Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
11-17-2013, 05:47 AM   #31
Pentaxian
bobmaxja's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Laval, Quebec Canada
Posts: 1,736
Most of the peoples dont care taking these kind of photos. And also most of DSLR or compact will not do a good job also

11-17-2013, 07:07 AM   #32
Veteran Member




Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 698
I'm quite sure that some 90% or more of people who buy sub $1000 SLRs would actually be getting better pictures with a $200 point and shoot. Not because the P&S is any better (it isn't) but because they neither know how to use an SLR properly nor do they shoot subjects that can particularly benefit from using an SLR . For someone not knowing how to use a camera a P&S will almost always shoot a better picture, and a cellphone will do almost as good a job as well. It seems that people are starting to realise this.

These people are however the ones that probably generate most revenue for Canikon. Pentax on the other hand does not seem to appeal much to that crowd so will probably not be affected much.


Quite often one sees an article doing a 'spot the difference' between a cell phone picture and a high end SLR picture. In many cases the difference is truly indiscernible.. While that may be true it is highly misleading. TO show the difference one has to show the pictures that would be challenging for the cell phone or outright could not be taken with the cellphone at all, such as mentioned a few posts above this one.
11-17-2013, 09:25 AM   #33
Veteran Member
kkoether's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Huber Heights, OH, USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 576
QuoteOriginally posted by bobmaxja Quote
And also most of DSLR or compact will not do a good job also


Ya, most people would have you believe that you need the latest and greatest DSLR to get those shots BUT, you don't. Those were both done with my "Ancient" K200D. Any SLR or DSLR can get those shots in the right hands. I'll go one step further and tell you that the Race Boat in mid air was manually focused on the fly. I was using an old 70-300mm manual zoom left over from my ME Super days. SLR type of cameras have always suffered the same issue. People buy them expecting better pictures then get frustrated when their pictures don't look any better and a lot of times worse. You have to learn and understand your equipment and technique. Only then will your pictures show it. In todays instant gratification society most aren't willing to take the time. It doesn't surprise me that DSLR sales are flat these days.
11-17-2013, 09:27 AM   #34
Veteran Member
kkoether's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Huber Heights, OH, USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 576
QuoteOriginally posted by lister6520 Quote
Quite often one sees an article doing a 'spot the difference' between a cell phone picture and a high end SLR picture. In many cases the difference is truly indiscernible.. While that may be true it is highly misleading. TO show the difference one has to show the pictures that would be challenging for the cell phone or outright could not be taken with the cellphone at all, such as mentioned a few posts above this one.

Exactly the point I was trying to make. The right tool for the job!

11-17-2013, 12:39 PM   #35
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Sunny Dun(ny)fermline, Fife
Posts: 350
QuoteOriginally posted by kkoether Quote
. In todays instant gratification society most aren't willing to take the time. It doesn't surprise me that DSLR sales are flat these days.
Spot on. And I'm as guilty as anyone, I keep convincing myself my pictures would be better if I had a better camera and then I see a cracking shot made on gear that, in theory, is worse than mine.
It's probably no coincidence that a good number of the prolificly good photographers do not use the latest gear because they have put the time in and know how to fully use their existing gear.
04-20-2014, 01:45 PM   #36
Site Supporter
bobphoenix's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Norwich, Connecticut
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 177
This picture explains a lot of what is going on in the market.
It took me at least four tries (not including bracketing) to get the two shot (left and top...) and my 8 MP cell got the picture on the first shot... and that's what people want... the first shot...
Attached Images
 
04-21-2014, 11:01 AM   #37
Pentaxian




Join Date: May 2008
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 1,378
This is from my iPhone...just kidding.


Actually I just got an iPhone and I'm pretty pleased with it as a walk around camera. It takes nice snapshots.

This is one that I was testing with. The right side has bright back light while the left side was dark. For what it is, it did pretty well.


This one is more balanced
04-21-2014, 12:05 PM   #38
Loyal Site Supporter
monochrome's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Kirkwood (St. Louis) MO
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 20,434
I think I am like the 'most people' who are using multi-function devices today. Phones aren't replacing anything because few phone users would ever consider a dSLR. When I was in school and college my camera of necessity was a Kodak Instamatic. Fixed Lens, rangefinder, 126 cartridge film, Flashcube or Flashbar. A bit later I had a succession of Canon, Yashica and Minolta 35mm automatic point 'n shoot zoom cameras with a rangefinder and auto flash. The battery doors were always fiddly and ruined an otherwise perfectly fine, expensive pocket camera. Black tape was my friend for most of the time children lived in my house. During those years I also had a Pentax KX and SMC 50/1.4, then an MESuper and M-50/1.4.

I used the easy cameras for snapshots and documentary travel photos that always had at least one person in them. The cameras were small, good enough and other people could operate them easily (here - take a picture of me!!). I even had a really cheap Kodak 110 poclet camera in my fishing vest. Those photos had incredible depth of field and in good light with 100 or 400 ASA film gave really nice 'Kodak Moment' 4x6 prints - sometimes with a mountain range or other dramatic landscape in the background.

If I wanted anything beyond a formulaic snap - or if I just wanted to play, such as actually focusing the lens - I took the SLR. Often I didn't do as well as I might have with the dirt cheap camera, but it wasn' the fault of the SLR.

