Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
02-15-2013, 08:34 AM   #1216
Pentaxian
gazonk's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Oslo area, Norway
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,511
QuoteOriginally posted by Clavius Quote
I agree fully with you on the mirror. The A99 without a mirror at all, would have been a spectacular worlds first though. Nevertheless, Sony has been very succesfull in replacing Pentax in almost each and every store around here. The market shows exactly what it wants.



So, you want a pretty camera?! Well the way things are going with Pentax now you are certainly right. You could buy a yellow Q10 with pinhole lens and a bright yellow flash with smiley face from Holga. Maybe Pentax and Holga will be joining forces soon?

The K10D was an excellent camera, with excellent ergonomics. "K10D on steroids" is a compliment. As FF + IBIS is something Pentax should have done, a few years ago, instead of / prior to Sony. Then things would have been very different I think.
The a99 is ugly, the a900 was nice. A pretty girl on too much steroids looks like the Hulk - just like the a99 :-) The looks aren't everything, but the a99 would look like a monster together with my K-5, LX and ME Super ;-)

Btw I've used the K10d for five years, but I prefer the ergonomics of the K-5 except for the little detail that I have to toggle focus point selection with the OK button.

02-15-2013, 08:56 AM   #1217
Pentaxian
Clavius's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: De Klundert
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 4,118
QuoteOriginally posted by gazonk Quote
The a99 is ugly, the a900 was nice. A pretty girl on too much steroids looks like the Hulk - just like the a99 :-) The looks aren't everything, but the a99 would look like a monster together with my K-5, LX and ME Super ;-)

Btw I've used the K10d for five years, but I prefer the ergonomics of the K-5 except for the little detail that I have to toggle focus point selection with the OK button.
I guess you didn't grasp my sarcasm, so I'll say it more bluntly: The looks of a camera are just as important as the looks of a hammer, or of an industrial turbine, or of a denstits drill. The only function of a still camera is taking pictures. They have to that well. UI and ergonomics are part of that, because those partly support the user in taking those good pictures. But customers do not pay a photografer because his camera is oh so pretty. Do you give a rats *** about the looks of the drill that your dentist uses to drill your tooth?!? Probably not, it only has to do it's job. And if a different brand, type or model of drill does that same job only slighty better, then that machine is the better tool. Any 'design' applied to such tools that compromise their primary function in any degree is absurd.
02-15-2013, 09:09 AM   #1218
Veteran Member
Anvh's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 4,616
QuoteOriginally posted by Ash Quote
I picked one of those up. Not bad in many aspects, but it's more a new fab electronic gizmo than a legendary photography tool. I'd rather shoot with the K-5 than have that A99 with its less intuitive UI and less interesting lens array. Translucent mirror just to be able to have EVF is unnecessary IMO.
It needs a mirror for the PDAF not for the EVF.
02-15-2013, 09:19 AM - 1 Like   #1219
Site Supporter




Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,893
QuoteOriginally posted by Clavius Quote
I guess you didn't grasp my sarcasm, so I'll say it more bluntly: The looks of a camera are just as important as the looks of a hammer, or of an industrial turbine, or of a denstits drill. The only function of a still camera is taking pictures. They have to that well. UI and ergonomics are part of that, because those partly support the user in taking those good pictures. But customers do not pay a photografer because his camera is oh so pretty. Do you give a rats *** about the looks of the drill that your dentist uses to drill your tooth?!? Probably not, it only has to do it's job. And if a different brand, type or model of drill does that same job only slighty better, then that machine is the better tool. Any 'design' applied to such tools that compromise their primary function in any degree is absurd.
In general, I agree with your comments.

Nevertheless, as long as I still have my day job, my primary function of my camera is to increase the amount of joy in my life.

02-15-2013, 09:54 AM   #1220
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2011
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,674
QuoteOriginally posted by Clavius Quote
But customers do not pay a photografer because his camera is oh so pretty.
Many working photographers have reported
that they have customers who expect them to use a camera
that has a certain look or brand label to it, regardless of the actual IQ.

Professionalism is often all about presentation.
02-15-2013, 10:32 AM   #1221
Veteran Member




Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Fowlmere, UK
Photos: Albums
Posts: 700
QuoteOriginally posted by gazonk Quote
You make too much sense . For these reasons, Pentax needs both the FF and a camera well below the K-30. But salespeople may still argue (they do!) that caNikon is the better choice because of the number of lenses. On one hand, this is quite silly, because nobody without severe LBA is going to buy all Pentax lenses anyway. On the other hand, it's not entirely wrong. But if Pentax adds a few FF lenses and a fast wa prime or two, I think that argument will start to look stupid.
Pentax had a good sales point for the 67 with the 67 > 645 adapter; same thing could be true with a FF and the 645D. It would give those attracted professionally to the 645DII a reason to stick with that choice.
Especially since the 645 90mm is apparently an amazing lens, which is saying something, as the top 645 lenses outshine the FF lenses even on FF (35mm, 120mm, 150mm, 300mm), contrary to popular theory, and that 90mm is reportedly even better (hearsay on this forum, no first hand experience on my part).
02-15-2013, 12:29 PM   #1222
Pentaxian
gazonk's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Oslo area, Norway
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,511
QuoteOriginally posted by Clavius Quote
Do you give a rats *** about the looks of the drill that your dentist uses to drill your tooth?!?
Not really, but you obviously haven't noticed that modern dentist's offices look like very expensive industry designers have been involved...

