Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
11-28-2014, 11:55 AM   #181
Pentaxian




Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 2,609
The NX1 isn't really a consumer camera though... it can be, like the K-3 etc., but it aims higher IMHO (again like the K-3). We'll see if actual pro's will pick it up, but it looks promising. Lenses are indeed an issue, especially for sports (there's a 50-150 2.8 coming, but that's not really what they'll probably want to have).

11-28-2014, 12:49 PM   #182
Loyal Site Supporter
eddie1960's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 12,165
sports pros (and there aren't very many) are a tough sell, there are so many other areas of pro photography you can win in, and most of those pay for their gear. Sports guys and paparazzi
(really the same market sat with huge lenses) do as well but they also see heavy sponsorship at least the sports guys. Canon will say they made their big lenses white because of heat. BS it made them instantly identifiable on the sidelines in a sea of big black lenses
still does
just now all the black lenses are nikon (with a few Sigmas there for the guys on a budget)
the NX may not be fully a consumer camera but the interface is. Last thing I want is a touch screen for my controls. I can hold My Pentax a nikon, my fujis, my bronica and mamiya etc to my eye non stop while shooting an event and control everything instinctively because the layout is logical and the buttons are tactile i can find them and change things without looking (and on the modern stuff i can assign a lot of functions to buttons) that's what you're missing in the equation. From what I have seen the NX1 will excel and compete far better in the low price budget video market (ie against the Panasonc and perhaps the 5d. that actually is probably a better market to target than sports. it's a bigger market for one exponentially. and it's growing quickly. What makes it a cool video tool though in a lot of ways is what makes it a dysfunctional still tool. What makes my XE2 a far superior stills tool (aside from what i think is a superior sensor and lenses for how I shoot) is how seamless it is, I never even use the rear screen I have the EVF on eye sensor or just on if I don't want it to sleep, it's fas I can access all i need without looking (same with the XT 1 BTW) downfall is long glass (not suited to Xpro or XE anyway - same with long zooms - now the XT exists of course fuji is addressing that end as they are more functional. I think by XT3 if the lenses come Fuji could likely compete at sports or any area needing speed and larger lenses. Like Ricoh it's whether they want to pursue the market for that.
11-28-2014, 12:56 PM   #183
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,532
QuoteOriginally posted by Sliver-Surfer Quote
So your telling everyone here that began their career in Film photography including me, that they have no impact on todays digital market. I did not say one or five..but in the us there was a .6% growth in US from 09-14 according to IBSIS world market research and .8% in canada
From the report we have 0.6 last 5 years while in 4 year overall population grow what 3.3% and GDP grow over 4 years too was 16%. Really this industry was left behind.

If we go into more details of what they say:

"The industry is dominated by small establishments, with nonemployers accounting for over 90.4% of industry establishments, yet only an estimated 36.1% of total industry revenue."

From that we can deduce that theses small individual companies are making on average rougly 24000$/per year.

So only a few guys are really making decent money with their job, most other have very low revenue.

Reading this for sure:
- I'd not bet buying an FF or overall more/better gear is the priority of the guys earning 24000$ on average if it is not associated with an income increase.
- If I'am after going into the industry, I'd refrain myself except if I can think I can be among the few percent that manage to make good money out of it... And this percentage doesn't even account all the guys that wanted to make out of that but finally couldn't.
-overall this market is very small, most of the 10billion market revenue is likely to be spend just by the guy to have a living (so spending on food, mortage...) or to pay the employees... That doesn't let much to invest in gear. I understand why Olympus, Fuji and Pentax didn't go FF yet and while most sales are for APSC and not FF/MF.

