[AggieDad]

Plus one on photoptimist. What worries me is someone will convince Pentax of this pointless stuff (emphasis mine) ...

I wonder how many folks said something similar when digital cameras came along, and when autofocus entered the scene, and when ... well, you get the idea.

I can recall wondering why I would even want a portable (that's what we called them 25 years ago) telephone. Now I don't leave the house without my iPhone. Times change.

However I notice that the camera manufacturers don't seem to be changing quite as fast as other technologies. You may not want wireless charging or wi-fi, but what about a better live view screen; or downloadable apps that you can use for a particular type of photography, etc.

My curiosity makes me wonder whether there is sort of time correlation (either age or length of time in photography) with those poo-pooing change and those looking for new innovations. Just a thought.

[Glen]

The next five to ten years will be very interesting indeed. I certainly doubt that professionals, be they photographers of wildlife, weddings, landscapes or others, will ever swap their big cameras for smart phones. However will their "big camera" be a mirrorless, a DSLR or some combination of mirrorless and smart phones, that is the question? The only certainty is change. My first new camera was a Polaroid. It is obsolete and I don't miss it at all. Whatever we end up using in the future will have to be better than what we have now or we simply won't switch. The real question is who will survive the change? I don't rule out Pentax because they are small and small firms can change much faster than big ones like Canon and Nikon. I can't predict the future any more than anyone else but my guess is that it will be a struggle for Canon and Nikon. The only thing that I am certain of is that whatever we end up using that system will capture images that will use new technologies to put the images we now see as great seem bland in comparison. That is something to look forward to, regardless of the brand name or the size of it. Oh an I highly doubt that in ten years we will be able to receive phone calls from our new photographic equipment.

[clackers]

I wonder how many folks said something similar when digital cameras came along, and when autofocus entered the scene, and when ... well, you get the idea.

I can recall wondering why I would even want a portable (that's what we called them 25 years ago) telephone. Now I don't leave the house without my iPhone. Times change.

However I notice that the camera manufacturers don't seem to be changing quite as fast as other technologies. You may not want wireless charging or wi-fi, but what about a better live view screen; or downloadable apps that you can use for a particular type of photography, etc.

My curiosity makes me wonder whether there is sort of time correlation (either age or length of time in photography) with those poo-pooing change and those looking for new innovations. Just a thought.

If you look at post 43, AggieDad, it wasn't a case of being ignored by just sixty year olds with a film background, or twenty six year olds who are connected to consumer electronics by umbilical cord - *nobody* wanted these innovative products.

[Mountain Vision]

I guess I'm in the minority but I really don't care much about the tech aspect. I do like built in GPS for geotagging on the K-1. I like the Wi-Fi for pulling a few images off to upload to social media on the fly. But for the most part, removing batteries and memory cards and all that really doesn't bother me. I grew up shooting film and dumping a memory card and recharging a couple of batteries is just part of the digital process.

If people want to do photography on there phones, more power to them. You've got a very powerful and useful device that fits in your pocket and has always on connectivity. Personally, I enjoy getting away from my phone and enjoy the chance to enjoy some down time from always being connected.





---------- Post added 12-13-2018 at 07:33 AM ----------

Btw, are DSLR/MILC sales declining? It seems with all the stuff coming to market interchangeable lens cameras are doing quite well. It's the point and shoot market that is declining, I would think.

[peterh337]

I am not a millenial; I was born only a decade after ww2 ended. Almost zero "millenials" are using a DSLR. But even this is an interesting case. My older son, now 25, got into semi commercial action photography. He started with Canons, got through various bodies, and now he uses a Sony. He had an A7 and now has an A9. Why Sony? Probably lots of reasons but it is smaller and lighter than Pentax or most others, does great videos, and Sony have finally more or less solved the drawbacks of mirrorless cameras (ableit at a price). You can see which way the market is going. It is same as phones and most other things: convergence. People will pay for something which does multiple jobs and does them all well. Even your traditional wedding photographer needs to do video nowadays as a part of the service. I went on a Lightroom course a few years ago and everybody in the room except me was a wedding photographer...

