Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
06-26-2014, 06:28 AM   #136
Veteran Member
Andi Lo's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Halifax, Nova Scotia
Posts: 2,925
QuoteOriginally posted by Kunzite Quote
The only/first Pentax interchangeable lens featuring optical stabilization is the D FA645 90mm f:2.8 macro.

In-lens stabilization would allow for a thinner camera, but the lens would be larger and more complex.
I didnt know of this lens, very interesting. it shows that Pentax has the tech for in lens SR despite never making one for K mount

06-26-2014, 06:33 AM   #137
Pentaxian
ChristianRock's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Woodstock, GA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 4,528
QuoteOriginally posted by Kunzite Quote
The only/first Pentax interchangeable lens featuring optical stabilization is the D FA645 90mm f:2.8 macro.

In-lens stabilization would allow for a thinner camera, but the lens would be larger and more complex.
Often, the more you stuff into the lens, the more the manufacturer compromises in the optical quality of the lens. Two examples come to mind: the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 non-stabilized version is optically much superior to the stabilized version, which ended up with a different formula so that it would still fit in the case. Also, the Olympus kit lens - the 14-42mm - had a "version II" released with a new type of AF motor that is silent, and they also made the lens case a bit smaller. So the optical quality of the lens is inferior. The one thing that did seem to get much better was the bokeh though, I wonder if that was intentional...
06-26-2014, 06:48 AM   #138
Senior Member




Join Date: Sep 2013
Photos: Albums
Posts: 128
QuoteOriginally posted by Kunzite Quote
The only/first Pentax interchangeable lens featuring optical stabilization is the D FA645 90mm f:2.8 macro.

In-lens stabilization would allow for a thinner camera, but the lens would be larger and more complex.
Thanks Kunzite. Maybe those were broken "power zoom" buttons.
06-26-2014, 06:55 AM - 1 Like   #139
Pentaxian
ChristianRock's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Woodstock, GA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 4,528
QuoteOriginally posted by easyreeder Quote
—Hmm, the in camera stabilization is a major part of the Pentax video platform. Getting rid of it gives Sony a huge advantage in this area.
—I don't know the full history here, but I believe that Pentax has tried in-lens stabilization before. I've seen lots of old, broken, lens stabilized Pentax lenses. More mechanics in the lens means less glass, literally less glass, and more to get broken. Here's a pic of the in-lens mechanics.
—"All comparison sites"? Not true. They're different systems, each system with its own pros and cons. Here's the first google hit, which of course touts the Sony.
—If you don't want SR you can turn it off. Nobody uses every component on their camera.

All that said, if Pentax comes out with a mirrorless FF, in-lens stabilization could allow for a thinner camera, more along the lines of an A7. There's been quite a bit of talk of two cameras—ha, wildly optimistic talk—but in lens stabilization is an interesting option for mirrorless.
I do like SR, don't get me wrong, if it's in the camera I won't turn it off
But I don't think you got my point, it wasn't to say SR isn't useful - I love it -, it was to say that it might be an advantage for Ricoh to make a smaller full frame camera with no SR and put the SR in the lenses following the model that Canon and Nikon use - to force everyone to at least get one new lens when they buy a camera... I was thinking of how a full frame camera might be a viable investment for Ricoh. My point: I'd take a non-SR full frame camera versus no full frame camera at all.
But I agree with you that SR in the camera is better, even if Sony is in fact not going that direction anymore with the A7, where they probably could have put in stabilization in the body but chose not to, and that seems to be their future direction.

06-26-2014, 12:55 PM   #140
Pentaxian




Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Eureka, CA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,976
QuoteOriginally posted by philbaum Quote
BTW, your statement that no rapid change is happening because your pro-photographer sister's friends and acquaintances all agree with you, even though you haven't met or talked to them concerning this subject, seems to be strange logic indeed
That's a complete distortion of what I said. What people think or fail to think really has little to do with the issue at hand. What's important is not what they think or say but what they do. They're not flocking to compact mirrorless, nor would they even if they wanted to, because they simply can't afford to.

