Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
11-29-2014, 08:09 AM   #196
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Southern Indiana
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 14,937
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Dieseler Quote
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.
And honestly, most folks who aren't forumites don't care about an eye level viewfinder at all. They are just as happy, if not happier composing using the back LCD. I know my dad was super excited when I showed him the live view button on his K30. Now he does all his shooting in live view. If you are used to shooting with a cell phone/point and shoot, then it probably feels like what you are used to.

Certainly if you compare a decent EVF with an entry level pentamirror APS-C OVF, a lot of folks would prefer the EVF.

11-29-2014, 08:15 AM   #197
Veteran Member
drypenn's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2012
Photos: Albums
Posts: 948
Personally, I think that if DSLR would die, its demise will be largely because of Canon (and Nikon) pushing for the mirrorless, and committing parricide by killing their own SLR line. Until that day comes, Sony and Samsung can huff and puff all they want, they can get some market but that will not be enough to kill the entire DSLR market.
11-29-2014, 08:28 AM   #198
Pentaxian




Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 2,609
QuoteOriginally posted by drypenn Quote
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....)
And what is that observation based on? Have you handed a Galaxy Alpha? It feels rather well made, compared to their other phones.


Anyway, I'm not a big fan of their phones, I prefer Chinese phones, they are better made, more affordable, ... But that doesn't mean their cameras are bad, or consumer. They have clearly aimed their NX1 at pros. I want to hold it in my hands before I judge, but what I have seen so far looks promising.


Tizen vs whatever Pentax is using? I'd rather have Tizen, though it's not my favorite OS.
11-29-2014, 12:24 PM   #199
Site Supporter




Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,238
QuoteOriginally posted by clackers Quote
More assertions - plus a weird time frame, to boot!

What is your proof that there are more pros today than one, five or ten years ago?

Let us be realistic and ignore the film age as irrelevant to the changing conditions of today's market.
According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, photography jobs will grow from 139,500 to 157,000 for 2010-2020
Photographers : Occupational Outlook Handbook: : U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

From above article"Employment of photographers is projected to grow 4 percent from 2012 to 2022, slower than the average for all occupations. Salaried jobs in particular may be more difficult to find as more companies contract with freelancers rather than hire their own photographers."

4% is still an increase by my math. With employers choosing freelancers that means even larger numbers of independent professional photographers than if they only use in house photographers that use Job lot Cameras which they would share.

11-29-2014, 01:20 PM   #200
Pentaxian




Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Nelson B.C.
Posts: 3,211
Call me when I can put my 500 mm lens on it, find and track fast moving objects, focus quickly, all of the above in all light levels and weather, from bright sunny days to overcast and wet. In something I can buy for less than $800 on black Friday.

The ovf has disadvantages, but it works and works well. And so far evf's are more expensive.
11-29-2014, 05:34 PM   #201
Site Supporter




Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,238
QuoteOriginally posted by derekkite Quote
Call me when I can put my 500 mm lens on it, find and track fast moving objects, focus quickly, all of the above in all light levels and weather, from bright sunny days to overcast and wet. In something I can buy for less than $800 on black Friday.

The ovf has disadvantages, but it works and works well. And so far evf's are more expensive.
True I use my K5 for Macro and Nature/sport photography...mirrorles has a bit of lag that won't do but ovf is still in it's infancy
But for Portrait Lowlight photography it can't beat my A7 it just makes composing and focusing a much more gratifying process.
11-29-2014, 06:49 PM   #202
Loyal Site Supporter
Mikesul's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 2,472
QuoteOriginally posted by Sliver-Surfer Quote
True I use my K5 for Macro and Nature/sport photography...mirrorles has a bit of lag that won't do but ovf is still in it's infancy
But for Portrait Lowlight photography it can't beat my A7 it just makes composing and focusing a much more gratifying process.

Well, we can hope that Pentax will give us the best of both worlds soon.
11-30-2014, 03:43 AM   #203
Pentaxian




Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 2,609
QuoteOriginally posted by Sliver-Surfer Quote
True I use my K5 for Macro and Nature/sport photography...mirrorles has a bit of lag that won't do but ovf is still in it's infancy
But for Portrait Lowlight photography it can't beat my A7 it just makes composing and focusing a much more gratifying process.
The new NX1 has around 5 ms lag. That should be considerably less than what the A7 has, though wether that is enough... no clue.

11-30-2014, 04:42 AM   #204
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,532
QuoteOriginally posted by Sliver-Surfer Quote
According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, photography jobs will grow from 139,500 to 157,000 for 2010-2020
Photographers : Occupational Outlook Handbook: : U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

From above article"Employment of photographers is projected to grow 4 percent from 2012 to 2022, slower than the average for all occupations. Salaried jobs in particular may be more difficult to find as more companies contract with freelancers rather than hire their own photographers."

4% is still an increase by my math. With employers choosing freelancers that means even larger numbers of independent professional photographers than if they only use in house photographers that use Job lot Cameras which they would share.
That still on average very low paying jobs... It is not theses guys that will spend 30000$ every 3 years to get a new MF camera with the lenses that go with it and the heavy gear or even 10000$ for more common, more affordable high end FF gear (including lenses) and some good lights.
11-30-2014, 04:55 AM   #205
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,532
QuoteOriginally posted by kadajawi Quote
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.
Honestly theses are many very different designs out there.

The DA35 plastic wonder that inherit from older FA35 (that itself my inherit from older lense, I didn't check). This lens is both extremely cheap and achieving great result with reliable, fast AF, very sharp center sharpness, decent border sharpness, high resistence to flare, low coma/astigmatism. This lens is small, even smaller than many mirorless design and the FA version can cover FF.

