[Riggomatic]

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.


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..


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?

I like the crank idea. Just like a film camera. Crank the lever one time, take a picture repeat. Very retro as well

[Rondec]

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.



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 ----------



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 ----------



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.

Let's be honest here. The downsides of these features are several.

First of all, there is the possible leaving off of other features. This is mainly because of the fact that there are limited R and D funds available from Pentax for development. If they sink R and D into wireless charging, there will by definition be less progress on the other features like auto focus and video. Personally, the features mentioned are extremely far down the list of features that I think are important to add/improve and in a situation where there are limited funds available, it feels wasteful to sink them into these features.

Second, there are size concerns. I think there is a distinct possibility that Pentax could shrink full frame cameras in the future. The addition of something like this could certainly limit their ability to do so.

Finally, picking on the wireless charging feature, it just isn't something that has been mentioned by anybody as being something that should be added till this thread. Even you admit that a good chunk of the time you would still use traditional charging, you just want the option of using wireless charging as well. Having both available while nice feels like selling every pair of pants with both a belt and suspenders. Yes, it can be done, but it would be done at a cost, it isn't desired by the market, and is not necessary for most folks.

[ThorSanchez]

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?

Back of the napkin... The top of a K-1 might fit 40 square cm of panels. That's aggressive, but we'll run with it. A commercial solar cell phone charger that appears to be maybe 20 x8 cm (160 cm^2) can charge a phone in 40 hours of direct sunlight. A D-LI90 has a capacity of something like 1800 mAH. A Google Pixel 3's battery is 2950 mAH.

So, just ballpark... (40 hours x 2/3rds of the battery capacity) / (1/3 of the solar footprint) = 80 hours of direct sunlight to charge a typical Pentax battery.

The crank might work a little better, I really don't know. The shake harvesting is probably in the microwatts of power. Probably wouldn't keep up with parasitic losses in the charging circuitry. That's typically used in watches where a coin battery might last five years.

---------- Post added 12-13-18 at 08:48 AM ----------

Let's be honest here. The downsides of these features are several.

First of all, there is the possible leaving off of other features. This is mainly because of the fact that there are limited R and D funds available from Pentax for development. If they sink R and D into wireless charging, there will by definition be less progress on the other features like auto focus and video. Personally, the features mentioned are extremely far down the list of features that I think are important to add/improve and in a situation where there are limited funds available, it feels wasteful to sink them into these features.

Second, there are size concerns. I think there is a distinct possibility that Pentax could shrink full frame cameras in the future. The addition of something like this could certainly limit their ability to do so.

Finally, picking on the wireless charging feature, it just isn't something that has been mentioned by anybody as being something that should be added till this thread. Even you admit that a good chunk of the time you would still use traditional charging, you just want the option of using wireless charging as well. Having both available while nice feels like selling every pair of pants with both a belt and suspenders. Yes, it can be done, but it would be done at a cost, it isn't desired by the market, and is not necessary for most folks.

We can always come up with reasons why the status quo is just fine. I'm sure we'd all be happily living our lives with a Tom Tom or Garmin on the dash of the car and a netbook to send emails and browse the web and a scientific calculator in the backpack and a Canon Elph for quick snapshots instead of incorporating all that in our cell phones.

[Rondec]

Back of the napkin... The top of a K-1 might fit 40 square cm of panels. That's aggressive, but we'll run with it. A commercial solar cell phone charger that appears to be maybe 20 x8 cm (160 cm^2) can charge a phone in 40 hours of direct sunlight. A D-LI90 has a capacity of something like 1800 mAH. A Google Pixel 3's battery is 2950 mAH.

So, just ballpark... (40 hours x 2/3rds of the battery capacity) / (1/3 of the solar footprint) = 80 hours of direct sunlight to charge a typical Pentax battery.

The crank might work a little better, I really don't know. The shake harvesting is probably in the microwatts of power. Probably wouldn't keep up with parasitic losses in the charging circuitry. That's typically used in watches where a coin battery might last five years.

---------- Post added 12-13-18 at 08:48 AM ----------



We can always come up with reasons why the status quo is just fine. I'm sure we'd all be happily living our lives with a Tom Tom or Garmin on the dash of the car and a netbook to send emails and browse the web and a scientific calculator in the backpack and a Canon Elph for quick snapshots instead of incorporating all that in our cell phones.

Can you hear what I'm saying? I am not arguing for the status quo, I am merely arguing for a wise investment of resources. Would you really want to see a K3 III that has the same features as the K3 II, but adds better wifi and wireless charging?