Last edited by Nicolas06; 11-28-2014 at 01:02 PM.
11-28-2014, 02:43 PM   #184
Pentaxian




Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 2,609
QuoteOriginally posted by eddie1960 Quote
sports pros (and there aren't very many) are a tough sell, there are so many other areas of pro photography you can win in, and most of those pay for their gear. Sports guys and paparazzi
(really the same market sat with huge lenses) do as well but they also see heavy sponsorship at least the sports guys. Canon will say they made their big lenses white because of heat. BS it made them instantly identifiable on the sidelines in a sea of big black lenses
still does
just now all the black lenses are nikon (with a few Sigmas there for the guys on a budget)
the NX may not be fully a consumer camera but the interface is. Last thing I want is a touch screen for my controls. I can hold My Pentax a nikon, my fujis, my bronica and mamiya etc to my eye non stop while shooting an event and control everything instinctively because the layout is logical and the buttons are tactile i can find them and change things without looking (and on the modern stuff i can assign a lot of functions to buttons) that's what you're missing in the equation. From what I have seen the NX1 will excel and compete far better in the low price budget video market (ie against the Panasonc and perhaps the 5d. that actually is probably a better market to target than sports. it's a bigger market for one exponentially. and it's growing quickly. What makes it a cool video tool though in a lot of ways is what makes it a dysfunctional still tool. What makes my XE2 a far superior stills tool (aside from what i think is a superior sensor and lenses for how I shoot) is how seamless it is, I never even use the rear screen I have the EVF on eye sensor or just on if I don't want it to sleep, it's fas I can access all i need without looking (same with the XT 1 BTW) downfall is long glass (not suited to Xpro or XE anyway - same with long zooms - now the XT exists of course fuji is addressing that end as they are more functional. I think by XT3 if the lenses come Fuji could likely compete at sports or any area needing speed and larger lenses. Like Ricoh it's whether they want to pursue the market for that.
The NX1 is a different beast from the NXes you have tried. It has 3 dials on the camera (one in front, one at the back (like any better Pentax), plus one around the cursor (ike with a Canon)). There's on NX lenses another dial around the lens IIRC, like an aperture dial. So taking the eye off the viewfinder is probably not necessary (and the data is displayed there too). The touchscreen does not have to be used, though for video it's great for picking the focus point, for stills it can be too, if you are not using the EVF (suppose you can move around the focus point just like you can with a Pentax). I think I could get used to shooting it blind, though I don't like how some of the buttons are on the left.


Btw., what makes you think that Samsung couldn't pay sports pros to shoot Samsung (if the tool is good enough). Samsung has tons of money they can spend on marketing, that's how they got to dominate the phone market. They are a giant with more money than they can spend.

11-29-2014, 01:20 AM   #185
Pentaxian
Digitalis's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Adelaide.
Posts: 8,535
QuoteOriginally posted by Edmunds Quote
with large sensor sizes come large lenses and mirrorless has very little advantage there.
Exactly, you cannot subvert the laws of physics* long fast lenses are always going to be heavy large beasts and having a small camera on the end of it will cause problems with the ability of photographers to balance and control those heavy lenses.

Mirrorless cameras have fewer parts that require the kind of tolerances needed for a DSLR - so they can be made cheaper and are mechanically a lot simpler. I think mirrorless cameras are always going to be only in demand from consumers, professionally mirrorless offerings can't meet the demands dslrs can handle so there is little reason to change.

* Diffractive optics and mirror lenses can reduce size and weight but they have considerable drawbacks in terms of image quality as well.
11-29-2014, 03:30 AM   #186
Loyal Site Supporter
clackers's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Melbourne
Photos: Albums
Posts: 7,700
QuoteOriginally posted by Sliver-Surfer Quote
So your telling everyone here that began their career in Film photography including me, that they have no impact on todays digital market.

Correct, SS ... but you already knew that, right?


Just ask Mary Ellen Mark, who has always shot film.


As she revealed on Mark Seliger's 'Capture' interview, the camera companies now don't want to know her.




QuoteOriginally posted by Sliver-Surfer Quote
in the us there was a .6% growth in US from 09-14 according to IBSIS world market research and .8% in canada

If that was what you based your belief on, you based it on misunderstanding.


Go back to those articles and look again.


I interpret the percentage to be on industry revenues, not the number of professionals.


And the growth is well behind inflation rate ... in other words, the real revenue has contracted over the last five years.


The Priesthood of Pros is too small to build a multi-billion dollar business around.


