Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
07-08-2014, 06:36 AM   #466
Pentaxian
ChristianRock's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Woodstock, GA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 4,532
QuoteOriginally posted by Fogel70 Quote
I don't think it matter much that it's old tech in these cameras for those buying them. For alot of users low price is the most important feauture on the camera. Coming from an old small sensor P&S or smartphone, any DSLR will be a huge upgrade.

Canon T3 is still one of the best selling DSLR. If K-x was still on the market and sold for $299 with kit lens, it would probably the best selling Pentax DSLR with a big margin.
It doesn't matter, what you said was that the K500 was too expensive, because it has a pentaprism.

Well if you can't see how wrong that statement was, then I obviously can't help... cheers.

07-08-2014, 07:02 AM   #467
Pentaxian
Fogel70's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,748
QuoteOriginally posted by ChristianRock Quote
It doesn't matter, what you said was that the K500 was too expensive, because it has a pentaprism.

Well if you can't see how wrong that statement was, then I obviously can't help... cheers.
I never said K500 was too expensive. What I said was (and what you quoted was):

"The high grade glass used in pentaprism is a considerable cost, and as the manufacturing of the prism is done in several steps it add quite alot to the cost too. Using pentaprism in all cameras is one reason for Pentax not being able to compete on price with the cheapest DSLR on the market. I know that Pentax/Ricoh can't use magic to lower manufacturing cost."
07-08-2014, 07:06 AM   #468
Pentaxian
mecrox's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Oxford, UK
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,116
QuoteOriginally posted by Clavius Quote
Please do tell us about this facebook-friendly, trouser-loving camera with lame AF and huge shutter lag of yours. Because I'm thinking you don't have one.

The standard is not high enough. Far from it. Smartphones are outperforming the classic digital cameras (both DSLR and mirrorless) in various topics already. Size, cost and connectivity being only the 3 most important examples. But ok, maybe interesting to observe, lets have the camera makers slack off some more untill the smartphones beat "real" cameras in IQ as well.
I'm thinking K-01 and MX-1 here, but only the second is trouser loving unless you have the pockets of a circus clown For more on clowns, see here.

Well, let's put it another way: it's really quite difficult to buy a bad camera these days. The standard is indeed very high compared to just a few years ago. There probably are a few around who complain bitterly of the inadequacies of a Nikon D800e, a Canon 1DX or a Pentax 645z but chances are they'd be happier doing something else under the protective gaze of kindly men in white coats.

In my view smartphones will eventually reel in much of the camera industry anyway. They have the huge advantage of being able to do so much with software and thus escape much of the complications of production lines and inventories associated with mainly hardware-based products. They also benefit from economies of scale about 100 times greater than the camera industry and huge, brand-led sales and marketing operations including at least one of the best online sales operations on the planet. Traditional stand-alone cameras of the changeable lens kind are highly likely to return to the upmarket, enthusiast-type roots they had before the advent of digital. So, if you are a camera-maker, you can waste your time trying to compete against smartphones until you go bust, or accept that the world is moving on and make sure that your full-on offerings for sale to those who really, definitely want a stand-alone camera are extremely competent at the core things - image capture (sensor, e.g.), lenses, AF, processing and throughput, output files. And, as I said, the standard even now is extremely high and there is almost more choice than retailers can cope with. I mean, how much lunch can anyone eat? Chasing the latest and greatest is no answer, at least at the personal level.

Last edited by mecrox; 07-08-2014 at 07:25 AM.
07-08-2014, 07:08 AM   #469
Veteran Member




Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,893
QuoteOriginally posted by Clavius Quote
Please do tell us about this facebook-friendly, trouser-loving camera with lame AF and huge shutter lag of yours. Because I'm thinking you don't have one.



The standard is not high enough. Far from it. Smartphones are outperforming the classic digital cameras (both DSLR and mirrorless) in various topics already. Size, cost and connectivity being only the 3 most important examples. But ok, maybe interesting to observe, lets have the camera makers slack off some more untill the smartphones beat "real" cameras in IQ as well.
Not that it really matters, but the smartphones usually cost about $500 -$600, more expensive than entry level dslrs. The smartphones *seem* less expensive though.

07-08-2014, 07:13 AM   #470
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Romania
Posts: 9,336
QuoteOriginally posted by Clavius Quote
The standard is not high enough. Far from it. Smartphones are outperforming the classic digital cameras (both DSLR and mirrorless) in various topics already. Size, cost and connectivity being only the 3 most important examples. But ok, maybe interesting to observe, lets have the camera makers slack off some more untill the smartphones beat "real" cameras in IQ as well.
Smartphones can never outperform a real, large sensor camera in any aspect related to being a photographic device.
Size: they're extremely uncomfortable to hold and use as photographic devices. Their shape is limited - flat devices with a large screen and pretty much nothing else.
Cost: for the image quality they're offering, they're very expensive.
Connectivity: that's not a basic camera function. You don't post on Pentaxforums from your camera...

