[house]

I just opened nytimes online, as an example of a big publisher with decent photo history, and the second image from the top is this one which is then displayed prominently in the article.


I can't know for sure but it looks like film to me. The photographers homepage also has what seems to be analogue photos. annie flanagan

This experiment can be done any day of the week with the same results. The younger and trendier the publication/website the more analogue photos you'll find. Fast buffers and eye af is not what will give you work as a photographer except in a very tiny niche. It's not what will impress your friends either.

Ricoh is right, chasing specs is a mistake for photographic companies.

[Dan Rentea]

also hopefully taking this back on topic . . . (almost wish I had never asked) aside from the odd insult this has been an interesting thread

Happy to believe that Pentax has a future, have ordered a new lens and decided to start a new portfolio. Reckon I might even update my aging copy of Photoshop and try some new fangled PP

Maybe when I check in again, in a couple of years or so, things will have settled down and Pentax will be *the* DSLR company

As long as you buy a product, you increase the chance of survival of the manufacturer. There is no one who can tell you what to choose among the current offerings. This is a decision you have to make yourself. Lots of people buy cameras due to youtube reviewers and forum discussions and lots of them blame their gear after, as someone pointed out very well, instead of enjoying the gear they bought. The race when comes to specs will never end. It's important to upgrade only when you understand what the new camera will do to improve your shooting experience. I'm certain that after K-3 Mark III will be released and one or 2 years will pass, a demand for better af and more fps will arise on this forum. It's like that with every manufacturer, and it's called evolution.

[gatorguy]

It's not image quality which makes a difference when someone is buying a new camera. It's the features....

IMO when it comes down to the choice of relying on your smartphone for all photos or buying an actual standalone camera I think image quality is the primary driver, probably the ONLY driver for most, and that's where camera competition is truly coming from, Mirrorless vs. DSLR is a side gig. It's not about out-featuring a smartphone, and absolutely about out-resolving one to capture a more compelling and adaptable image if you dedicate yourself to it. It's the craft itself which is why you're seeing a resurgence of film cameras among young new shooters. Those certainly aren't more full-featured.

EDIT: Dan, it seems to me with the type of photography you seem to depend on for a living wouldn't MF be ideal? It will give your stock images a look that other vendors won't easily mimic, allows for near infinite cropping and thus "different scenes", details and resolution that your competitors can't offer. Six months of stock photo income would cover the cost of that new Fuji, and selling off a couple of your Canon lenses would give you capital for one or maybe even two very good lenses for it. You wouldn't need more than a couple IMHO considering the data you'll have to work with. Heck there's one guy in our group who only owns two lenses, a 35 1.4 and an 85 1.2, and consistently gets excellent photos with them. He says he has no need for any others for what he shoots..

The new Fuji GFX100s seems like it might be a smarter spend than the Canon R5. One camera with no need to probably ever replace unless it fails. For me it's way overkill. I'm lucky to see any income at all from photography. Darn good thing I like it so much.

[house]

It's not about out-featuring a smartphone, and absolutely about out-resolving one to capture a more compelling and adaptable image if you dedicate yourself to it

*my bold

I agree with your post but I think the above might be partially wrong. More than resolution I think many people want to achieve a look that their smartphones can't produce. That look will determine the format, medium and style of camera they buy. Camera body style influences results, ps vs large format for instance will usually create different photos besides the iq issues. The handling promotes certain results, which you can work with or against but it will still influence the photos.

[normhead]

I'm certain that after K-3 Mark III will be released and one or 2 years will pass, a demand for better af and more fps will arise on this forum. It's like that with every manufacturer, and it's called evolution.

Because you're certain everyone is like you. Concerned with what for most shots are frills, not ultimate IQ.

I guess you missed the post for the the specs of the K-3ii came out and I saw I would have been happy with 10 and 8 fps for tracking. It's called finding what works for you and sticking with it.

Not everyone has to have the latest greatest, the mostest or whatever. Not everyone wants things they probably don't need or need very rarely.