Wireless chargeable phones are not big or heavy. Look at a Samsung S7/S8/S9. Thin and no evident weight penalty.

Drag/drop file transfer (or some automated method) over wifi is routinely done by people who use their phone for lots of photos. And quite a lot of people do that. There is a big clip-on lens market for the Iphones for example. Obviously the pics are acceptable only in good light etc but this displaces a lot of DSLR usage. Once you have had this you will never want to go back to cables.

One can poo-poo requests for change by saying only millenials want it, etc, but it will happen.

[Mountain Vision]

I am not a millenial; I was born only a decade after ww2 ended. Almost zero "millenials" are using a DSLR. But even this is an interesting case. My older son, now 25, got into semi commercial action photography. He started with Canons, got through various bodies, and now he uses a Sony. He had an A7 and now has an A9. Why Sony? Probably lots of reasons but it is smaller and lighter than Pentax or most others, does great videos, and Sony have finally more or less solved the drawbacks of mirrorless cameras (ableit at a price). You can see which way the market is going. It is same as phones and most other things: convergence. People will pay for something which does multiple jobs and does them all well. Even your traditional wedding photographer needs to do video nowadays as a part of the service. I went on a Lightroom course a few years ago and everybody in the room except me was a wedding photographer...

Wireless chargeable phones are not big or heavy. Look at a Samsung S7/S8/S9. Thin and no evident weight penalty.

Drag/drop file transfer (or some automated method) over wifi is routinely done by people who use their phone for lots of photos. And quite a lot of people do that. There is a big clip-on lens market for the Iphones for example. Obviously the pics are acceptable only in good light etc but this displaces a lot of DSLR usage. Once you have had this you will never want to go back to cables.

One can poo-poo requests for change by saying only millenials want it, etc, but it will happen.

People get their needs confused with the needs of everyone and make bold proclamations of doom and gloom.

A quick search on the internet turned up this...
https://petapixel.com/2018/03/10/5-reasons-switched-back-canon-sony/

It seems at least one person doesn't think Sony mirrorless is all rainbows and leprechauns and pots of gold scented with the sweet smell of unicorn farts.

[stevebrot]

- no battery charging without removing the batteries
- no wireless charging (with batteries in the camera, obviously)
- nearly useless wifi speed
- nearly useless wifi functionality (e.g. cannot browse the camera storage over a local network, for drag/drop file transfer; this is done by implementing Samba shares)

Strangely, I don't expect my camera to do any of those things. In short:

• I swap batteries out when they are low so I can keep working and wish I had similar options for my phone
• My camera's primary task is not to be a network host. Wi-fi capabilities are a gee whiz feature. (I don't see what Samba has to do with anything.) I don't expect my primary workstation to take photos, why should I expect my camera to network?

What is the saying; Horses for courses"? I pretty much eschew multi-purpose devices. My printer prints. My scanners scan. All-in-ones typically suck at both. I don't haul gravel with my Nissan coupe and I don't test the cornering of my pickup truck. I don't wash dishes in my oven nor do I expect my vacuum cleaner to double as a carpet shampooer.


Steve

---

Last edited by stevebrot; 12-13-2018 at 01:51 AM.

[niblue]

Just a little list:

- no battery charging without removing the batteries
- no wireless charging (with batteries in the camera, obviously)
- nearly useless wifi speed
- nearly useless wifi functionality (e.g. cannot browse the camera storage over a local network, for drag/drop file transfer; this is done by implementing Samba shares)

None of which is of interest to me! I've got various cameras with wifi capability (Pentax and others) and have never even looked into it as it's just not a function I'd use.

