[Clarkey]

Really enjoying the native SP experience on Panasonic, and more especially the Capture One experience on Fujifilm.

The performance is good (much better than a couple of generations ago on DCU when I last used it for Pentax), and Capture One Express really takes it up a level.

The cross-platform potential for Capture One (and the potential lack of a subscription) are also massive draws and add to the package value.

[PDL]

This makes me laugh.

Sometime in the past, probably about the time that Pentax came out with the 645D/Z, Capture One got bent out of shape over Pentax. Since those days Phase One (parent company of Capture One) has explicitly stated that they will NOT support the Pentax 645 series of cameras. A by product of this is that what Capture One calls "the 35mm bodies" are not well supported either. I have had multiple "issue" reports into Capture One to support Pentax APS-C camera metadata and it has fallen on deaf ears. My requests started with Capture One v5, they are on v12 - this is a trend. Plus they are in bed with Fuji now so Pentax will not be considered viable in their eyes.

Face the facts, Capture One beats Adobe products with a stick, however in their eyes Pentax is a dead/poisoned brand. They will never fully support it:
No Lens EXIF information.
No Serial Number.
No Pixel Shift.
Minimal Lens profiles.
Minimal Camera profiles.
No tethering - ever.

Pentax is dead to Phase One.

[luftfluss]

Really enjoying the native SP experience on Panasonic, and more especially the Capture One experience on Fujifilm.

The performance is good (much better than a couple of generations ago on DCU when I last used it for Pentax), and Capture One Express really takes it up a level.

The cross-platform potential for Capture One (and the potential lack of a subscription) are also massive draws and add to the package value.

I've been using C1 since the beginning of the year with my K-01, K-70, and K-3 II and agree with you that if Pentax could work out a deal with Phase One similar to Fuji's that would be wonderful.

[victormeldrew]

Pentax doesn't have the cash to sweeten the deal enough with Phase One. Perhaps if they hadn't eaten a big chunk of their customer base with the 645 things would be different.
Silkypix would want huge cash to give away free copies of their software, the crippled upgrade-bait is worth it to them, but full versions would require significant payments.

[Clarkey]

This makes me laugh.

Sometime in the past, probably about the time that Pentax came out with the 645D/Z, Capture One got bent out of shape over Pentax. Since those days Phase One (parent company of Capture One) has explicitly stated that they will NOT support the Pentax 645 series of cameras. A by product of this is that what Capture One calls "the 35mm bodies" are not well supported either. I have had multiple "issue" reports into Capture One to support Pentax APS-C camera metadata and it has fallen on deaf ears. My requests started with Capture One v5, they are on v12 - this is a trend. Plus they are in bed with Fuji now so Pentax will not be considered viable in their eyes.

Face the facts, Capture One beats Adobe products with a stick, however in their eyes Pentax is a dead/poisoned brand. They will never fully support it:
No Lens EXIF information.
No Serial Number.
No Pixel Shift.
Minimal Lens profiles.
Minimal Camera profiles.
No tethering - ever.

Pentax is dead to Phase One.

Well, given that Capture One Express is now available for Fujifilm GFX bodies, and Pentax medium format is pending update, maybe the time is right again?
Your experience is disappointing re: metadata. I did something similar with DXO about Fujifilm about the lack of support - no dice.

---------- Post added 07-31-2019 at 10:03 PM ----------

Pentax doesn't have the cash to sweeten the deal enough with Phase One. Perhaps if they hadn't eaten a big chunk of their customer base with the 645 things would be different.
Silkypix would want huge cash to give away free copies of their software, the crippled upgrade-bait is worth it to them, but full versions would require significant payments.

That's the thing - both Fujifilm and Panasonic use(d in the case of Fujifilm) Silkypix (not the latest, full version), but not the DCU skin. It makes it easy to use and the same across-platform.

[victormeldrew]

That's the thing - both Fujifilm and Panasonic use(d in the case of Fujifilm) Silkypix (not the latest, full version), but not the DCU skin. It makes it easy to use and the same across-platform.

Yes, and not the full version for an important reason. The idea is that a proportion of the recipients of this 'free' software will be annoyed enough by the missing features that they will buy the full version. This makes money for the software house, which offsets the cost of giving away (a crippled version of) the software. There may or may not be a payment from the company (Fuji or Pentax) to sweeten the deal, or even a payment to them for the exposure.


For any company to provide a full version, full license, software bundled with every camera, would cost them the price of a few tens or hundreds of thousands of copies of that software, because there is nothing in it for the software house. They might get a bit of a bulk discount, but it will still be a whole lot more money than nothing, which is probably around what it costs now.


