Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
02-27-2014, 07:06 AM   #31
Lens Buying Addict
monochrome's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Kirkwood (St. Louis) MO
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 19,428
From iPad. What I meant is I rarely play a CD on my component stereo system any more. II drop an iPhone in a device and play lower-fidelity digital music. Otherwise I plug a laptop into some amplified dumb speaker box. If I could connect my existing system to my server or the cloud or a laptop I could play .aac files but I haven't figured that out. I imagine that is possible; I just haven't done it. Your specific example is a good one, but I suspect the same 'complexity dam' inhibits the bulk of imaging users from making the next step.

02-27-2014, 07:54 AM   #32
Pentaxian
Clavius's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: De Klundert
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 4,115
QuoteOriginally posted by geomez Quote
K-3 AA simulator is "blazing new ground".
The AA simulator is a function of the SR system. And the SR system has been blurring pictures since it was first introduced.


QuoteOriginally posted by geomez Quote
He's judging the Q as a camera meant to be serious like all the other MILCs that are trying to be as serious as DSLRs. Obviously he doesn't get the Q.
Well I don't get the Q either. It's meant to be compact... But not compact enough to be pocketable. It's meant to be a fun and not so serious camera... but nevertheless has a pricetag that is much more serious then it's playful colours and IQ would suggest. And the IQ is surpassed by most current pocketable, colourful, cellphones that come free with phone subcriptions.
02-27-2014, 08:00 AM   #33
Lens Buying Addict
monochrome's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Kirkwood (St. Louis) MO
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 19,428
QuoteOriginally posted by Clavius Quote
Well I don't get the Q either. It's meant to be compact... But not compact enough to be pocketable. It's meant to be a fun and not so serious camera... but nevertheless has a pricetag that is much more serious then it's playful colours and IQ would suggest. And the IQ is surpassed by most current pocketable, colourful, cellphones that come free with phone subcriptions.
When we talked to Pentax USA last spring we kept saying how much fun Q is - and Pentax Exec's kept immediately interrupting - COMPETENT - which we agree with.

But the point is you can make a creditable image with a charming little camera rather than a charming image with a creditable little camera. They've got the emphasis wrong.

Plus, it isn't a pocket camera it is a purse camera. My wife and daughters say so. They adore theirs.

"Q Can Do."
"Q. Don't leave home without it."
02-27-2014, 08:07 AM   #34
Pentaxian
bdery's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Quebec city, Canada
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 5,650
QuoteOriginally posted by interested_observer Quote
heir DSLRs, while quite nice machines, don't really blaze any new ground.
I beg to differ...

Removal of the AA filter is now somethinng taken for granted by most... Dynamic AA filter is even better. That's just for the current years.

02-27-2014, 08:15 AM   #35
Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Hamilton, Texas
Photos: Albums
Posts: 633
QuoteOriginally posted by Clavius Quote
Well I don't get the Q either. It's meant to be compact... But not compact enough to be pocketable.
That depends on the lens you put on it, and the size of your pockets. But aside from that, every camera doesn't have to fit into the simple black-or-white categories of "pocketable" or "big, because if it's not pocketable there's no point in making it small". The Q's lenses are also small, so the more lenses you carry, the more it gains in portability relative to (for example) a M4/3 system.

QuoteQuote:
It's meant to be a fun and not so serious camera... but nevertheless has a pricetag that is much more serious then it's playful colours and IQ would suggest.
I wouldn't assume the price tag must equate with the seriousness of a camera. There are some people who want a fun camera and are not on a Holga budget.

QuoteQuote:
And the IQ is surpassed by most current pocketable, colourful, cellphones that come free with phone subcriptions.
I don't believe it.
02-27-2014, 08:15 AM - 1 Like   #36
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Southern Indiana
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 14,924
QuoteOriginally posted by Clavius Quote
The AA simulator is a function of the SR system. And the SR system has been blurring pictures since it was first introduced.

.
I haven't seen photos "blurred" by the SR system and I do think it is neat to have an AA simulator available in different levels. You can down play it if you wish, but I certainly wouldn't have predicted that Pentax would use it for an adjustable AA filter when I purchased a K100 back in the day.
02-27-2014, 08:53 AM   #37
Site Supporter
boriscleto's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Liverpool, NY
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 12,279
QuoteOriginally posted by SpecialK Quote
At least Pentax was an enigma, and not an enema.
Digger Phelps called SU point guard Tyler Ennis "Tyler Anus" the other day...
02-27-2014, 09:38 AM   #38
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: New York
Posts: 3,010
QuoteOriginally posted by Clavius Quote
And the SR system has been blurring pictures since it was first introduced.
The SR system has saved many more photos for me than it's ruined. I can get fairly sharp handheld photos with slow shutter speeds.

QuoteOriginally posted by monochrome Quote
What did the iPod and iTunes do to the audio equipment business? That might be a kind of guide to what is coming.
(wow, I wound up writing more below than I expected. It's not all in direct response to the quote.)