[totsmuyco]

I don't know what's gonna happened to DSLRs in the future. Maybe 10 years from now all we need to do is just to stare at our cameras and they'll understand that they have auto charge. But I think there will be bigger changes in technology pushing camera manufacturers to do more. I think WI-Fi will be a standard. For press people, having their pictures transferred and posted in the news ASAP will be a must. Who knows what more will come. I'll just sit back relax and enjoy my gears. I'll upgrade them as the need arises. Older cameras can still take good pictures. I'll just have adjust to what I have.

[biz-engineer]

beyond specific features, is that phones are good enough most of the time

I have one of the best camera phone currently available. After comparison of phone images (best available to date) and Pentax K1 images, I concluded that the phone is fine for A5 prints (A4 is the max). I'll use the phone for macros and document sharing, and I'll use a camera for photography in case I want to print. The trouble is, I never know in advance if I will print an image or not. If I leave the DSLR at home and I face a great scenery, photograph it with the phone and once back home want to make a print... there may be no come back to the same location with the same light exposure another day for the DSLR. The good enough most of the time, for me, means that if I want to bring photographic material home, I need to take the camera anyway and I don't want to mess up with two sources of RAW images with vastly different quality levels, I much prefer keeping a single source of high quality RAW files and be able to post online with a simple workflow. So yes, for me, a WiFi workflow for FHD or UHD sized images would be great.

And people wonder why DSLR sales are declining...Just a little list:- no battery charging without removing the batteries- no wireless charging (with batteries in the camera, obviously)- nearly useless wifi speed- nearly useless wifi functionality (e.g. cannot browse the camera storage over a local network, for drag/drop file transfer; this is done by implementing Samba shares)A mobile phone can and does do all these things.

1) Wireless charging: have used that for a while => inefficient, potentially reduced lifetime of the phone/battery (heating up). I've ditched it and came back to charging via USB.


2) USB charging for camera: can be useful when traveling, using same usb chager as for the phone, no need to bring a specific charger for the DSLR. Can also save money for the camera maker => no charger included with the camera.


3) WIFI: doesn't work great, if it works, not only Pentax is concerned, also Nikon have issues. THAT WIFI, avoids taking the same picture with both your DSLR and your phone, use the DSLR image downsized to post online via phone, that has some utility. BUT, if WIFI on DSLR doesn't work flawlessly, better remove it completely, would save power and cost. So, a half working WIFI from camera makers is not good IMO. If the bandwidth of Wifi isn't enough for full sized images, then downsizing to HD, FHD or UHD should still be well working options.

[Rondec]

I am not a millenial; I was born only a decade after ww2 ended. Almost zero "millenials" are using a DSLR. But even this is an interesting case. My older son, now 25, got into semi commercial action photography. He started with Canons, got through various bodies, and now he uses a Sony. He had an A7 and now has an A9. Why Sony? Probably lots of reasons but it is smaller and lighter than Pentax or most others, does great videos, and Sony have finally more or less solved the drawbacks of mirrorless cameras (ableit at a price). You can see which way the market is going. It is same as phones and most other things: convergence. People will pay for something which does multiple jobs and does them all well. Even your traditional wedding photographer needs to do video nowadays as a part of the service. I went on a Lightroom course a few years ago and everybody in the room except me was a wedding photographer...

Wireless chargeable phones are not big or heavy. Look at a Samsung S7/S8/S9. Thin and no evident weight penalty.

Drag/drop file transfer (or some automated method) over wifi is routinely done by people who use their phone for lots of photos. And quite a lot of people do that. There is a big clip-on lens market for the Iphones for example. Obviously the pics are acceptable only in good light etc but this displaces a lot of DSLR usage. Once you have had this you will never want to go back to cables.

One can poo-poo requests for change by saying only millenials want it, etc, but it will happen.

You can certainly argue that Pentax should do better with tracking auto focus and video -- both of which the A9 does admirably with. They probably should increase their frame rate and buffer size as well. Those are all big selling points of the A9. I just don't think if you released a K-1 III which was essentially a K-1 II but with wireless charging and better wifi, that it would really do a whole lot. I don't think anyone here is arguing that Pentax shouldn't improve things and if possible shrink the size of their camera a bit. It is just that the things you have identified seem far afield from what actually sells cameras.

