Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
04-23-2010, 01:07 AM   #46
Veteran Member
jct us101's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Rohnert Park, CA
Posts: 3,695
QuoteOriginally posted by Nubi Quote
Are you talking about 9-18?? You've had the chance to use it already???
Of course not that thing is crazy expensive, but I've seen some photos on my forum (yes that's right, I own E-P1.net - A Micro Four Thirds Community) and there have been some sample photos from members that show that is really is an incredible and sharp lens. Go check it out for yourself, there's a giant sample gallery there from tons of lenses used on the E-P1, E-P2, GF-1, and the E-PL1. It's worth a look at least, at least I think it is.

04-23-2010, 01:37 AM   #47
Nubi
Guest




QuoteOriginally posted by jct us101 Quote
Of course not that thing is crazy expensive, but I've seen some photos on my forum (yes that's right, I own E-P1.net - A Micro Four Thirds Community) and there have been some sample photos from members that show that is really is an incredible and sharp lens. Go check it out for yourself, there's a giant sample gallery there from tons of lenses used on the E-P1, E-P2, GF-1, and the E-PL1. It's worth a look at least, at least I think it is.
Just curious. Do you print at all? Or you just look at them on your monitor?? What kind of monitor you got? At least for me, it was very hard for me judge IQ with any degree of certainty until I got myself a NEC multisync P221W with a hood, let alone make comparisons . . . . .
04-23-2010, 06:33 AM   #48
Veteran Member




Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: New Orleans
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,054
QuoteOriginally posted by kickboxingpenguin Quote
4/3 is as much of a waste of money for true photographers as GPS is. Versatile cameras wouldn't use a 4/3 format. More expensive lenses will need to be made to increase their resolution and wide angle photography would be virtually impossible.

bad news for pro pentaxians ... but something has to change... maybe this is the thing... or maybe its evil... or maybe its a FF. The most likely of all IMO is another 1.5 crop APSC.



i keep forgetting that most people just want a small camera to throw around, customize, and identify with. a m4/3 will probably be the new amateur standard.
While GPS maybe a waste of time to someone doing photography purely for art, at a single event, or in a studio, there is a large market for it when you consider someone that is taking photographs over a large area. I would argue that very often, arranging photographs spatially (on a map) is more useful than arranging them temporally (by time they were taken). I am sure that you would not argue cameras don't need a clock so that they can timestamp photos.

I know I have struggled to remember where exactly I took a picture and know others who have painstakingly tried to estimate where exactly they took a lot of photos for different kinds of projects.

Imagine what a clever database could do with GPS, a Clock that knows UTC time, an accelerometer, and exposure information already available in EXIF data. It could automatically tag pictures from your trip to France with things like "Sunrise at the Eiffel Tower" because it knows exactly where you were standing, what direction you had the camera pointing, what elevation the camera was at, what field of view was exposed by the lens, and what time it was (which it can check and see that the sun was rising in that location at that time). You put in some facial recognition software and it can recognize members of your family in the pictures.

Then talk about if you are doing insurance adjustment and you visit 15 different houses in one day. Or a nature photographer and you go out on a safari for a week before you come back and get a chance to take a good long look at your results. Or a bird photographer that wants to know exactly where you saw that nest.

I agree that GPS doesn't belong in the camera until it is as cheap to put a GPS chip in as it is to add a clock, but I think you are too quick to dismiss its usefulness.
04-23-2010, 11:23 AM   #49
Pentaxian
philbaum's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Port Townsend, Washington State, USA
Posts: 3,659
QuoteOriginally posted by Nass Quote
Seems to me that Pentax has played a blinder in the last year or so and is in the somewhat unusual position of having 1 certain bestseller up its sleeves too (K-X sensor with K-7 functionality). I wonder if how much market share it has gained in the last 12 months.

DSLRs are not a growth industry, whatwith cameras instead on phones and games players. I suspect the DSLR will become ever more niche and the preserve of "enthusiastic amateur" types like us. So to appeal to that market Pentax should make features that market wants, it's a nobrainer.

I think a good example of this was trying in-camera HDR and even if you don't like it, surely kudos go to Pentax for trying it on, for being innovative. In-camera HDR has some ways to go but it's a valiant attempt to at least try something vaguely different in a camera. Looks to me that functionality-wise all the major manufacturers actually make cameras that do more or less exactly the same stuff.