[photoptimist]

Back of the napkin... The top of a K-1 might fit 40 square cm of panels. That's aggressive, but we'll run with it. A commercial solar cell phone charger that appears to be maybe 20 x8 cm (160 cm^2) can charge a phone in 40 hours of direct sunlight. A D-LI90 has a capacity of something like 1800 mAH. A Google Pixel 3's battery is 2950 mAH.

So, just ballpark... (40 hours x 2/3rds of the battery capacity) / (1/3 of the solar footprint) = 80 hours of direct sunlight to charge a typical Pentax battery.

.......

Although the 1800 mAH of the D-LI90 seems smaller than the Google Pixel 3's battery, the Pentax battery is a two-cell design that has twice the voltage (and twice energy). Thus, the ballpark recharging time would be 160 hours which would probably take 20 to 30 fully sunny days unless the user carefully re-orients the panel toward the sun every hour of every day.

[Docrwm]

Although the 1800 mAH of the D-LI90 seems smaller than the Google Pixel 3's battery, the Pentax battery is a two-cell design that has twice the voltage (and twice energy). Thus, the ballpark recharging time would be 160 hours which would probably take 20 to 30 fully sunny days unless the user carefully re-orients the panel toward the sun every hour of every day.

Methinks someone is an engineer...EE?

[Lowell Goudge]

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.

All of it is technically doable, some trivially.

DSLR makers seem to think that their customers hold the view that "real men" will take the battery out and put it in a charger, after every job.

I have a K1, a 24-70 f2.8, a Milvus 18mm, a 70-300 Tamron, and love this kit for the quality of the pics, especially with the Milvus. Friends jokingly refer to the camera as a "weapon" and you could certainly use it to crack somebody's skull with it A Pentax DSLR gets bigger and heavier with every new version (I've had most of them). I carry it only if travelling to a new place and one which is expected to be scenic.

i believe this list is more related to the evaporation of the point and shoot camera market, not the dslr sales.

for DSLRs i think the market is saturated, and the rush to update has gone by the side. if you look at the sales history of not only DSLRs but also SLRs, there have been several big explosions in SLR sales, the first in the late 1970's where slrs were marketed to more than just real serious amateurs and pro's, followed by a stagnation of the market until good AF came out in the late 1980's then every one rushed to get into AF, and there was a boom in sales, but by the late 1990's this too tapered off, then there was the explosion into digital, where sensor development led to rapid update, but now that too has really waned.

lets face it, the noise levels of sensors like that in the K5 are good enough for most, and the K1 is the same basic sensor pitch. the race for resolution has finally peaked to nearly match the lenses. and there is not a lot to warrant changing cameras that frequently. everyone is basically satisfied with the kit they have. So now there is a gradual replacement maarket, plus a few new entries,

[photoptimist]

Methinks someone is an engineer...EE?

Mechanical engineer. But I worked for a couple of years on high-energy power systems (e.g., 1,000,000 Amps at 50 Volts) so I learned enough about electronics to know whats watt. But I am still flabbergasted that tiny electrons can go through solid metal!

[Docrwm]

Mechanical engineer. But I worked for a couple of years on high-energy power systems (e.g., 1,000,000 Amps at 50 Volts) so I learned enough about electronics to know whats watt. But I am still flabbergasted that tiny electrons can go through solid metal!

Ah, cross-trained. That's great. Thanks.

[ThorSanchez]

Although the 1800 mAH of the D-LI90 seems smaller than the Google Pixel 3's battery, the Pentax battery is a two-cell design that has twice the voltage (and twice energy). Thus, the ballpark recharging time would be 160 hours which would probably take 20 to 30 fully sunny days unless the user carefully re-orients the panel toward the sun every hour of every day.

Okay, thanks. I mentioned my calculations were very back-of-the-napkin. I am a EE, but it's been a while since I've done any serious EE'ing.

---------- Post added 12-13-18 at 11:08 AM ----------

Can you hear what I'm saying? I am not arguing for the status quo, I am merely arguing for a wise investment of resources. Would you really want to see a K3 III that has the same features as the K3 II, but adds better wifi and wireless charging?

Sorry, don't mean to be obstinate. But I cringe at this kind of feeling that Pentax is limited in resources and has a customer base that doesn't like bells-and-whistles, so we shouldn't look to them to really innovate.

If the K3-III has better wifi and wireless charging to go along with better high ISO and autofocus and few other key things, yes. I'd very much like to set my camera down at the end of the day and have charging and file transfer be seamless. No, I wouldn't shell out $1300 just for wifi and charging improvements.

[Wheatfield]

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.

All of it is technically doable, some trivially.

