILs also offer other advantages such as zoom-in on focus and in some respects a more accurate preview of what the picture will be in the end.

Do these advantages outweight the lower resolution? For you they evidently don't. For others they evidently do.

the money saved by using an EVF instead of a prism-

For now it's the money saved by Pana/Oly, not the consumer. If Pentax were quick enough it could be money saved for them. As competition increases and margins go down it will be money saved for the consumer.

It was business 101 even in 2008, I'm surprised it's all so new to you.

You're asking if people will trade their current cameras for something from the future. That's easy to do.

No, not really. As I've said before this thread is about whether Pentax should build an EVIL camera.

idk if you've noticed, but there is a significant lead time between starting to design a product and putting it on the market, so it's only logical to consider what the LCD/EVF/CDAF capabilities will be by the time they produce it.

I might be using my own opinions, experience and needs in these posts, you're just running off speculation.

Then again you might be expressing your fears in these posts, while we're just connecting the dots on where the market is heading.

Yes, I know your imaginary Pentax EVIL would totally kick the K-x's arse, but unfortunately, the Pentax EVIL isn't real.

Once again you don't really understand lead time and what this thread is about. Please refer to the earlier discussion.

Assuming future Pentax EVILs would sell better or at least complement the sales of future Pentax DSLRs they likely have to start working on it now. Otherwise future Pana/Oly EVILs will be taking those future sales from the future Pentax DSLRs.

If that's really so hard to grasp then you appear to have some sort of a disorder in understanding how time works that keeps you stuck in 2008.

Another fun fact: the 645D is about 90% done, unlike the Pentax EVIL you're harping on about.

That may be true, but I wonder how many in Hoya's boardroom don't find it a 'fun' fact at all.

I'm not that psychic, beyond being able to tell you that a piece of fruit will go rotten if you don't eat it.

Well, many people can generally do more without requiring extransensory perception. And they often do, for example, regarding evolving technology with reasonable, if not certain, accuracy.

People predicted colour TVs will replace B&W TVs. They did.
People predicted cell phones will replace pagers. They did.
People predicted LCDs will replace CRTs. They did.
People predicted DSLRs will replace film SLRs. They did.
Etc. etc.

Now it is reasonable to predict that EVILs will replace DSLRs.

If you don't feel confident make those kinds of basic estimations, perhaps you should stick to predicting the decomposition of fruit.

[bunegg]

Ah, again you have problems with reading comprehension. Let me explain. I did not say you and Wheatfield were literally luddites. I used the word in a hypothetical analogy based on your quite pointed comparison of DSLRs with CRTs and EVILs with LCDs and didn't even point it at you and Wheatfield, but the rest of the hypothetical CRT-lovers, although perhaps it would have been appropriate:




lol.

I've said this once already. Because they will be good enough. Or perhaps worse in some ways like resolution and acutance, while better in others, like being able to zoom in upon focus and show realtime DOF/exposure/etc preview.

Well, that's the thing. You seem to be stuck in about 2008 when EVILs hadn't arrived yet. It is now 2010 and they have ~15%+ market share in some of the key markets and are gaining it.

It is a testament to how fast technologies develop that someone from 2008 would consider 2010 as "hypermodern".

The space and weight savings comes largely from the mirrorless design and the GF1 and EP-1/2 demonstrate it nicely. EVILs also offer other advantages such as zoom-in on focus and in some respects a more accurate preview of what the picture will be in the end.

Do these advantages outweight the lower resolution? For you they evidently don't. For others they evidently do.


For now it's the money saved by Pana/Oly, not the consumer. If Pentax were quick enough it could be money saved for them. As competition increases and margins go down it will be money saved for the consumer.

It was business 101 even in 2008, I'm surprised it's all so new to you.

No, not really. As I've said before this thread is about whether Pentax should build an EVIL camera.

idk if you've noticed, but there is a significant lead time between starting to design a product and putting it on the market, so it's only logical to consider what the LCD/EVF/CDAF capabilities will be by the time they produce it.

Then again you might be expressing your fears in these posts, while we're just connecting the dots on where the market is heading.

Once again you don't really understand lead time and what this thread is about. Please refer to the earlier discussion.

Assuming future Pentax EVILs would sell better or at least complement the sales of future Pentax DSLRs they likely have to start working on it now. Otherwise future Pana/Oly EVILs will be taking those future sales from the future Pentax DSLRs.

If that's really so hard to grasp then you appear to have some sort of a disorder in understanding how time works that keeps you stuck in 2008.

That may be true, but I wonder how many in Hoya's boardroom don't find it a 'fun' fact at all.