The iPod is for the consumption of content while cameras create content, so I don't know how well the comparison holds. Cell phones changed photography because of their displays as well as their included cameras.

Ubiquitous display screens have transformed photography. When film was king, paper was the medium for viewing photos. Most photos today are only seen on 2mp computer and phone screens; good cameras capture better data than many display devices are capable of showing. Not many people will be printing large photos from their cell cameras, and does anyone need a 16+mp photo with good dynamic range and low noise if it's only going to be viewed on a 2mp screen?

Then there's the impact of the internet. A photo can be shared worldwide seconds after it's taken. In the olden days, a photojournalist would submit their photo to an editor, the editor would have to like it, then readers would have to wait for the newpaper or magazine to be printed and shipped.

02-27-2014, 09:41 AM   #39
Site Supporter
boriscleto's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Liverpool, NY
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 12,279
QuoteOriginally posted by DeadJohn Quote
The iPod is for the consumption of content while cameras create content, so I don't know how well the comparison holds. Cell phones changed photography because of their displays as well as their included cameras.
iPods have had cameras for years now...
02-27-2014, 10:04 AM   #40
Lens Buying Addict
monochrome's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Kirkwood (St. Louis) MO
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 19,428
QuoteOriginally posted by DeadJohn Quote
Ubiquitous display screens have transformed photography. When film was king, paper was the medium for viewing photos. Most photos today are only seen on 2mp computer and phone screens; good cameras capture better data than many display devices are capable of showing. Not many people will be printing large photos from their cell cameras, and does anyone need a 16+mp photo with good dynamic range and low noise if it's only going to be viewed on a 2mp screen?
I think this begs the question why does anyone other than people who will actually print a photo need a DSLR, an ILC or even a Supercompact camera if max display resolution is 2Mp.

Why do I need a 200W pre-amp, multiple media read-devices, carefully-hidden wire all over my house, AR Reference loudspeakers (and my college AR-4's) etc. for what amounts to a transistor radio?
02-27-2014, 11:07 AM   #41
Site Supporter




Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,892
My monitor a few years back was 4 MP. In ten years it'll be what... 16MP? 64? I hope my pictures will still hold up on both paper and e-display.

I also don't want to pay for a F/0.2 lens on my cell phone (or carry it on my cell phone) and I doubt that's just me.
02-27-2014, 11:16 AM   #42
Lens Buying Addict
monochrome's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Kirkwood (St. Louis) MO
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 19,428
QuoteOriginally posted by ElJamoquio Quote
My monitor a few years back was 4 MP. In ten years it'll be what... 16MP? 64? I hope my pictures will still hold up on both paper and e-display.

I also don't want to pay for a F/0.2 lens on my cell phone (or carry it on my cell phone) and I doubt that's just me.
What are you - a radiologist reading 1:1 XRAY's without panning? I seriously doubt the average iPhone user has a 4Mp monitor at home.
02-27-2014, 11:25 AM   #43
Site Supporter
boriscleto's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Liverpool, NY
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 12,279
QuoteOriginally posted by monochrome Quote
What are you - a radiologist reading 1:1 XRAY's without panning? I seriously doubt the average iPhone user has a 4Mp monitor at home.
The average user has a 2.1 MP display, or less. Cheap PCs don't come with Retina displays...Even the 27" iMac is only 4 MP.
02-27-2014, 01:36 PM   #44
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Southern Indiana
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 14,924
QuoteOriginally posted by ElJamoquio Quote
My monitor a few years back was 4 MP. In ten years it'll be what... 16MP? 64? I hope my pictures will still hold up on both paper and e-display.

I also don't want to pay for a F/0.2 lens on my cell phone (or carry it on my cell phone) and I doubt that's just me.
Unless you are using a loupe on your screen, you won't be able to tell the difference after a certain point.
02-27-2014, 01:45 PM - 1 Like   #45
Pentaxian
bdery's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Quebec city, Canada
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 5,650
QuoteOriginally posted by Clavius Quote
And the SR system has been blurring pictures since it was first introduced.
Humm, what?

For the sake of argument, just look at the panic on Nikon forums about pictures from the D7100 being blurry when handheld, except when using a VR lens. Now look at the total lack of complaints about blurry pictures with the K-3.

We take SR for granted but it's a marvellous addition to any camera.
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, complaints, dslr, lack, lenses, mpx, pentax, photography, steve
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Sony RX-1 Review on Luminous Landscape jogiba Non-Pentax Cameras: Canon, Nikon, etc. 5 12-26-2012 12:00 AM
Nature Nobody knows noses like .... daacon Post Your Photos! 8 10-10-2012 03:56 PM
Luminous Landscape: A Little Love for Pentax K-5IIs Samsungian Pentax DSLR Discussion 3 09-26-2012 10:37 PM
Luminous Landscape Down? ziggy7 General Talk 2 12-03-2010 04:05 PM
Luminous Landscape - 645D Review interested_observer Pentax Medium Format 15 09-08-2010 11:13 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:24 AM. | See also: NikonForums.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