And regarding image quality, not gonna happen. They can't increase the sensor size and optics by any significant amount. As a curiosity, the highest resolution smartphone camera sensor already has a pixel pitch on the same order as the red light wavelength...
07-08-2014, 07:17 AM   #471
Veteran Member
Andi Lo's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Halifax, Nova Scotia
Posts: 2,925
QuoteOriginally posted by ElJamoquio Quote
Not that it really matters, but the smartphones usually cost about $500 -$600, more expensive than entry level dslrs. The smartphones *seem* less expensive though.
Because no matter what most people stills need a phone, moreso than they do a camera. Also a smartphone can help you do other things that are picture taking. Can your SLR play angry birds or search for the closest Chinese takeout?

A phone with a good camera is still "expensive", that much is true.
07-08-2014, 07:26 AM   #472
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Romania
Posts: 9,336
For that reason, people are willing to accept a tool which is worse (for photography), not better. That's progress!
07-08-2014, 08:08 AM   #473
Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 16,243
Not to disrespect camera phones, but I struggle to take decent photos with mine, whereas I don't with my SLR. Ergonomics are lousy on it, it is light enough that camera shake is a real problem. Smart phones are small computers that happen to have a camera in them. Perhaps they are better than nothing, but I would go into depression if that was the only photographic device I had to use.

07-08-2014, 08:09 AM   #474
Veteran Member
Andi Lo's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Halifax, Nova Scotia
Posts: 2,925
QuoteOriginally posted by Kunzite Quote
For that reason, people are willing to accept a tool which is worse (for photography), not better. That's progress!
I dont find iphone5 image quality to be any worse than a point and shoot. I've seen a lot of great shots with it that is worthy of framing.

I know a lot of SLR owners who dont bring their SLR around everyday. Not everyone is dedicated to photography all the time that they will carry around a dedicated image taking device everywhere. For these people having a good smartphone is much better than having no camera. In that sense smartphone is actually a better tool. That's progress!

There's also value in being able to take a shot, edit it in the phone, and share it within 3 minutes. This isnt something that's possible in the past, and is a form of progress too.

QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
Not to disrespect camera phones, but I struggle to take decent photos with mine, whereas I don't with my SLR. Ergonomics are lousy on it, it is light enough that camera shake is a real problem. Smart phones are small computers that happen to have a camera in them. Perhaps they are better than nothing, but I would go into depression if that was the only photographic device I had to use.
What phone do you use Rondec? Not all camera phones are created equal. Even the best ones are also not suitable for any moving subjects, really.

I dont think they will be the only camera. ILC will still remain for a long time, there is no sign of any other format being able to replicate ILC system advantages. Nevertheless smartphone cameras will certainly be an ever important part of photography from now onward. https://www.flickr.com/cameras/

Last edited by Andi Lo; 07-08-2014 at 08:17 AM.
07-08-2014, 08:13 AM   #475
Pentaxian
ChristianRock's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Woodstock, GA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 4,532
You can instantly post your pictures on facebook. And that, my friends, is enough for most of the female population
07-08-2014, 08:23 AM   #476
Pentaxian




Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: North
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,921
QuoteOriginally posted by philbaum Quote
Thanks for the interesting post. The only quibble i would have is that you blamed the soft market on gearheads chasing the A7s. I can't prove it, but my opinion is that there are simply too many dslrs out there for the number of customers. Take me for example, i have 2 perfectly running DSLRs and 2 more mirrorless APS cameras, and don't need another one

Looking at BHPhoto and Amazon, they offer to buy your old A7 and Nex 5r and several others, if you are trading up for a more expensive Sony mirrorless. What that tells me, i think, is that they are having trouble moving stock up and down the dslr line. Canon also has rebates on its DSLRs, including FF.

Maybe they are trying to clean out leftover stock before photokina so that their new models get more orders from the retailers. We live in interesting times :-)
I did not blame the soft market on gear heads.
I only meant that the 2nd hand prices of FF cameras are very low now due to folks here chasing the latest gadget (perceived/marketed ISO improvements on A7s for one)
The A7 has hit such a low 2nd hand price that its on par with an advanced aps-c (K3; D7100l 70D)
These are sets at $900 with another ~$180 of goodies thrown in and left with 6mths warranty (since the A7 was only available in late Nov2013 here)
It has happened much faster than I expected and many Pentax folks are tempted.
So money spent on that 2nd hand A7, means nothing spent on whatever comes out from Pentax in Photokina.

