[Ash]

The end product for photos are prints of various formats: photo books, canvases, calendars, etc. the computer screen is the intermediate medium, used primarily to assist with the PP process.

[les24preludes]

The end product for photos are prints of various formats..>>

This seems a very sweeping statement. I'm an author and I'm getting used to the fact that young people increasingly read books on computer screens of various types. Orchestras are now using computer screens instead of scores. I think we have to reckon on a computer screen not as an intermediate medium but an end medium. This is not entirely new - some serious film photographers used to take slides and view their work predominantly on high quality projectors. That's not a print medium either.

[GlennG]

The end product for photos are prints of various formats: photo books, canvases, calendars, etc. the computer screen is the intermediate medium, used primarily to assist with the PP process.

I agree, Ash, certainly in a classic sense. I like to think of the ultimate highest regard for a photo as a printed product, and that is where the resolution may be most important, at least to a point (depending on desired printed size and viewing distance). Sadly, I hardly ever print, so most photos are viewed only on a screen. Even a full high def TV is only 2 MP, so I tend to also agree with another poster above that resolution mostly only gives you room to crop severely.

[zosxavius]

I must admit I'm getting better iq than a 5dmk2 with my k-5. The resolution difference is there, but marginal up to poster sizes. Both systems are generally more optically limited than anything. Diffraction will take its toll on aps faster than full frame and we are nearing the limits, where full frame has a bit more to go imo. Only way to keep getting past that is with larger sensors, so don't think that medium format is going away anytime soon. There are people that still want that kind of resolution and clarity. I still don't buy that a d800 will equal a 645. There are many advantages with a larger sensor over a smaller one beyond resolution.

[RonHendriks1966]

The end product for photos are prints of various formats: photo books, canvases, calendars, etc. the computer screen is the intermediate medium, used primarily to assist with the PP process.

wow are you living in the past? I think most people don't do printing for themselfes anymore.

[reeftool]

I do my own printing much of the time because I live in a rural area with few options. I invested in a wide carriage printer when I found one on sale for a good price. Why? It cost me the equiv. of 3 tanks of gas. A few special trips a year plus the cost of the service doing the printing and I'm probably ahead. Photo books and special stuff I can't do but my favorite shots I like to print. I rarely print larger than 8x10 and that was true for my film shots also. While the technical specs might say that 35mm film has more resolution, looking at a print from my Canon printer of a K10D shot next to a print from film, I can detect no difference at all and to my eye, my digital prints look better, most likely to having a little more precise focus from the AF lens. In the end, it's all about the finished product. That said, I still do most of my viewing on computer monitors these days and that brings up another issue, monitor resolution. There can be huge differences in what you see from monitor to monitor.

[snake]

wow are you living in the past? I think most people don't do printing for themselfes anymore.

I'm printing. It's how I sell my stuff when I'm not licensing or selling the digital copies.

[vonBaloney]

We print our own stuff up to 13x19 -- bigger we send out to the lab. Lab prints can be gotten quickly and at very reasonable cost by the way and can all be done via internet. (White House, MPix, and Adorama all have good services.) You can also sell your photos as prints with several services that make and ship the print for you to the customer.

BUT, the prints we make ourselves (on Epson photo printer) are unquestionably better than anything we've had made for us. For one, we can use whatever paper we like, which is generally better than the stuff the lab uses where you only get a few choices. Their semi-gloss/lustre is invariably Kodak Endura, which isn't nearly as nice as the Ilford we use in-house. Metallic paper is about the same from anybody, so that's ok. We never use full gloss paper, and the labs don't even offer matte paper at all. Not for reasonable cost anyway -- if you're willing to spend a ton you can get high-quality whatever you want, naturally.) Also, we can get the color calibration *exactly* right, whereas with the lab there are always compromises even though we always do small test prints to get it as good as possible. (The lab isn't always absolutely consistent from photo to photo, so there are sometimes slight variances.)

[krebsy75]

Pentax in 2018 (my humble prediction)

- Further expansion of the Q platform including an Android-like OS
- Discontinuation of all DA lenses and APS-C SLRs
- New lineup of DFA lenses for FF SLRs
- Several FF SLRs from entry-level to enthusiast/prosumer
- 645D to have a FF sensor and sub $5k price

APS-C will remain an option for mirror less cams from competing manufacturers.

[krebsy75]

I think mirror-less APS-C is going to make Pentax SLR APS-C a really tough sell in five years.

[reeftool]

I think mirror-less APS-C is going to make Pentax SLR APS-C a really tough sell in five years.

Possibly true but only if they have proper viewfinder. We may even see mirrorless FF cameras in the future but most DSLR users are going to demand a proper viewfinder. Live view off the LCD has it's uses but I don't think it's even possible hand holding with a big lens like a 70-200/2.8. Try shooting sports with the camera away from your eye. Not for me anyhow and I doubt for anyone else.

[Ash]

wow are you living in the past? I think most people don't do printing for themselfes anymore

I don't know how you interpreted my post as suggesting the majority of people print photos themselves. And what exactly would be wrong with that anyway?
I've never printed a photo myself in my life and am not about to start learning since we have very competent digital printers on professional paper that produce great products at affordable prices.
I just received a hardcover family photobook I ordered from Apple and it is fantastic - I couldn't imagine trying to do a similar thing myself.
I'm referring to what people do with their photos - storing them on hard drives does very little good. Having them in a presentable hard copy is what gives instant access to photographic work as well as pleasure both from myself as an amateur photographer as well as those who appreciate looking at the photos presented in this way.

[krebsy75]

Reeftool, it looks like Fuji's hybrid viewfinder is a nice solution.

[Ash]

Live view off the LCD has it's uses but I don't think it's even possible hand holding with a big lens like a 70-200/2.8. Try shooting sports with the camera away from your eye. Not for me anyhow and I doubt for anyone else.

I've done it a few times, but it's less responsive and I find myself wanting to frame, focusing and actuate very quickly when shooting things like birds, concerts and weddings. But it does require a strong left arm because of the extra leverage needing to support the gear, and it isn't a sustainable way of shooting IMO either.

[Ash]

I think mirror-less APS-C is going to make Pentax SLR APS-C a really tough sell in five years.

I do think this as well, and as such MILC will find its niche in this format, though dSLRs would still remain viable for the higher end users/pros IMO.