"Rapid" change, if it's going to be meaningful and "real," (i.e., actually involve the purchase of goods) must be paid for. The transition to digital was relatively inexpensive. Most photographers had already invested in computers; they already owned lenses; all they needed was to purchase one digital camera, and a standard and a wide angle zoom. And all this took place during a boom phase of consumer spending. If photographers transitioning to digital had to replace all their lenses during an economic downturn, there'd be more people shooting film. You want rapid change? Make it as affordable and seamless as possible. Ultimately, a rapid change from DSLR to compact mirrorless must be funded by consumers. Even in good economic times, that would be a challenging transition. In bad economic times, it's just not going to happen.

QuoteOriginally posted by philbaum Quote
The recent on-going collapsing of the compact point and shoot camera market. What prompts my conclusion of rapid change currently are these symptoms: a) The recent on-going collapsing of the compact point and shoot camera market.
"Collapse" is probably too strong a word. It's not as if compact P&S's are going to disappear completely. "Dramatic shrinkage" is more accurate. Even so, what sort of "rapid" change does this portend? It may involve a change among non-serious photographers (from compacts to cell phones), but ironically, it actually slows down change higher up in the market. Indeed, it seems to have hit the mirrorless ILC companies particularly hard, because those companies haven't enjoyed the success of Canon and Nikon, and are in a much worse position to absorb additional blows. Olympus in particular seems hard hit. They're really dragging their feet on the production of the pro lenses, which suggests serious cash flow problems. During the transition to digital, Olympus created, with remarkable speed, a full of lineup of high quality zoom lenses, some among the best ever made. Since their excursion into mirrorless six years ago, they've made only one pro zoom for m43. Bottom line: all shrinkages of the market only make it harder to engineer a rapid change, because it means less money to fund R&D, pay for new capacity, etc. etc.

QuoteOriginally posted by philbaum Quote
b) Nikon's current share price is the lowest its been in 3 years. So now its just not PS that are in jeopardy, its the whole camera market that seems to be sliding in large numbers. http://petapixel.com/2014/05/18/niko...restructuring/
Yes, the market is contracting. But this affects all manufacturers, and it affects those who are losing money the most (i.e., the mirrorless companies). The biggest problem is that camera companies are making far too many cameras. They have access capacity, and adjusting to new conditions is painful.

QuoteOriginally posted by philbaum Quote
What we are seeing as the market slide continues is an effort by manufacturers to come out with more attractive and compelling cameras for consumers to buy.
Camera companies will attempt to do this, but will they succeed? What if the majority of the market is already satisfied with what they have? What if the majority is risk averse and lacks the funds necessary to move to a whole new system? Is bringing out "attractive" and "compelling" cameras the answer? What makes a camera "attractive" and "compelling"? Well, it depends on how you're wired. If you're a neophile, then you might find the mirrorless ILCs rather enticing. But if you're not a neophile -- and many photographers are not wired that way -- you may want nothing more than a camera that works with the lenses you own. Keep in mind: the cameras being made today by all manufacturers, compact mirrorless or SLR mount, are far better than what most of us were shooting ten, fifteen, twenty years ago.

I don't see any compelling evidence to suggest that the market is dominated by neophiles. Canon, for example, has been behind in sensor technology for years, yet Canon is still number one in the ILC market. Why don't the technophiles, gearheads, and upgrade junkies ever reflect on this somber fact? Are they incapable of imagining that there are a large group people who are wired differently from themselves, who are not obsessed with newness, change, and upgrade fixes?

Serious photographers don't just buy cameras, they invest in systems. Canon and Nikon offer the best systems; no one else really comes close (Pentax and Sony Alpha mount are a distant third).
06-27-2014, 12:04 PM   #141
Pentaxian
philbaum's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Port Townsend, Washington State, USA
Posts: 3,659
QuoteOriginally posted by northcoastgreg Quote
What people think or fail to think really has little to do with the issue at hand. What's important is not what they think or say but what they do. They're not flocking to compact mirrorless, nor would they even if they wanted to, because they simply can't afford to.