Don't trust anyone who claims to speak for everyone, or people other than themselves. It's a form of deception.

[Dan Rentea]

IMO when it comes down to the choice of relying on your smartphone for all photos or buying an actual standalone camera I think image quality is the primary driver, probably the ONLY driver for most, and that's where camera competition is truly coming from, Mirrorless vs. DSLR is a side gig. It's not about out-featuring a smartphone, and absolutely about out-resolving one to capture a more compelling and adaptable image if you dedicate yourself to it. It's the craft itself which is why you're seeing a resurgence of film cameras among young new shooters. Those certainly aren't more full-featured.

I was thinking more about upgrading from K-3 II to K-3 III for example than upgrading from smatphone to DSLR. Smatphones already "killed" most of the compact cameras and if I look at a friend of mine who sold his Nikon D5300 with the kit lens because his new smartphone offer him enough image quality for what he needs (Instagram and Facebook), it seems that micro 4/3 cameras and also some of the entry level APS-C cameras with kit lenses are in the target of smartphones, at least for the ones who don't buy other lenses than the kit lens.

To be fair, if I wasn't shooting for stock, my EOS R would stay at home when traveling because my wife's latest Samsung phone is more capable than I thought it will be for the intended use of the images: social media.

---------- Post added 03-09-21 at 07:08 PM ----------

Because you're certain everyone is like you. Concerned with what for most shots are frills, not ultimate IQ.

I guess you missed the post for the the specs of the K-3ii came out and I saw I would have been happy with 10 and 8 fps for tracking. It's called finding what works for you and sticking with it.

Not everyone has to have the latest greatest, the mostest or whatever. Not everyone wants things they probably don't need or need very rarely.

Don't trust anyone who claims to speak for everyone, or people other than themselves. It's a form of deception.

"I'm certain that after K-3 Mark III will be released and one or 2 years will pass, a demand for better af and more fps will arise on this forum." As you see in my comment, I wasn't pointed you. Pentax is not only about you. K-3 II came and people bought it, myself included, as an upgrade from K-5 II. Pentax K-3 III is about to come and people will buy it as an upgrade from K-3 II. Considering that K-3 III is the upgrade of the K-3 II, we can say that some will buy the latest and the greatest of Ricoh as an upgrade from what it is now the latest and the greatest of Ricoh, which is K-3 II. It's wrong? I don't think so. The same will happen once K-3 Mark IV will be released... people will buy it for maybe 16fps and 80 cross type af points.

If the specs of the new Pentax doesn't suit you and you are happy with 8fps, that's great for you. That doesn't mean that there won't be a lot of people benefiting of the 12fps and faster af. We will see how many like me there are once the K-3 will start shipping and post feedback about fps and af.

Ah, if we talk about ultimate IQ, then the lenses should have a big role here. I would like to talk about IQ with people who shoot with K1 and the new 50mm or 85mm f1.4. Because with this kind of lenses I know for sure that K1 can deliver the ultimate IQ you mentioned.

[MossyRocks]

I hope that "one guy" is from elsewhere other than scouting!

Not a scout thankfully. He is one of the guys who is a frequent facebook poster in one of the MN photog groups I participate in. I've notice that in general he is kind of an ass as others will ask him for advise and if he gives a response it is to buy the camera and lenses he uses and he only regularly responds to praise but with more self aggrandizement. I at least try to provide a good answer for someone starting out with astro as that is who mostly asks questions on the images I post there. I actually saw him once in person at a park during the day and in real life he is much like he is online. He was waiting for me to take my shot in a rather hidden away area as I was setting up a bracketed shot with a manual lens (my 28mm S-M-C takumar or my 12mm Laowa) and he was telling me to hurry up and just take the picture.

I've never commented on his posts and wont. Part of it is that I don't think he would take advise from others well even if there are clear issue in the images, and partly because I just don't want to deal with people who choose to be an ******* all the time.