---------- Post added 12-13-18 at 06:13 AM ----------

I wonder how many folks said something similar when digital cameras came along, and when autofocus entered the scene, and when ... well, you get the idea.

I can recall wondering why I would even want a portable (that's what we called them 25 years ago) telephone. Now I don't leave the house without my iPhone. Times change.

However I notice that the camera manufacturers don't seem to be changing quite as fast as other technologies. You may not want wireless charging or wi-fi, but what about a better live view screen; or downloadable apps that you can use for a particular type of photography, etc.

My curiosity makes me wonder whether there is sort of time correlation (either age or length of time in photography) with those poo-pooing change and those looking for new innovations. Just a thought.

Pentax does improve things with every iteration of camera they release. If you ever used live view on the K20 and then use it on the K-1 II, the difference is night and day. And I expect things to improve from there. Auto focus in video too has improved over time. You could make a list of things they need to work on -- video performance, frame rates, buffer size, better pixel shift, and better tracking auto focus all come to mind. I think even Pentax would agree that these things can and should be better and those are the things I think they should focus on, not figuring out how to upload apps to their camera or how to charge their batteries wirelessly (without taking them out of the camera).

At the same time, Pentax is not a tech company. They never have been. They are an optical company that happens to sell very nice camera bodies. That's what they need to focus on and as they bring out new excellent lenses, akin to the DFA *50, that will bring in serious photographers in a way that wireless charging wouldn't ever do.

[peterh337]

Looking at how many DSLRs have rubbish wifi performance, I reckon that most of them are based on some kind of "sensor evaluation kit" which comes as a PCB with the CPU, with USB, ethernet, wifi... They do the software development on this, ditch the ethernet port and any other excess on the final hardware, and keep the rubbish wifi.

On a "rainproof" camera like the K1 you would seriously benefit from wireless charging - or at least a charging base which makes a connection using two external conductive pads such as is used with DECT phones etc. One could also do ultra fast data transfer using such a connection.

I think people don't appreciate being able to browse the camera like a network drive all the time they haven't got that capability. On my K1 I transfer the pics over USB into Lightroom, and once I am sure I got everything off and edited and exported into jpegs (I don't keep RAWs except when somebody wants them specifically) I then reformat the two SD cards using the camera menu. This is clumsy. Drag and drop would be nicer and then you could just delete the files off the cards like you would delete files in windows explorer.

Also, as pointed out above, there is a real need for a very easy and quick transfer of DSLR pics to a phone, for emailing to people. This needs bluetooth (which is fast enough for a few megapixel jpeg, no more) or wifi. The camera could connect to a wifi hotspot on the phone and via that could upload the reduced jpegs to say dropbox... All this is easy to do.

I've been in business over 40 years and have seen many changes. In the 1970s and 80s everybody used a professional photographer for product photos. Most of that "product literature" business has gone because people realised that they can get the same job done for nothing using a camera and a flash with an umbrella. The umbrella makes it easy to get stunning results. The internet finished off what was left because product leaflets are no longer produced; everything is on a website and you need a nice photo but a few megapixels is enough. Like I said earlier, most of the pro scene is weddings and that isn't exactly growing. There is no money in shooting for picture libraries; I know people who used to make a living and they all tell me this has come to an end (partly due to heavy use of bootleg photos). Stills+video convergence is necessary because a half decent video camera is big and clumsy, and Pentax are losing a lot of sales there.

[ThorSanchez]

Also, I would not expect camera companies to continue to supply a separate battery charger for free if their camera supported wireless charging, although certainly you could buy it separately.

That's my assumption, too. You put your camera on the wireless pad at the end of the day, and by morning it's all topped off. But you also have your normal charger for your several spares that you carry with you.