QuoteQuote:
Any 'design' applied to such tools that compromise their primary function in any degree is absurd.
But size matters, and the A99 is ridiculously bulky - it looks bloated even compared to real FF SLRs (Compare camera dimensions side by side). I.e. the A99 has had design applied that did indeed compromise its primary function!!

I assume you use a tank to drive to work?
02-15-2013, 12:33 PM   #1223
Pentaxian
gazonk's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Oslo area, Norway
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,511
QuoteOriginally posted by lytrytyr Quote
Professionalism is often all about presentation.
Indeed. You wouldn't use a dentist that has equipment that looks like it was leftover torture instruments from a North Korean concentration camp

02-15-2013, 12:47 PM   #1224
Pentaxian
Clavius's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: De Klundert
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 4,118
QuoteOriginally posted by lytrytyr Quote
Many working photographers have reported
that they have customers who expect them to use a camera
that has a certain look or brand label to it, regardless of the actual IQ.

Professionalism is often all about presentation.
True, I've had people saying that they expected me to show up with something "bigger & more professional looking" when I showed up with my K5's. And I have had clients that explicitly requested me to shoot full frame.
02-15-2013, 12:51 PM   #1225
Pentaxian
Clavius's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: De Klundert
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 4,118
QuoteOriginally posted by gazonk Quote
Indeed. You wouldn't use a dentist that has equipment that looks like it was leftover torture instruments from a North Korean concentration camp
So, modern very functional equipment looks like leftover junk?!? Remember, we were comparing cameras. I mentioned the Sony A99 as something Pentax should have done long ago. (FF + IBIS) So if the A99 is a leftover from a Korean concentration camp, then what does that make a K5 then? Leftover from the dark ages? (Albeit with nicer ergonomics.)
02-15-2013, 01:13 PM   #1226
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Romania
Posts: 8,840
Were you talking about a "Sony A99" made by Pentax, or only about a Pentax FF with in-body SR? They're very different things.
02-15-2013, 01:20 PM   #1227
Pentaxian
Clavius's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: De Klundert
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 4,118
QuoteOriginally posted by Kunzite Quote
Were you talking about a "Sony A99" made by Pentax, or only about a Pentax FF with in-body SR? They're very different things.


If you go back and read, you'll see that I said that Pentax should have been the one to issue an FF camera with IBIS first. Most probably that would have made Sony go back to the drawing board.
02-15-2013, 01:33 PM   #1228
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Romania
Posts: 8,840
If you go back and read (and take some anti-puking pills) you'd discover people complained about the "look", UI, being a "SLT", size - but never about the FF+SR combination. No, a Pentax product won't make Sony to change their style...

Your posts are a mess, I can't find out what you meant by reading them again; that's why I'm asking. You can ignore the question if you don't like it, though.
02-15-2013, 01:46 PM   #1229
Pentaxian
Clavius's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: De Klundert
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 4,118
QuoteOriginally posted by Kunzite Quote
If you go back and read (and take some anti-puking pills) you'd discover people complained about the "look", UI, being a "SLT", size - but never about the FF+SR combination. No, a Pentax product won't make Sony to change their style...

Your posts are a mess, I can't find out what you meant by reading them again; that's why I'm asking. You can ignore the question if you don't like it, though.
Yes, people are complaining about a camera being ugly, whilst being pretty isn't a cameras function. Not even by a long shot. And even so, being ugly didn't prevent Sony from taking over Pentax place in the shops. They just did what Pentax used to do.
02-15-2013, 01:59 PM   #1230
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Romania
Posts: 8,840
It was marketing who allowed them to, and this isn't what Pentax is known for.
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!
24x36mm, aps-c, camera, capacity, company, d4s, dont, ff, followers, frame, full-frame, idea, im, iso, k-3, lens, lenses, letter, light, lw/ph, nikon, page, pentax, release, time, traffic
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The full frame Pentax that never was dj_saunter Pentax DSLR Discussion 23 05-06-2011 04:06 AM
Pentax and Full Frame oppositz Pentax DSLR Discussion 58 03-18-2011 09:39 AM
Full frame pentax cem.kumuk Pentax DSLR Discussion 11 11-12-2010 03:13 PM
Pentax and Full Frame... Shutter-bug Photographic Technique 60 11-03-2010 10:03 AM
Pentax A 50/1.2 on Full Frame aegisphan Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 23 10-28-2010 04:16 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:39 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