[jgnfld]

...Smatphones already "killed" most of the compact cameras and if I look at a friend of mine who sold his Nikon D5300 with the kit lens because his new smartphone offer him enough image quality for what he needs (Instagram and Facebook),...

The latest generation of smartphone cameras makes a lot of the older "everyday" cameras--110s, casual p&s cameras, etc.--pretty much obsolete for casual use by amateurs for the settings you are aiming at. I have a Huawei P30 Pro and while I don't post many social pics on line, there is no problem using it when such occasions arise. Easy, always available, quite good quality for gatherings, foods, little interesting things, I want to immediately share etc,

But if I am really interested in beautifully recording the light from a particular scene/environment of actual visual interest in the way I think maximizes what I am seeking to record for something other than a casual Web print, I wouldn't even consider using it. Unless it were the only alternative. When that happens, I notice the smartphone camera's limitations immediately. Especially in darker scenes/night scenes where noise gets pretty excessive even with the truly high quality--Leica no less!!!--system installed in my current smartphone.

[normhead]

"I'm certain that after K-3 Mark III will be released and one or 2 years will pass, a demand for better af and more fps will arise on this forum."

SO, you make up people and then speculate that you know what they will want? A lot of people , as now, will speculate that they might buy higher FPS, then not buy it. A lot of people will say they want what other camera companies offer and not buy them. A lot of people will complain about this that or the other and then find ways to work through those those problems. A lot of people will look at new offerings like the K-3iii and think I'd rather stick with what I have than pay that much money. A lot of people will do a lot of different things. What's your point?

If were' going to start explainig what a lot of people will want or buy, you're leaving out a lot of people. I the K-3iii kills itself with it's cost, it may be the last high performance camera Pentax ever releases. There may never be a faster better Pentax. There are so many possibilities, I refuse to speculate, and wonder why you'd target one group for specific mention. We don't know how many people will fall into each of the possible categories, so why speculate on one of them and ignore the others? What insight does that provide to anything? It will be all about the numbers in each focus group, not that they will exist.

Even now I'm concerned about Pentax pricing the K-3iii out of the traditional Pentax market going for higher specs than most Pentax shooters will find necessary. I just have to trust, that when they evaluated the tech available on the market, they saw this as the "Pentax" value oriented way to go. But if I buy a K-3 it won't be fore the 12 fps, it will be for the 11 fps in AF-c. Even the majority of the Canon and Nikon markets don't invest in high FPS-gear. How big would Pentax have to be to have a profitable competitor? IN any case, next time I buy a camera I'll look at what's available.

There will be two parameters. IQ and price. The rest I can work around. I find it annoying that people who seek the latest greatest all the time tend to project their desires onto everyone else. They honestly seem to think we'd have what they have if we could afford it. It's arrogant and offensive.

There's only a limited respect for people who are never happy with what they have. They just aren't good company. Even worse, people who are always bragging they have the latest greatest gear. As if spending big money on a camera every couple of years is something people should emulate. It's not a universally recognized positive attitude and there are many for whom it is justifiably negative. We shouldn't be basing our values on such people.

[ffking]

I'm a bit behind on his thread, but I can't help thinking that without a certain fire (and maybe a touch of virus) these forums would would be so bursting with excited chatter about a DSLR as to make threads like this unimaginable.

[normhead]

I honestly think, many Pentaxians take the advice of my old photography teacher. "Find the lens you love and buy the camera it goes on." My guess is every Pentaxian has a favourite Pentax lens or lenses, and will buy the most appropriate camera body for the what they do. I see no point in dwelling on subsets of the main set. Many K-3 users have picked up K-Ps. It's not sporting the best specs, but it's appropriate to what they do that's what matters.

[Dan Rentea]

SO, you make up people and then speculate that you know what they will want? A lot of people , as now, will speculate that they might buy higher FPS, then not buy it. A lot of people will say they want what other camera companies offer and not buy them. A lot of people will complain about this that or the other and then find ways to work through those those problems. A lot of people will look at new offerings like the K-3iii and think I'd rather stick with what I have than pay that much money. A lot of people will do a lot of different things. What's your point?