04-21-2014, 12:50 PM   #39
Veteran Member
MD Optofonik's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: California
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 901
When dSLR cameras came out they were "new tech" and ignorant consumers love "new tech" so they went out in droves to Best Buy to buy, buy, buy. If they had previously owned a SLR and found it too difficult they assumed "digital" would change all that. Those consumers with deep pockets bought professional dSLR cameras because they could. The camera companies indoctrinated them into the more megapixel mentality and the race was on. The successful marketing of the megapixel mentality was a bullet to the the big toe, however, once cell phones could market megapixels. Add to that the growing realization among many that the "d" in dSLR didn't make anything any easier when compared to a film era SLR and a perfect storm developed. Retro cameras will stave off the inevitable for only so long.

We had a good run in both the camera world and the computer workstation world. Consumer sales provided R&D money for bringing to market well specified equipment at reasonable cost. High end cameras and workstation components will soon become much more expensive do to economies of scale. Build those upgraded workstations now while the myriad component choices are still available.

Last edited by MD Optofonik; 04-21-2014 at 10:10 PM.
04-22-2014, 07:08 AM   #40
Senior Member




Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Missoula, MT
Photos: Albums
Posts: 114
I can believe it.

While I can technically get better pictures with my APS-C cameras, due to physics, I can also get poor, lousy images too. It's still up to the photographer and the moment. I was in Chicago for work a couple months ago, and could only took my Nexus 5 with me. A largely so-so camera, but the HDR mode was impressive, and being able to edit and share pics online almost instantly was awesome. Also, it was a bit liberating not to have to carry my K-01 around, just carry my do nearly everything cell phone.

All I do is share my pics online, the nuances of all the Lightroom editing I do is probably lost on most, and same with the type of lens or how much spent on my hobby. Sports or shooting in the dark is different, but look at how the sensors have improved in dSLRs within the span of a few years, when I compare my K-20 to my K-01 for example.
04-22-2014, 07:30 AM   #41
Emperor and Senpai
VoiceOfReason's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Nashville, IN
Posts: 5,418
I only use my phone when I want to post something quick. I use my camera when I want something good.
04-22-2014, 07:44 AM   #42
Loyal Site Supporter
monochrome's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Kirkwood (St. Louis) MO
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 20,434
QuoteOriginally posted by monochrome Quote
I think I am like the 'most people' who are using multi-function devices today. Phones aren't replacing anything because few phone users would ever consider a dSLR. When I was in school and college my camera of necessity was a Kodak Instamatic. Fixed Lens, rangefinder, 126 cartridge film, Flashcube or Flashbar. A bit later I had a succession of Canon, Yashica and Minolta 35mm automatic point 'n shoot zoom cameras with a rangefinder and auto flash. The battery doors were always fiddly and ruined an otherwise perfectly fine, expensive pocket camera. Black tape was my friend for most of the time children lived in my house. During those years I also had a Pentax KX and SMC 50/1.4, then an MESuper and M-50/1.4.

I used the easy cameras for snapshots and documentary travel photos that always had at least one person in them. The cameras were small, good enough and other people could operate them easily (here - take a picture of me!!). I even had a really cheap Kodak 110 poclet camera in my fishing vest. Those photos had incredible depth of field and in good light with 100 or 400 ASA film gave really nice 'Kodak Moment' 4x6 prints - sometimes with a mountain range or other dramatic landscape in the background.

If I wanted anything beyond a formulaic snap - or if I just wanted to play, such as actually focusing the lens - I took the SLR. Often I didn't do as well as I might have with the dirt cheap camera, but it wasn' the fault of the SLR.
Easter observation:

I made a couple dozen photographs over Easter weekend with a K3. The 14 family members who were with us for the weekend (or just for Sunday) made hundreds and hundreds of snapshots of their sibs and cousins and aunts and uncles in groups of two or three or five using whatever cell phones they carried.

Based upon a sampling of Instagram feeds the snapshots are universally well-exposed, in focus, sharp, have incredible DoF and mainly render color well (though skin tones tend to the pinkish side of the curve). My set of group shots done with a K3 + K24/2.8 on a tripod is likewise a good set of images but required extensive processing to compensate for the complex lighting. Remarkably, the dozen or so shots I did with various cell phones (I had about a dozen phones on the table ebside me - "and one with MY phone") look about the same as my finished images.

My conclusion - a cell phone is optimized to produce pleasing snapshots of the subjects which people use cell phones to capture - mostly nearby people. Just the same as the Instamatics or Yashica GSN's of my youth or the Argus C3's of my father's.

Last edited by monochrome; 04-22-2014 at 10:51 AM.
04-22-2014, 09:21 AM - 1 Like   #43
Pentaxian




Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: East Bay Area
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 787
Phone camera fulfill most of people's needs and it's easy to use. The additional complexity of a dSLR just gets in the way at that point. A dSLR may be needed to create art but it can hardly take better snapshots.
04-24-2014, 10:17 PM   #44
Veteran Member
MD Optofonik's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: California
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 901
QuoteOriginally posted by ruggiex Quote
Phone camera fulfill most of people's needs and it's easy to use. The additional complexity of a dSLR just gets in the way at that point. A dSLR may be needed to create art but it can hardly take better snapshots.

A perfectly succinct and accurate assessment. I agree.
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!
camera, dslr, photography, sales
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Republicans can't produce a small business person who is hurt by millionaire's surtax boriscleto General Talk 14 12-10-2011 07:31 PM
Michigan State Police "search" cell phones during traffic stops MRRiley General Talk 11 04-21-2011 06:20 PM
Are cameras evolving into cell phones? spystyle Photographic Technique 28 06-06-2010 03:28 PM
Driving & Cell Phones BillM General Talk 38 01-25-2010 06:28 PM
cell phones- this is for poeple in the US redpigeons General Talk 34 09-15-2009 08:45 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:36 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