Posters in this forum in the past have claimed that even Nikon and Canon sell predominantly APS-C, not FF, and that many of those buyers stick with the bundled kit lens/lenses, and that seems very plausible to me.


Consumers just don't covet camera hardware the way (a relatively small number of) enthusiasts do, and all the companies would be aware of that.

Last edited by clackers; 11-29-2014 at 03:40 AM.
11-29-2014, 03:48 AM   #187
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Southern Indiana
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 14,947
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Digitalis Quote
Exactly, you cannot subvert the laws of physics* long fast lenses are always going to be heavy large beasts and having a small camera on the end of it will cause problems with the ability of photographers to balance and control those heavy lenses.

Mirrorless cameras have fewer parts that require the kind of tolerances needed for a DSLR - so they can be made cheaper and are mechanically a lot simpler. I think mirrorless cameras are always going to be only in demand from consumers, professionally mirrorless offerings can't meet the demands dslrs can handle so there is little reason to change.

* Diffractive optics and mirror lenses can reduce size and weight but they have considerable drawbacks in terms of image quality as well.
I think now, you make smaller lenses (that are poorly corrected, have weak corners) and then do a lot of computer correction on them in camera. Most users won't know the difference. Sony really does this a lot and the users seem super-pleased with the results.
11-29-2014, 05:08 AM   #188
Pentaxian
Digitalis's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Adelaide.
Posts: 8,535
QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
I think now, you make smaller lenses (that are poorly corrected, have weak corners) and then do a lot of computer correction on them in camera. Most users won't know the difference. Sony really does this a lot and the users seem super-pleased with the results.
There is scarcely anything in the world that some man cannot make a little worse, and sell a little more cheaply. The person who buys on price alone is this man's lawful prey.
- John Ruskin

11-29-2014, 06:13 AM   #189
Pentaxian




Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 2,609
QuoteOriginally posted by Digitalis Quote
There is scarcely anything in the world that some man cannot make a little worse, and sell a little more cheaply. The person who buys on price alone is this man's lawful prey.
- John Ruskin
If the result, after correction, is almost as good as the lens it replaces, just smaller, lighter and cheaper, then I'm all for it.
11-29-2014, 06:54 AM   #190
Pentaxian
Digitalis's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Adelaide.
Posts: 8,535
QuoteOriginally posted by kadajawi Quote
If the result, after correction, is almost as good as the lens it replaces, just smaller, lighter and cheaper, then I'm all for it.
"Perhaps we should demand two grades of optics—one optimized for tiny size and tiny price, the other for maximum image quality and versatility with less regard to price. Sadly, if we all buy supercompact, gutless optical wonders, we will inevitably wind up using the types of lenses we justly deserve."

-Herbert Kepler. Popular Photography, March 1990
11-29-2014, 07:11 AM   #191
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Southern Indiana
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 14,947
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by kadajawi Quote
If the result, after correction, is almost as good as the lens it replaces, just smaller, lighter and cheaper, then I'm all for it.
I don't know. If you have a 35mm f2.8 lens that has nearly 3 stops of vignetting in the corners wide open, auto correction is not going to get you but so far. The same thing is true for distortion. Auto correction can straighten weird lines, but the worse the distortion, the more likely you are going to have poorer results, even after correction, than you would have if you had a well corrected, optically good lens.

It isn't as though corrected lenses have to be huge, but they probably will be more expensive.
11-29-2014, 07:22 AM   #192
Site Supporter
boriscleto's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Liverpool, NY
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 12,296
QuoteOriginally posted by Digitalis Quote
There is scarcely anything in the world that some man cannot make a little worse, and sell a little more cheaply. The person who buys on price alone is this man's lawful prey.
- John Ruskin
Penny Arcade - Values
11-29-2014, 07:46 AM   #193
Pentaxian




Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 2,609
QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
I don't know. If you have a 35mm f2.8 lens that has nearly 3 stops of vignetting in the corners wide open, auto correction is not going to get you but so far. The same thing is true for distortion. Auto correction can straighten weird lines, but the worse the distortion, the more likely you are going to have poorer results, even after correction, than you would have if you had a well corrected, optically good lens.