DSLR makers seem to think that their customers hold the view that "real men" will take the battery out and put it in a charger, after every job.

I have a K1, a 24-70 f2.8, a Milvus 18mm, a 70-300 Tamron, and love this kit for the quality of the pics, especially with the Milvus. Friends jokingly refer to the camera as a "weapon" and you could certainly use it to crack somebody's skull with it A Pentax DSLR gets bigger and heavier with every new version (I've had most of them). I carry it only if travelling to a new place and one which is expected to be scenic.

DSLR makers understand that their products are not cell phones. The reason why DSLR sales are leveling out is because of a combination of maturing technology and the incursion of mirrorless cameras into their market. People are opting for the convenience of cell phones over DSLRs, but that has a lot to do with carrying one less item. The cell phone represents a great deal of convenience beyond being just able to link directly to facebook.

Note that cell phone sales are also flattening out, so one could argue that it's no wonder this is happening since their picture quality is so poor compared to a full size dedicated camera. All one has to do is cherry pick the relevant data.

[SSGGeezer]

DSLR makers understand that their products are not cell phones. The reason why DSLR sales are leveling out is because of a combination of maturing technology and the incursion of mirrorless cameras into their market. People are opting for the convenience of cell phones over DSLRs, but that has a lot to do with carrying one less item. The cell phone represents a great deal of convenience beyond being just able to link directly to facebook.

Note that cell phone sales are also flattening out, so one could argue that it's no wonder this is happening since their picture quality is so poor compared to a full size dedicated camera. All one has to do is cherry pick the relevant data.

And why would I spend 500 dollars more than my camera body for a phone that cannot have the battery replaced and will be unable to hold a charge or be broken on the sidewalk within 4 years? 1300 USD for a new google or iPhone? That still suck for usability when taking pictures. Pass.

[Wheatfield]

And why would I spend 500 dollars more than my camera body for a phone that cannot have the battery replaced and will be unable to hold a charge or be broken on the sidewalk within 4 years? 1300 USD for a new google or iPhone? That still suck for usability when taking pictures. Pass.

I get a lot of use out of my cell phone camera. It's pretty much my yeah I know the quality will suck, but it's a situation where quality doesn't matter much anyway camera. Honestly, I value my phone more for it's ability to pick up internet radio stations than anything else.

[reh321]

And why would I spend 500 dollars more than my camera body for a phone that cannot have the battery replaced and will be unable to hold a charge or be broken on the sidewalk within 4 years? 1300 USD for a new google or iPhone? That still suck for usability when taking pictures. Pass.

I purchased my first electronic flash around 1975, when I was in grad school. It was madesold by Honeywell; the tubes were vertical, the battery was built-in. One night I was awakened by an acrid smell - my flash - which was on the charger - was smoking, and several hours would pass before the unit was cool enough that I felt safe in tossing it into the trash. Every electronic flash I've owned, or even seen, since then has horizontal tubes and replaceable batteries. Modern cell phones universally seem to have built-in batteries ..... but I would refuse to purchase a DSLR that followed the example set by cell phones and had sealed-in non-replaceable batteries, just as I would have refused to purchase a SLR that followed the example set by Instamatics and used flash cubes. Just because something is done for the modern Instamatic-crowd doesn't mean it is a good example for better cameras.

[Lowell Goudge]

Okay, thanks. I mentioned my calculations were very back-of-the-napkin. I am a EE, but it's been a while since I've done any serious EE'ing.

---------- Post added 12-13-18 at 11:08 AM ----------



Sorry, don't mean to be obstinate. But I cringe at this kind of feeling that Pentax is limited in resources and has a customer base that doesn't like bells-and-whistles, so we shouldn't look to them to really innovate.

If the K3-III has better wifi and wireless charging to go along with better high ISO and autofocus and few other key things, yes. I'd very much like to set my camera down at the end of the day and have charging and file transfer be seamless. No, I wouldn't shell out $1300 just for wifi and charging improvements.

+1

Need i remind every one that bells and whistles are ( in the context here things that will add mass, AND people already complain about the weight of DSLRs is the approach of trying to compete with cell phones on all aspects something that will drive the DSLRs further down, because they become too heavy and cumbersome?

The same argument applies to video, and trying to make a still camera also make videos. yes it is technically possible, but again it is better for most applications to simply get a video specific camera, and not use a DSLR.

at some point, i can understand and accept an interchangeable mirrorless camera might displace a mechanical reflex camera, and there have been some great strides towards that end, but we are not there yet, and adding a bunch of rather questionable nice to have features just to emulate a cell phone is simply not worth it