If were' going to start explainig what a lot of people will want or buy, you're leaving out a lot of people. I the K-3iii kills itself with it's cost, it may be the last high performance camera Pentax ever releases. There may never be a faster better Pentax. There are so many possibilities, I refuse to speculate, and wonder why you'd target one group for specific mention. We don't know how many people will fall into each of the possible categories, so why speculate on one of them and ignore the others? What insight does that provide to anything? It will be all about the numbers in each focus group, not that they will exist.

Even now I'm concerned about Pentax pricing the K-3iii out of the traditional Pentax market going for higher specs than most Pentax shooters will find necessary. I just have to trust, that when they evaluated the tech available on the market, they saw this as the "Pentax" value oriented way to go. But if I buy a K-3 it won't be fore the 12 fps, it will be for the 11 fps in AF-c. Even the majority of the Canon and Nikon markets don't invest in high FPS-gear. How big would Pentax have to be to have a profitable competitor? IN any case, next time I buy a camera I'll look at what's available.

There will be two parameters. IQ and price. The rest I can work around. I find it annoying that people who seek the latest greatest all the time tend to project their desires onto everyone else. They honestly seem to think we'd have what they have if we could afford it. It's arrogant and offensive.

There's only a limited respect for people who are never happy with what they have. They just aren't good company. Even worse, people who are always bragging they have the latest greatest gear. As if spending big money on a camera every couple of years is something people should emulate. It's not a universally recognized positive attitude and there are many for whom it is justifiably negative. We shouldn't be basing our values on such people.

You're so trapped in your own comments that it's amazing how you can't see (or refuze to see) what I said. It is proven since ever that each time a camera is released, after a while people think about features they would like to see in the successor. It doesn't even matter if is K1, KP or K-3 II. This is not an assumption. You make it sound wrong if people wants more than 8 or 10 fps or video or other stuff that Ricoh added in K-3 III. People want these features, otherwise Ricoh won't add them and won't have to release new cameras just because you can deal with K-3 II and K-3 III doesn't suit you.

When people are asking if there will be a future for DSLR, according to what you said in the latest comments no one needs a better camera than what Ricoh has now. I mean, why should people buy a K-3 III if af, OVF, 4k and fps aren't features worth upgrading?

[normhead]

When people are asking if there will be a future for DSLR, according to what you said in the latest comments no one needs a better camera than what Ricoh has now. I mean, why should people buy a K-3 III if af, OVF, 4k and fps aren't features worth upgrading?

This is your biggest fault, you put words in my mouth.

what you said in the latest comments no one needs a better camera than what Ricoh has now.

No where did I say that. Where's my apology?

You're so trapped in your own comments that it's amazing how you can't see (or refuze to see) what I said.

You not only refuse to see what I said, you claim I said things I didn't say.

What I said was, it's dishonest speculating about what others , not yourself want,

This is sooo silly.
"People want these features, otherwise Ricoh won't add them and won't have to release new cameras just because you can deal with K-3 II and K-3 III doesn't suit you."

Pentax more than any other company, is careful to buy the best tech they can for the price point they wish to achieve. People will buy some features because it's what's available. If I'd be happy with 10 fps. I'll buy a K-3iii with 12 fps, not because I want 12 fps, but because it's the camera that uses my lenses, that is the best bang for the buck available at the time. You buy camera, but it's quite common to have features on that camera you aren't buying the camera for. People want all kinds of features. That doesn't mean Pentax will provide them. Some will want more, some would have been happy with less. Once again, some only see half the equation.

There are also a lot of users for whom this is so unimportant that they only buy a new camera body when the old one fails. One of them last year a with a K-x won the Flickr "photo of the year" (2019) as voted on by thousands of people. Anyone who bought a new camera hoping it would help them win that prize wasted their money. So once again, what are the numbers as a percentage of users are the people you are talking about?