Well, many people can generally do more without requiring extransensory perception. And they often do, for example, regarding evolving technology with reasonable, if not certain, accuracy.

People predicted colour TVs will replace B&W TVs. They did.
People predicted cell phones will replace pagers. They did.
People predicted LCDs will replace CRTs. They did.
People predicted DSLRs will replace film SLRs. They did.
Etc. etc.

Now it is reasonable to predict that EVILs will replace DSLRs.

If you don't feel confident make those kinds of basic estimations, perhaps you should stick to predicting the decomposition of fruit.

People predicted colour TVs will replace B&W TVs. They did. - u can see obvious improvement in functionality.
People predicted cell phones will replace pagers. They did. - u can see obvious improvement in functionality.
People predicted LCDs will replace CRTs. They did. - u can see obvious improvement in functionality.
People predicted DSLRs will replace film SLRs. They did. - u can see obvious improvement in functionality.

Now it is reasonable to predict that EVILs will replace DSLRs. - I cant see the obvious improvement in functionality.

I dont think evil cameras now have the capabilities of replacing dslr yet. both are progressing at the same time.. u get a better evil which is on par with dslr but dslr might have released something on par with MF

[Kunzite]

IMO they are more gadgets people likes, than an useful evolution.

[juu]

People predicted LCDs will replace CRTs. They did. - u can see obvious improvement in functionality.

Well, lithos, appears to at least partially disagree:

You know what's a better photoediting monitor than an IPS LCD? A CRT.

People predicted DSLRs will replace film SLRs. They did. - u can see obvious improvement in functionality.

Again there are people who more or less disagree:
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/filmdig.htm
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-dslr-discussion/86740-tired-digital-mayhem.html

Now it is reasonable to predict that EVILs will replace DSLRs. - I cant see the obvious improvement in functionality.

I can. The camera still takes great pictures, but you can take it with you easier and it has less components to break.

Just because you cannot see the improvement doesn't mean noone else can. Just like Ken Rockwell raving about film doesn't mean digital isn't a real improvement for most people.

dslr might have released something on par with MF

That's an apples and oranges comparison; sensor size vs. type of camera. There may eventually be a MF-sensored EVIL camera, though obviously not soon.

[Zebooka]

People predicted colour TVs will replace B&W TVs. They did. - u can see obvious improvement in functionality.
People predicted cell phones will replace pagers. They did. - u can see obvious improvement in functionality.
People predicted LCDs will replace CRTs. They did. - u can see obvious improvement in functionality.
People predicted DSLRs will replace film SLRs. They did. - u can see obvious improvement in functionality.

Now it is reasonable to predict that EVILs will replace DSLRs. - I cant see the obvious improvement in functionality.

People predicted photos will replace paints - they don't
People predicted TVs will replace cinema films - they don't.
People predicted 640KB will be enough to any human - they don't!
And so on...
EVIL cameras could replace only entry lever DSLRs. Not the semi- and professional ones.

[juu]

People predicted photos will replace paints - they don't
People predicted TVs will replace cinema films - they don't.

Perhaps "replace" wasn't the right word to use. Try replacing it with "be more successful than" or "be bigger than", it won't change the main message.

So actually, photography is a bigger market than paintings, just like television is bigger than feature films, as predicted.

People predicted 640KB will be enough to any human - they don't!

Quite to the contrary, people generally predicted that memory capacity will grow. See Moore's law and so forth.

And that Bill Gates quote is generally considered to be misattributed and fictional.

Furthermore, even if the quote were real it would only show how easy it is to underestimate the future advance of technology - something that you, the detractors of EVFs are also doing now.

EVIL cameras could replace only entry lever DSLRs. Not the semi- and professional ones.

Name more reasons why not, except for the belief that EVFs won't ever be good enough compared to OVFs.

And even if so, isn't Pentax by any chance building entry level DSLRs as well? Aren't you a bit concerned for its future if it sticks to entry level DSLRs which, as you said, could be replaced by EVILs?

[Wheatfield]

People predicted colour TVs will replace B&W TVs. They did.
People predicted cell phones will replace pagers. They did.
People predicted LCDs will replace CRTs. They did.
People predicted DSLRs will replace film SLRs. They did.
Etc. etc.

Now it is reasonable to predict that EVILs will replace DSLRs.

Colour TVs represented a very real technological improvement over B&W, that being a colour picture.

Cell phones represented a very real improvement over pagers, that being the ability to have a conversation.
Good thing, since the original cell phones were bigger than two DSLR cameras combined.