Regardless, I think this is one of those ideas that while it may be interesting, would be unlikely to actually move any more camera units than are currently sold.

Perhaps not. But if you're looking for a new camera, there are many with comparable specs, but one has this feature (and maybe 2-3 others that aren't currently in ILCs) that might sway your decision.

---------- Post added 12-13-18 at 07:34 AM ----------

I wonder how many folks said something similar when digital cameras came along, and when autofocus entered the scene, and when ... well, you get the idea.

I can recall wondering why I would even want a portable (that's what we called them 25 years ago) telephone. Now I don't leave the house without my iPhone. Times change.

However I notice that the camera manufacturers don't seem to be changing quite as fast as other technologies. You may not want wireless charging or wi-fi, but what about a better live view screen; or downloadable apps that you can use for a particular type of photography, etc.

My curiosity makes me wonder whether there is sort of time correlation (either age or length of time in photography) with those poo-pooing change and those looking for new innovations. Just a thought.

The camera manufacturers, like all tech firms, will continue to innovate. A few might survive or even thrive by catering to people who have the resources to indulge in niche products with pared-down feature sets or even openly nostalgic throwbacks. Like Leica.

But innovation is usually key to market share. Today's cameras and cars and TVs and computers and phones are good enough. Just as the ones from 1970 and 1950 were for their times. But the cameras of 2030 will have a host of new features we don't see today. The opinions of a slice of older Pentaxians aren't going to stop this any more than baby boomer car nuts could keep carbeurators and wind up windows and unassisted drum brakes in mainstream production.

---------- Post added 12-13-18 at 07:43 AM ----------

People get their needs confused with the needs of everyone and make bold proclamations of doom and gloom.

A quick search on the internet turned up this...
The 5 Reasons Why I Switched Back to Canon from Sony

It seems at least one person doesn't think Sony mirrorless is all rainbows and leprechauns and pots of gold scented with the sweet smell of unicorn farts.

Doom and gloom? I think new features and technology in photography are exciting. The only doom and gloom here is from the folks who want progress and innovation to halt. They'll surely be disappointed. I suppose if you think Pentax can't or won't innovate then the end will eventually come and we might have to switch brands. But I have some hope they can pivot and add competitive and innovative features more easily because they aren't as massive as Canikony.

[biz-engineer]

Perhaps not. But if you're looking for a new camera, there are many with comparable specs, but one has this feature (and maybe 2-3 others that aren't currently in ILCs) that might sway your decision.

Adding spec lines is what camera makers do, Wifi is one of them (something that shift customer buy decision), with almost non of the Wifi on ILC being as good as it should.

My curiosity makes me wonder whether there is sort of time correlation (either age or length of time in photography) with those poo-pooing change and those looking for new innovations. Just a thought.

Not all new solutions are better than past solutions. Usually, solution to non existing problem don't survive long. Not everything new to a domain is go for another domain of application. It depends..

I can recall wondering why I would even want a portable (that's what we called them 25 years ago) telephone. Now I don't leave the house without my iPhone. Times change.

You were right, how would that brick have fit in your pocket. I'm afraid the iPhone (and other mobiles phones) size is what made it so popular. The Sat-phone market never reach much volumes.

---------- Post added 13-12-18 at 13:51 ----------

Regarding wireless charging, it require a large coil, which eventually would fit into a large enough smart phone. I don't see how that coil could fit a DSLR, given that many people have complained that full frame cameras were too big compared to apsc.


I have two genius ideas of new camera features:


1) how about DSLR with a solar panel? That would be a feature that smartphones don't have. In order to recharge your camera, you would not need to pull the battery out, you would simple leave your camera under the sun and wait.

2) how about recharging your DSLR with a small crank or energy harvesting by camera shake?

[ffking]

The question yu have to ask is why none of the ILC makers, in a highly competitive market, offer these things. The answer must be either technical, for reasons we might not fully understand, or commercial - but if there was a profit in doing it, it would be done.