You buy the camera that goes with the lens or lenses you love if you're smart. The rest you can wing. The only requirement is a camera body that does justice to your lenses. K-5, K-3, K-1, I've used them all in the last week. All for what I like them for. One of them is now 10 years old. I don't need to spend $5000 a year on bodies and lenses to be happy. I don't think much of people who do. Just saying, always wanting the latest greatest is a totally different mindset, a personality quirk that has nothing to do with photography. It's something else.

I would truly appreciate it if in the future, you would stop trying to interpret what I say. If you can't quote my words directly, don't claim I said it. It's unethical claiming you know what I said better than I do. I have always wondered why the forum allows it. I also find it amazing how you can continuously as above claim it's you that is misrepresented, when actually I quote you directly. This needs to be cleaned up. This is a matter of simple human decency.

[Dan Rentea]

Ah, I forgot about the magic of the ignore button that will make topics cleaner. It's not worth talking to you... Have a nice life!

---------- Post added 03-09-21 at 09:14 PM ----------

EDIT: Dan, it seems to me with the type of photography you seem to depend on for a living wouldn't MF be ideal? It will give your stock images a look that other vendors won't easily mimic, allows for near infinite cropping and thus "different scenes", details and resolution that your competitors can't offer. Six months of stock photo income would cover the cost of that new Fuji, and selling off a couple of your Canon lenses would give you capital for one or maybe even two very good lenses for it. You wouldn't need more than a couple IMHO considering the data you'll have to work with. Heck there's one guy in our group who only owns two lenses, a 35 1.4 and an 85 1.2, and consistently gets excellent photos with them. He says he has no need for any others for what he shoots..

The new Fuji GFX100s seems like it might be a smarter spend than the Canon R5. One camera with no need to probably ever replace unless it fails. For me it's way overkill. I'm lucky to see any income at all from photography. Darn good thing I like it so much.

I tried the Fuji GFX 50s. Impressive image quality, but I don't need it. Stock photography it's not about resolution because it's completely different than the fine art market. For stock you need to shoot what's in demand, new normal lifestyle for example. Most companies or people who bought the highest licence available on Getty for example and paid 400$ for an image of mine didn't needed the maximum resolution of the image. I talk to a few top contributors and they use even A7 III with 24mp.

Another reason it's that mf is slow and at corporate events I don't want to go back to working hard to get the shot, as I did with older cameras. My clients recieve my images at 4096px resolution, so 50mp won't bring me anything other than headaches when I have to edit the big files.

Also, I started to take some video classes because there is a good stock opportunity and given that the videos should be short (8 to 60 seconds), R5 is tempting because its video specs will be more than enough for the next 4-5 years.

That being said, R6 is more tempting for me for photography but I'm waiting to become available for rent, both of them, so that I can test them for a week or so.

A medium format camera will be overkill and there is nothing tempting for me in those cameras, except image quality which would be very important if I was shooting fine art or studio or landscapes and I would sell large prints. But, I shoot a lot of corporate events, a lot of people lifestyle for stock agencies, portraits and wildlife when I have time to go out.

Later edit: I don't depend on photography for living. I have my own training company, I also do a lot of crypto trading. Stock photography with corporate events are just passive income that combined helps me to pay for my gear, to go to 2-4 sport events each year in different countries, to rent some gear and to go to wildlife shootings which is an expensive hobby.

[Pål Jensen]

I honestly think, many Pentaxians take the advice of my old photography teacher. "Find the lens you love and buy the camera it goes on." My guess is every Pentaxian has a favourite Pentax lens or lenses, and will buy the most appropriate camera body for the what they do. I see no point in dwelling on subsets of the main set. Many K-3 users have picked up K-Ps. It's not sporting the best specs, but it's appropriate to what they do that's what matters.

I believe that is basically Pentax business model; to make cameras for the about 30 000 000 Pentax lenses out there.