Just look at the link here and you can see the trend of selling off the past 2 weeks since the A7s was made available.
http://www.clubsnap.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=115


But yes, you are right that cameras now do well enough for most aspects of photo taking and there is an over stock of old models out there.
Esp. to the laymen, a dslr/milc is a step up from a handphone.
They buy one, and thats all, they don't think of upgrade nor more lenses.
07-08-2014, 08:26 AM   #477
Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 16,243
QuoteOriginally posted by Andi Lo Quote
I dont find iphone5 image quality to be any worse than a point and shoot. I've seen a lot of great shots with it that is worthy of framing.

I know a lot of SLR owners who dont bring their SLR around everyday. Not everyone is dedicated to photography all the time that they will carry around a dedicated image taking device everywhere. For these people having a good smartphone is much better than having no camera. In that sense smartphone is actually a better tool. That's progress!

There's also value in being able to take a shot, edit it in the phone, and share it within 3 minutes. This isnt something that's possible in the past, and is a form of progress too.



What phone do you use Rondec? Not all camera phones are created equal. Even the best ones are also not suitable for any moving subjects, really.

I dont think they will be the only camera. ILC will still remain for a long time, there is no sign of any other format being able to replicate ILC system advantages. Nevertheless smartphone cameras will certainly be an ever important part of photography from now onward. https://www.flickr.com/cameras/
I have an iphone 5. But I must confess that I don't use zooms often due to pursuit of image quality and I haven't use a point and shoot camera for many years because I was frustrated with them as well.
07-08-2014, 08:32 AM   #478
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: GMT +10
Photos: Albums
Posts: 10,836
QuoteOriginally posted by Andi Lo Quote
Not all camera phones are created equal.
In looking at the DxOMark testing of the photo properties of mobiles, they do seem to be very rapidly improving. But I suspect it will still be a long time before mobiles match a decent RX-100 grade pocketable point-and-shoot. Oh, and iPhone 5 is OK, but not the best mobile for photos
07-08-2014, 08:33 AM   #479
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Romania
Posts: 9,336
QuoteOriginally posted by Andi Lo Quote
I dont find iphone5 image quality to be any worse than a point and shoot. I've seen a lot of great shots with it that is worthy of framing.
They managed to reach the image quality of a point and shoot, wow!
Don't you ever need a different focal length, than what Apple is providing for you? How's handling? How about composition outdoors, in bright light?
07-08-2014, 08:53 AM   #480
Veteran Member
Andi Lo's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Halifax, Nova Scotia
Posts: 2,925
QuoteOriginally posted by Kunzite Quote
They managed to reach the image quality of a point and shoot, wow!
Don't you ever need a different focal length, than what Apple is providing for you? How's handling? How about composition outdoors, in bright light?
I never said it's the best camera for all situations, I'm saying its a good and relevant photographic tool.

No doubt that what you're saying is true, that at its current state it is no match to a "proper camera", but who defines what a proper camera is? Doesnt that depends on the situation? You certainly won't mount your Pentax SLR to the top of your head when you snowboard? Will you shoot your friend's daughter backyard birthday party with a 1Dsiii?

Smartphone camera is appropriate and might be the best choice for some people in some circumstances (just like all cameras and systems in existence). Everything has its place, including the smartphones

QuoteOriginally posted by rawr Quote
In looking at the DxOMark testing of the photo properties of mobiles, they do seem to be very rapidly improving. But I suspect it will still be a long time before mobiles match a decent RX-100 grade pocketable point-and-shoot. Oh, and iPhone 5 is OK, but not the best mobile for photos
Yes indeed it will take a while, but who knew that we will have it this good today in 2014? RX100 is good progress indeed for the photography world. I assume that eventually that's what point and shoots will morph into as smartphones take over the lower end of their old market.

QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
I have an iphone 5. But I must confess that I don't use zooms often due to pursuit of image quality and I haven't use a point and shoot camera for many years because I was frustrated with them as well.
If point and shoots frustrate you it's no wonder that the smartphone does too. I think it kind of requires a different kind of photography approach. It really should be treated as a P&S but with the added benefit of being able to instantly edit and share a shot. If that's not your thing, there's nothing wrong with that.

Just as a disclaimer, I actually dont use smartphone cameras on a regular basis since I carry my SLR everywhere, but have seen enough good images to know that they're solid tools.

Last edited by Andi Lo; 07-08-2014 at 09:06 AM.
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 08:42 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