It isn't as though corrected lenses have to be huge, but they probably will be more expensive.
I think it has to be done within reason, and taking into account the abilities of the sensors. Lets say you have a sensor that can take light rays at extreme angles, just like film used to be able to (digital sensors usually require the light to come straight onto the sensor). You don't need to have lens elements that straighten everything. On an old sensor, this would give you massive vignetting, but not on a new sensor. Lets say you have a sensor that can have a really high number of pixels without losing low light capabilities, as there is no space between the pixels. Such a say 40 MP APS-C sensor would give you the same result as a 16 MP APS-C sensor, when you scale down the 40 MP to 16 MP. Vignetting should be within reason, of course, so that when shooting high ISO the corners don't look much worse than the center. Luckily the sensor is pretty sensitive in the first place, so that those situations rarely happen. But if you can have significant improvements in other areas, would you allow this vignetting? Since the sensor has 40 MP, the worst distortion can be fixed, and you'll still get a really sharp 16 MP photo for example (and do you really need more?). We are moving in the direction of such sensor tech.


I think one big question is backwards compatibility. Are you willing to develop and produce lenses that will look bad on old cameras, but good (enough) on new ones? IMHO the result counts, and price, size and weight do play a role. If you can leave away a couple of lens elements and in turn get a nice, small lens that performs pretty well, and the end result is good enough... why not? Such a lens would be a nice walkaround or kit lens. There's a market for high end lenses that try to deliver the absolute best there is, but even they can perhaps profit from corrections. What if, if you leave away something that fixes what could be fixed in post without any drawbacks, you improve the performance, sharpness, etc. in other areas?


I don't design lenses for a living, I'm just speculating here. But I don't think lenses designed for electronic correction have to be a bad thing. They can be, but they can also give us advantages.
11-29-2014, 08:01 AM   #194
Veteran Member
drypenn's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2012
Photos: Albums
Posts: 948
QuoteOriginally posted by kadajawi Quote
The NX1 isn't really a consumer camera though... it can be, like the K-3 etc., but it aims higher IMHO (again like the K-3). We'll see if actual pro's will pick it up, but it looks promising. Lenses are indeed an issue, especially for sports (there's a 50-150 2.8 coming, but that's not really what they'll probably want to have).
Samsung is just a consumer camera. Their menu is really awkward and seemingly designed by a first grader. Their build is almost always uninspired. Typical Samsung.

(Off topic: I swapped their Samsung Note 4 (a flagship) to an iphone 5S after two days of use. Good thing my provider allowed me to. Best decision I've ever made. And the Tizen??? Oh please....)
11-29-2014, 08:01 AM   #195
Senior Member




Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Western Australia
Photos: Albums
Posts: 173
QuoteOriginally posted by Digitalis Quote
...

Mirrorless cameras have fewer parts that require the kind of tolerances needed for a DSLR - so they can be made cheaper and are mechanically a lot simpler.
I think mirrorless will eventually prevail in terms of market share because of this. Read this article to see just how much simpler the construction and calibration of a mirrorless camera is, compared to a DSLR.

However, this does not mean that DSLRs will die out, just that their higher cost will relegate them to enthusiasts/pros.
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!
35mm, camera, cameras, canon, compromise, dslr, evf, frame, kit, lcd, lenses, market, mirrorless, ovf, pentax, photography, pm, post, rangefinder, sensor, size, slr, slrs, sony, steve, system, weight
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Nature Dying Flowers Dr Orloff Photo Critique 3 02-02-2014 07:36 PM
Landscape The living and dying. BigJPR Photo Critique 25 05-09-2013 05:51 AM
Dying voice of reason.... jeffkrol General Talk 3 12-14-2012 11:25 AM
GOP problem: 'Their voters are white, aging and dying off' jeffkrol General Talk 42 05-22-2012 08:40 AM
Are all FILM SLRs safe with older flashes? ismaelg Flashes, Lighting, and Studio 5 03-29-2012 08:53 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:20 PM. | 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