Pentax is much smaller than the other 2 which gives it disadvantages in terms of product development lifecycle, purchasing power, alliances and research. On the other hand a smaller company can also be more agile so I'd hope Pentax continues to be brave in its attempts to introduce new functionality that sets it apart from other guys.
I very much agree with your comments. What is tricky is that there isn't just one specific consumer profile. There are a number of different consumer types that may be interested in a DSLR. The trick is to appeal to a wide enough group of different consumer types to make enough sales for a desirable return on investment. The down side to making everyman's DSLR might be that one would compromise the camera design and come up with a vanilla or average product. For example, should one manufacture a large body or a small body. If you choose to mfr something that is of intermediate size, you might just turn off both groups.

I like your point about the potential agility of a smaller company. Look at GM and how they killed their first electric car that was widely popular to the owners that leased them. They pulled all the cars back and destroyed them - having the ego that they could control the market. Now they're stuck with large cars in a small car world. It wasn't the workers at fault, it was layers and layers of management and structure.

04-23-2010, 12:37 PM   #50
Veteran Member




Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: New Orleans
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,054
QuoteOriginally posted by philbaum Quote
I very much agree with your comments. What is tricky is that there isn't just one specific consumer profile. There are a number of different consumer types that may be interested in a DSLR. The trick is to appeal to a wide enough group of different consumer types to make enough sales for a desirable return on investment. The down side to making everyman's DSLR might be that one would compromise the camera design and come up with a vanilla or average product. For example, should one manufacture a large body or a small body. If you choose to mfr something that is of intermediate size, you might just turn off both groups.

I like your point about the potential agility of a smaller company. Look at GM and how they killed their first electric car that was widely popular to the owners that leased them. They pulled all the cars back and destroyed them - having the ego that they could control the market. Now they're stuck with large cars in a small car world. It wasn't the workers at fault, it was layers and layers of management and structure.
I think a better analogous industry to cameras would be laptops (as opposed to autos). And a good example of success is the Thinkpad line. It has had virtually the same design for about 20 years and have always focused on best in class build quality and ergonomics while other manufacturers thrash about with designs that make last years' model look obsolete.

A great way that Pentax (or any camera manufacturer) could manage this well is by shifting some of their revenue stream from hardware to software. Release new cameras every year but continuously update the software that runs on it. Doing so users would keep a keen eye on what pentax is doing and if there are any updates available, this would build brand loyalty. You could also signal to users when their camera has gone from being simply dated to being obsolete because it would no longer be supported in a new version of software. They would also get more feedback from users about what is being used the most, what needs improvement, and what their customers want most desperately (i.e. Windows 7 Was My Idea campaign).

You can also differentiate your lineup by how much processing horsepower the camera has, which will drive how much fancier stuff it can do and it will be tacit that the 2010 Model A will be able to keep up with the 2011 Model B and 2012 Model C (model A is top of the line and Model C is entry level). Early adopters and professionals will go for the Model A because they know that it will last them a while and they will have the first access to new features.

The key to this model is a continuity of interface while updating capabilities.
04-28-2010, 05:21 AM   #51
Pentaxian
Class A's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 8,934
QuoteOriginally posted by falconeye Quote
So, the intransparency is vltal to foveon (except for an almost monochrome sensor with huge chroma noise).
I believe the current Foveon sensor isn't too far away from almost being a monochrome sensor. IIRC, that's why their colours deteriorate with high ISO settings. Take this with a grain of salt as I don't remember the details.

QuoteOriginally posted by falconeye Quote
Doing the math, I wouldn't be surprised if foveon doesn't even have a theoretical advantage.
But I still like that the Foveon principle eliminates colour moire even in the absence of an AA filter.

I'd love to see a sensor with a loss-free prism-like colour splitter for each pixel. I've had that idea a long time ago but wouldn't know how to realise that in practice.

Rutherford once said "All science is either Physics or stamp collecting". I say "All 21-st century technological progress depends on materials science." .
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!
camera, growth, pentax, pentax news, pentax rumors
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Misc Industry Mindaugas Post Your Photos! 3 11-07-2009 04:32 PM
Stone age industry Rense Post Your Photos! 5 04-26-2009 02:54 PM
New Growth RichardS Post Your Photos! 5 03-06-2009 03:38 PM
New growth xs400 Post Your Photos! 5 04-14-2008 10:10 PM
Industry Timbuctoo Post Your Photos! 6 11-14-2007 05:14 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:28 PM. | See also: NikonForums.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