A full copy of Silkypix costs about $170 (because it's on sale) $260 normally. I'd hazard a guess that's pretty close to Pentax's total profit for the sale of a K-70 or KP. Even a healthy discount would be a massive hit on their bottom line, for no real benefit to them considering most of their customers expect to choose and pay for their own PP software and a big chunk of them wouldn't want Silkypix anyway or already have software they like.

[H. Sapiens]

Yes, and not the full version for an important reason. The idea is that a proportion of the recipients of this 'free' software will be annoyed enough by the missing features that they will buy the full version. This makes money for the software house, which offsets the cost of giving away (a crippled version of) the software. There may or may not be a payment from the company (Fuji or Pentax) to sweeten the deal, or even a payment to them for the exposure.


For any company to provide a full version, full license, software bundled with every camera, would cost them the price of a few tens or hundreds of thousands of copies of that software, because there is nothing in it for the software house. They might get a bit of a bulk discount, but it will still be a whole lot more money than nothing, which is probably around what it costs now.


A full copy of Silkypix costs about $170 (because it's on sale) $260 normally. I'd hazard a guess that's pretty close to Pentax's total profit for the sale of a K-70 or KP. Even a healthy discount would be a massive hit on their bottom line, for no real benefit to them considering most of their customers expect to choose and pay for their own PP software and a big chunk of them wouldn't want Silkypix anyway or already have software they like.

I suggest you can forget all about retails prices when arguing your case. Pentax would not have to pay anything like 170. When I bought my first digital camera, a Samsung GX10, it came with the full Silkypix software. Samsung GX10 is 99% identical to K10 and retailed at the same price - usually a bit cheaper, I think. I doubt very much that Samsung willingly paid a third of the camera's price to Silkypix.


I remember that the K7 package almost felt like a downgrade - the camera was not that super and the software Pentax shipped with it was worse.

[pschlute]

I suggest you can forget all about retails prices when arguing your case. Pentax would not have to pay anything like 170. When I bought my first digital camera, a Samsung GX10, it came with the full Silkypix software. Samsung GX10 is 99% identical to K10 and retailed at the same price - usually a bit cheaper, I think. I doubt very much that Samsung willingly paid a third of the camera's price to Silkypix.


I remember that the K7 package almost felt like a downgrade - the camera was not that super and the software Pentax shipped with it was worse.

I never knew that the Samsung versions got the real deal when it came to software. That is interesting

Out of interest how many times have you upgraded the Silkypix or bought a completely new silkypix version since then ?

Long term Silkypix DSPro user here

[H. Sapiens]

I never knew that the Samsung versions got the real deal when it came to software. That is interesting

Out of interest how many times have you upgraded the Silkypix or bought a completely new silkypix version since then ?

Long term Silkypix DSPro user here

I didn't pay for an upgrade. I don't remember exactly but I think the software allowed one upgrade? When I bought my K7 I quickly realized the Pentax version was not worth my time and reluctantly paid for Lightroom. I liked the Silkypix software but also felt I wanted the support of Lightroom - by that I don't mean actual support but tutorials online and in magazines, presets etc.

[pschlute]

I didn't pay for an upgrade. I don't remember exactly but I think the software allowed one upgrade? When I bought my K7 I quickly realized the Pentax version was not worth my time and reluctantly paid for Lightroom. I liked the Silkypix software but also felt I wanted the support of Lightroom - by that I don't mean actual support but tutorials online and in magazines, presets etc.

I think this kind of supports the view that camera manufacturers "giving" away third party software does not guarantee a revenue stream for that third party.

I have over the years developed a view that if something is worth having, it is worth paying for.

[H. Sapiens]

I think this kind of supports the view that camera manufacturers "giving" away third party software does not guarantee a revenue stream for that third party.

I have over the years developed a view that if something is worth having, it is worth paying for.

Yeah, I don't disagree. But every dollar spent advertising just about anything doesn't guarantee a sale. I would not even know of Silkpypix today if it wasn't for my old Samsung. Today, I would be tempted to try again. I might give the demo a try one day.

Though, another point is that software and hardware manufacturers can't just sell a camera or piece of software and then leave it at that. If Silkypix had invested time in making tutorials etc. I might have felt more locked in with that piece of software. Instead they asked me to pay more than I would for a program that was regarded as standard at that time. Remember, it was my first digital camera and post production was new new to me.

[pschlute]

If Silkypix had invested time in making tutorials etc

You will never get the fancy tutorials that Adobe produce for a niche product like Silkypix.

The manual that comes with the product is very detailed however and can be opened instantly at the required page by clicking the little information icon next to every tool on the interface.