The DA50/FA50 are a bit soft wide open but go as sharp as you can imagine closed down. Contrast and rendering are great. Still thoses lenses are small and the FA version cover FF. They are also quite innexpensive too.

The FA31, FA43, FA77 are all very small prime compared to what they provide and still are exquisite lenses with no many alternatives at the same level, all mount considered.

DA40, DA70 are pankakes, difficult to go smaller than that still they are really great.

In the end in Pentax world we already have small lenses, typically smaller than what many mirrorless provide, in particular FF mirorless. It is only for APSC wide angle that we have to compromize on border sharpness (DA21, DA15) but the lens are really small already and offer great rendering and great resistance to flare to compensate.

Why should we accept worse overall design than theses lens, get lower quality overall, need more post processing... get price just as high or even more expensive (look at Sony FE lenses prices) and still have to cope with bigger lenses in the end ?

That's a bad trade-off because you simply get nothing in exchange. Bigger lenses, bigger price, lower quality.
11-30-2014, 06:39 AM   #206
Loyal Site Supporter
Mikesul's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 2,472
QuoteOriginally posted by Nicolas06 Quote
Honestly theses are many very different designs out there.

The DA35 plastic wonder that inherit from older FA35 (that itself my inherit from older lense, I didn't check). This lens is both extremely cheap and achieving great result with reliable, fast AF, very sharp center sharpness, decent border sharpness, high resistence to flare, low coma/astigmatism. This lens is small, even smaller than many mirorless design and the FA version can cover FF.

The DA50/FA50 are a bit soft wide open but go as sharp as you can imagine closed down. Contrast and rendering are great. Still thoses lenses are small and the FA version cover FF. They are also quite innexpensive too.

The FA31, FA43, FA77 are all very small prime compared to what they provide and still are exquisite lenses with no many alternatives at the same level, all mount considered.

DA40, DA70 are pankakes, difficult to go smaller than that still they are really great.

In the end in Pentax world we already have small lenses, typically smaller than what many mirrorless provide, in particular FF mirorless. It is only for APSC wide angle that we have to compromize on border sharpness (DA21, DA15) but the lens are really small already and offer great rendering and great resistance to flare to compensate.

Why should we accept worse overall design than theses lens, get lower quality overall, need more post processing... get price just as high or even more expensive (look at Sony FE lenses prices) and still have to cope with bigger lenses in the end ?

That's a bad trade-off because you simply get nothing in exchange. Bigger lenses, bigger price, lower quality.
Good summary of what we have. I could not justify leaving this rich heritage of lenses. I cannot imagine Pentax doing so. Especially when there really is no need.
11-30-2014, 06:58 AM   #207
Pentaxian




Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 2,609
Lenses developed for film don't work too well with current digital sensors, maybe that is the reason why the DA35 is not FF? Samsung's new sensor tech will fix that.

In any case, you are mostly talking about primes. How about zoom lenses? And how much smaller, better can Pentax make their lenses when they develop them for post processing?
11-30-2014, 07:07 AM   #208
Loyal Site Supporter
Mikesul's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 2,472
QuoteOriginally posted by kadajawi Quote
Lenses developed for film don't work too well with current digital sensors, maybe that is the reason why the DA35 is not FF? Samsung's new sensor tech will fix that.

In any case, you are mostly talking about primes. How about zoom lenses? And how much smaller, better can Pentax make their lenses when they develop them for post processing?
Many of us find film era lenses like the FA 31, FA43 and FA77, not to mention the wonderful M 50 1.7 and M*300 et al, are superb on digital.
11-30-2014, 07:18 AM   #209
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,532
QuoteOriginally posted by Mikesul Quote
Many of us find film era lenses like the FA 31, FA43 and FA77, not to mention the wonderful M 50 1.7 and M*300 et al, are superb on digital.
Not only superb, they tend to provide better picture than the more modern digital lenses (DA21, DA40, DA70). All mount included, they are very well seen and there no many better lenses out there.

The design first goal was to get nice pictures, with more "spice", pop to them and with this 3D look. First goal was actual picture quality, not charts, not size or cost cutting. Size was a factor but it was an overall compromize. lower appertures made it easier and we can see from FA31 that it was acceptable to have medium sized lens.

As an engineer I can say to you, you get what you ask for. If you ask for undercorrected lenses in a way to reduce cost and size, you'll get exactly that. If primary concern is getting actual delightfull images, you should ask for that first and define what it mean for you ! Things don't happen just by random out of luck.

Last edited by Nicolas06; 11-30-2014 at 07:24 AM.
11-30-2014, 07:33 AM   #210
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,532
QuoteOriginally posted by kadajawi Quote
Lenses developed for film don't work too well with current digital sensors, maybe that is the reason why the DA35 is not FF? Samsung's new sensor tech will fix that.

In any case, you are mostly talking about primes. How about zoom lenses? And how much smaller, better can Pentax make their lenses when they develop them for post processing?
DA35 is not FF because it is targeted to APSC bodies. You get what you ask for. You get 3EV vigneting at f/4 when you optimize for post processing.

Also post processing improve things a lot, but that's no silver bullet. It doesn't mean blur/soft become sharp. It doesn't retrieve subtle micro constrast if not here. If vigneting is too heavy, it decrease the overall light that enter in, and you'll need to bump the isos more, decreasing overall picture sharpness, dynamic range and color deph. Correcting distorsion, in particular an heavy one reduce sharpness and can also reduce the actual viewing angle.

I have nothing against it through, but you need to know if your lens size really need that. I see FA ltd do cover FF and to be quite smaller than most design. If the design is quite smaller than thoses, it might be justifyed, otherwise, I seriously have a doubt.

Last edited by Nicolas06; 11-30-2014 at 07:41 AM.
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 08:09 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