LCDs represent an advantage in that they take up less space, are lighter and are cheaper to ship. They are not an improvement over CRTs, but the average consumer doesn't care about whether their screen is good or junk as long as they can get their stupid youtube videos piped in.
Photographers should care, since an LCD that matches even the cheapest CRT for imaging costs 4 or 5 times more money and still aren't really as good.
DSLRs did not represent a quality advantage when they were introduced, but they offered photographers a very real and tangible benefit, which was that they could control their entire process from start to finish.
The final image quality wasn't as good, but no one seemed to care.
They were able to do things with digital that they couldn't do with film.
Your first two examples represented a good deal for consumers, your last two represent a bad deal for consumers, but a good deal for manufacturers.

EV cameras will probably replace SLR cameras because they are good for manufactuerers and by marketing them as the newest thing, people will buy them, in much the same way they bought LCD monitors when they were expensive junk and DLSR cameras when they were expensive junk.
They'll sell because people are stupid sheep who do what they are told, not because they are better, and because manufacturers see an advantage to EV camera, can charge a premium for them even though they are not as good, and because they will arbitrarily stop making DSLR cameras, thereby giving users no choice but to buy them.

Every single "improvement" in photographic equipment in the past 75 or so years has been at the expense of quality.
Roll film replaced sheet film, and image quality went down. 35mm replaced roll film, and quality went down.
Colour replaced B&W and image longevity went down.
Digital replaced film and both image quality and image longevity (without major intervention from the user) went down.

Consumers don't care about quality, they care about trends and they care about fads.
They want to be seen by their friends and neighbors as being hip and at the cutting edge.
EV cameras will satisfy this need, even though they are nowhere near as good.
Perhaps they'll get better, perhaps not, but to the average consumer, it won't matter, and there aren't enough discerning consumers to be statistically significant.

[juu]

LCDs represent an advantage in that they take up less space, are lighter and are cheaper to ship. They are not an improvement over CRTs

Well, they are an improvement in (as you said) "that they take up less space, are lighter and are cheaper to ship". Evidently that is more important for the average buyer than image quality - assuming their image quality is "good enough". I'm certainly happier with my 3008WFP being in LCD and not CRT form (thus not needing a crew to move it anywhere).

How many LCD screens do you have in your house as compared to CRT screens?

Your first two examples represented a good deal for consumers, your last two represent a bad deal for consumers, but a good deal for manufacturers.

First, how did you manage to turn DSLRs into a bad deal for consumers if you yourself just said that "they offered photographers a very real and tangible benefit, which was that they could control their entire process from start to finish"? There have obviously numerous other benefits as referenced here.

Second, assuming the market is sufficiently competitive, anything that is a good deal for the manufacturers by cutting their costs also becomes a good deal for the consumer, by cutting the prices.

Now, the EVIL segment isn't at this point as Oly/Pana have oligopolized it, but it will be in a few years.

they bought [..] DLSR cameras when they were expensive junk.

When did you buy your first DSLR and what was it?

They'll sell because people are stupid sheep who do what they are told, not because they are better, and because manufacturers see an advantage to EV camera, can charge a premium for them even though they are not as good,

I actually agree that in many cases marketing creates a need that wouldn't be there otherwise, and presents a solution for a problem that didn't need to be solved.

I don't agree that it applies in the case of EVILs, as the need to take good pictures with a camera that weights less and takes up less space is clearly there (note how that is one of the benefits of K-x as well).

and because they will arbitrarily stop making DSLR cameras, thereby giving users no choice but to buy them.

That sounds like a conspiracy theory. In reality, they will only stop making DSLRs when people stop buying them. Now, there are some economy of scale issues but overall, if DSLRs will no longer be made it will be because people aren't buying them.

And people won't be buying them generally because they will like their EVILs better.

Every single "improvement" in photographic equipment in the past 75 or so years has been at the expense of quality.

What about better sensors, metering or auto-focus?

Are you seriously suggesting that the best camera in 1935 took better pictures than, say, a Leica S2? And if so, what was it, and are you shooting with one now?

Colour replaced B&W and image longevity went down.

Didn't you just argue that (I quote) "colour TVs represented a very real technological improvement over B&W, that being a colour picture"? So is colour in photographs an improvement overall or not?

Digital replaced film and both image quality and image longevity (without major intervention from the user) went down.

I don't get that part. Have you heard of backups and photo sharing sites?

Consumers don't care about quality, they care about trends and they care about fads.

Yes and no. Consumers are certainly sheep, however somehow this flock of sheep has generally pushed companies to produce better products.

And quality is certainly subjective - to you all that seemingly matters is the ultimate image and viewfinder quality while the average consumer cares also about how small his camera is, how much it costs, how cool it looks and how easy it is for him to use.

Pentax would do better to aim for the average consumer and not you, if they want to stay around as a company.