"Collapse" is probably too strong a word. It's not as if compact P&S's are going to disappear completely. "Dramatic shrinkage" is more accurate. Even so, what sort of "rapid" change does this portend?

Yes, the market is contracting. But this affects all manufacturers, and it affects those who are losing money the most (i.e., the mirrorless companies). The biggest problem is that camera companies are making far too many cameras. They have access capacity, and adjusting to new conditions is painful.

I don't see any compelling evidence to suggest that the market is dominated by neophiles. Canon, for example, has been behind in sensor technology for years, yet Canon is still number one in the ILC market. Why don't the technophiles, gearheads, and upgrade junkies ever reflect on this somber fact? Are they incapable of imagining that there are a large group people who are wired differently from themselves, who are not obsessed with newness, change, and upgrade fixes?
.
We;re just going to have to agree to disagree. And i'm OK with that. We all see our own small part of the world, and then we get together as humans do, and talk about the wider picture.

1. Maybe part of our disagreement is what "rapid" means. Rapid means different things to different people and in different areas of interest. To me, whats going on is rapid - even thought its occurring over a period of years.

Should Sony go low price FF? Nikon D600 and Canon 6D at $2100. | sonyalpharumors

The above article is dated Sept 2012 and notes that the D600 and 6D are at $2100. Currently, there is a sale on the Sony A7 with lens for $1499. This is 21 months later - is that rapid change? Seems so to me, but its just adjectives which people have a different sense of.

2. Poor Nikon gets discussed a lot, since they are primarily a camera company and the impact of these changes show more directly with them. But it affects all companies - of course.

WSJ blames Nikon for missing to enter "seriously" the mirrorless market. | Mirrorless Rumors

3.
QuoteQuote:
Why don't the technophiles, gearheads, and upgrade junkies ever reflect....
The world used to be concerned that the communists were going to take over the world - now its fear of the "technophiles, gearheads, and upgrade junkies". I get it - change is always a PITA

have a better week!
06-27-2014, 12:23 PM   #142
Banned




Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Millstone,NJ
Posts: 6,491
QuoteQuote:
It's not as if compact P&S's are going to disappear completely. "Dramatic shrinkage" is more accurate
Smartphones all have compact P&S cameras built-in and they were the first consumer cameras with 41mp stills and 4K video. BTW they sold 1 Billion of them in the last year.
06-27-2014, 12:43 PM   #143
Pentaxian
RonHendriks1966's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2009
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,714
QuoteOriginally posted by philbaum Quote
2. Poor Nikon gets discussed a lot, since they are primarily a camera company and the impact of these changes show more directly with them. But it affects all companies - of course.

WSJ blames Nikon for missing to enter "seriously" the mirrorless market. | Mirrorless Rumors
Well Ricoh is also not the strongest player in that field.

06-27-2014, 12:54 PM   #144
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Romania
Posts: 9,329
QuoteOriginally posted by philbaum Quote
3. The world used to be concerned that the communists were going to take over the world - now its fear of the "technophiles, gearheads, and upgrade junkies". I get it - change is always a PITA
Change is not always for the better
06-27-2014, 12:58 PM - 1 Like   #145
Ash
Community Manager
Loyal Site Supporter
Ash's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Toowoomba, Queensland
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 22,695
QuoteOriginally posted by jogiba Quote
Smartphones all have compact P&S cameras built-in and they were the first consumer cameras with 41mp stills and 4K video. BTW they sold 1 Billion of them in the last year.
People don't buy smartphones just for their ability to take photos with them, and they certainly don't buy them to finesse their photographic skills. The sale volume of smartphones, regardless of their pickle count, is a moot point here. Photography is a craft whereby quality gear and photographer skill BOTH matter.
06-27-2014, 01:25 PM   #146
Pentaxian
mecrox's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Oxford, UK
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,115
QuoteOriginally posted by Ash Quote
People don't buy smartphones just for their ability to take photos with them, and they certainly don't buy them to finesse their photographic skills. The sale volume of smartphones, regardless of their pickle count, is a moot point here. Photography is a craft whereby quality gear and photographer skill BOTH matter.
I really doubt it's a moot point, since not only has the smartphone had a heavy economic impact on the photography industry but also it is changing people's idea of photography itself and of the form and performance of the camera. Of course you are right about the craft aspect though that changes too over time.

Even so, to practise the craft, people have to buy a camera. If people grow up in a smartphone and tablet world, as today they do, then it's a reasonable bet that they'll want a different kind of camera to those around now which at the enthusiast end of the market are for the most part the old analogue designs with a sensor and electronics dropped in. Sooner or later this approach just isn't going to cut it anymore for the simple reason that folks will no longer want it. Or at least, not enough of them. For camera companies to survive at all, there have to be enough people willing to buy their products. So change will come anyway. No doubt the camera companies know this full well but at this stage in the process they also have their traditional businesses to protect, at least for now.
06-27-2014, 01:52 PM   #147
Banned




Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Millstone,NJ
Posts: 6,491
QuoteOriginally posted by Ash Quote
People don't buy smartphones just for their ability to take photos with them, and they certainly don't buy them to finesse their photographic skills. The sale volume of smartphones, regardless of their pickle count, is a moot point here. Photography is a craft whereby quality gear and photographer skill BOTH matter.
Really ?
https://www.flickr.com/search/?text=Nokia%20808&sort=interestingness-desc
https://www.flickr.com/search?sort=interestingness-desc&text=Nokia%201020

---------- Post added 06-27-14 at 05:13 PM ----------

QuoteQuote:
Photography is a craft whereby quality gear and photographer skill BOTH matter.
Your equipment no longer defines you, your photographs do
Post-process: why the smartphone camera changed photography forever | The Verge

Last edited by jogiba; 06-27-2014 at 02:15 PM.
06-27-2014, 02:52 PM - 1 Like   #148
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Romania
Posts: 9,329
I don't think the smartphone camera changed photography; it only changed snapshooting.
06-27-2014, 03:59 PM   #149
Ash
Community Manager
Loyal Site Supporter
Ash's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Toowoomba, Queensland
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 22,695
That's a pretty clear point in my mind. But for some, there is still the firm belief that the tool is irrelevant. Results still need a tool to create it, so it does matter. Works of art can be made by skilled photographers with smartphones, but the quality of the result will be appreciably better with more sophisticated gear (to a point, and relevant to this thread, not greatly differentiated between results from an APS-C vs a FF camera).
06-27-2014, 06:06 PM   #150
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: GMT +10
Photos: Albums
Posts: 10,834
QuoteOriginally posted by Kunzite Quote
I don't think the smartphone camera changed photography; it only changed snapshooting.
True.

There are also huge piles of money in mobile telephony, and big corporate players like the telcos and industrial giants like Samsung, Apple and Google with mega marketing and spin budgets in there, so the commercial propaganda about mobiles revolutionizing everything, including photography, is overwhelming at the moment. Everyone in the tech media is shilling in overdrive.
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, adapter, af, aps-c, bodies, body, cameras, ergonomics, film, frame, full frame camera, full-frame, k-01, lcd, lenses, market, micro four thirds, mirroless camera, mirrorless, pentax, people, ricoh, sensor, shutter, size, struggle, time
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The Full Frame NEX is going to be announced in October ! jogiba Non-Pentax Cameras: Canon, Nikon, etc. 30 09-15-2013 03:23 PM
Pentax does not care about Full Frame Watson Pentax Full Frame 88 08-19-2013 04:53 AM
Are Any of The 17-50 (or in that range) Lenses Full Frame? reivax Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 12 02-04-2013 07:38 PM
Do you think in the long run, DA lenses are a bad buy? Size of CCDs in the future Capslock118 Pentax DSLR Discussion 28 11-07-2010 06:46 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:49 AM. | 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