[sbh]

These new iPhone Pro 12 models seem to attack especially the photography (and video) market - also concerning low light. Does anybody know the sensor sizes (mm) used? The Pro 12 Max has 3 build in lenses, one "equivalent" FL 65mm (standard model 52mm) "tele lens" with optical zoom. The more I read the specs and advertisement the more I'm confused about this marketing language!

Addition: found an article at peta pixel that states 1.7 µ sized pixels. Since it's a 12MP sensor at I guess 4:3 ratio I should be able to compute the sensor size by myself - and from that point I get the angles of view for the supported focal lengths.

Next Step: If I'm right the sensor is ~ 6.8 x 5.1 mm. We can compare this with Pentax Q-S1, 1/1.7" sensor, 7.6 x 5.7 mm at 4000 x 3000 pixels. We never discussed the Q-S1 could substitute the K-1, did we? - Fun to read this article concerning DOF if you are an APS-C and FF camera shooter.

What I found interesting in that announcement is their new Apple RAW format which includes both the original pixel data and the processing information from their AI (or however you may call it). It basically includes all the processing information how to achieve the end result as Apple thinks to be a good result. I think any other camera with a processor could do that kind of stuff as well, or not?

[reh321]

I had a conversation with a friend yesterday about what I'm doing with photography, a friend who used to be a pretty good film photographer (a musician himself, did close up band/concert stuff), and left all that to do entreprenurial computer stuff.

It's something I've been thinking about, which began with concerns about what I considered over-doing post-processing. That led me to thinking about the role of post-processing / editing, in digital photography. I generally shoot both raw and jpeg, using the jpeg's basically as high-resolution thumbnails - I use them with Windows photo viewer software to make a first pass on which files to throw away. So all "real pictures" are in raw format.

I came to the conclusion that what I used to do with film now requires two stages, because the photograph isn't really taken until I adjust whatever parameters are required to compose the scene in post-processing. Half of what happens with film now happens in post-processing.

All of what I did with slide film happens now as the camera produces "JPG" files.
People do in LightRoom what they formerly did in their DarkRoom with negatives.

[k1man]

Hi guy's, I am really happy with my K1 but would also like to see a really nice new FF body [ just because I am a bit greedy] haha, I honestly don't have a clue as to what the difference is between mirrorless and my K1 except that it is a bit lighter and smaller, any how soon Pentax will hopefully bring out something that will stun the photographic world again as they did with the K1, regards Ian

[mikesbike]

All of what I did with slide film happens now as the camera produces "JPG" files.
People do in LightRoom what they formerly did in their DarkRoom with negatives.

Good analogy! Upon the advice of an experienced friend, (he also showed me the basics of how to use my new Vivitar SLR with one screw-on 50mm lens) I began by shooting only slides, and did so for a number of years. Easier to store, and less expensive for processing, without making prints. But boy oh boy, you did not get good exposures if being even slightly off due to whatever reason. I'm sure he also knew this would be good training for me. Back then there was no such thing as autofocus or autoexposure of any kind. What is now called the "manual mode" was the only mode. Learning what conditions will fool the meter and how to deal with that was an ongoing trial and error process. But I learned, had fun and loved it. Ever since, I've been glad for having gone that route.

Todays cameras are a marvel! And the ability DSLRs afford the photographer now in controlling what comes out of them is amazing!

---------- Post added 10-17-20 at 08:36 PM ----------

I think the DSLR will be going away as the film-photography generation dies out. That stupid mirrorless crap is here to stay and all the kids (people under 40) think it's normal.

Well, I certainly have been noticing for quite some time, the trend- especially among younger people, of less concern over quality, and more gravitation towards convenience. If its "good enough" but handy, that's the way to go. There can come a time for a fraction of such people, however, where they get tired of substandard results, realizing they could get better results with the right equipment.

[acoufap]

What I found interesting in that announcement is their new Apple RAW format which includes both the original pixel data and the processing information from their AI (or however you may call it). It basically includes all the processing information how to achieve the end result as Apple thinks to be a good result. I think any other camera with a processor could do that kind of stuff as well, or not?

Usually processing information is related to implemented processing functions, i.e. concrete software. Since there's no standard for such implementations there's a dependency to Apple algorithms.

I have an old Canon PowerShot G10 and in the beginning I used the Canon raw converter Canon Digital Photo Professional to convert the CR2 files. If I remember right, the processing information was written into the CR2 files. I guess the same is possible for Adobe created DNG files. This processing information yields to designated results if you use the original manufacturer Raw converter.

The AI (Artificial Intelligence) thing in my opinion is widely discovered for marketing purpose. There may analytical algorithms be used - that's not really AI specific! One important property of real AI systems is that they learn by themselves. How would this be mapped into raw files? ... I won't go further here but like to say.

So what we have is a very proprietary raw format for a camera with a ~1/1.7" sensor and 3 lenses. The longest equivalent 52/65mm called tele that in reality is more a normal lens, plus a very cluttered description of optical zoom options, even the real focal lengths of the three lenses are not mentioned (have a look into the technical details). Apple is a selling artist ... and I like their computer gear. ;-)

To answer your closing question, yes - every digital camera could do such with the appropriate processor(s) and firmware / software. Digital cameras are computers with an integrated and/or attachable optical system

Sorry for this sober analysis and getting off topic.

[sbh]

...The AI (Artificial Intelligence) thing ...

Yea, AI is probably over-uses for stuff that actually isn't artificial intelligence, but that's off topic.

How I understood the RAW format, it can be adopted by any editor as Apple makes the necessary info available. However, I assume it will be work for the developers to implement it and I'm not sure who is willing to do that extra work. Similar to pixelshift. My thought is that Pentax could also continue developing their software in that direction. As a non engineer I don't know what is possible these days. Perhaps something like dividing a long exposure for astro in shorter individual exposures and computing a cleaner end result?

[Serkevan]

Well, I certainly have been noticing for quite some time, the trend- especially among younger people, of less concern over quality, and more gravitation towards convenience. If its "good enough" but handy, that's the way to go. There can come a time for a fraction of such people, however, where they get tired of substandard results, realizing they could get better results with the right equipment.

The trend for convenience is more or less homogeneous across ages, I'd say. Point in case, *every* film camera I've come across (and I truly mean every single one, some dozens of them) in the last two years has been in the hands of people around my age or younger.
My parents have zero intention of using a DSLR, because it's a hassle and heavy. The "older people concerned with quality" are, I'd wager, the ones who were already serious about photography back then. The vast majority of people got older and dumped their 35mm point and shoots for a compact camera first and a phone later.

There's also the thing where young people nowadays have less purchasing power which can very easily price them out of the hobby. Several friends who expressed interest about photography explicitly said "I'd like to, but I cannot really afford it".

The only reason *I* do is because I'm ridiculously spartan in my personal expenses, and I have no dependents. Put a child or an unemployed partner in the equation and any photo purchase would be out of the table, period.

---

Last edited by Serkevan; 10-18-2020 at 03:39 AM.

[Pål Jensen]

Most photographers want what they see in front of their lens transferred as truthfully as possible to the sensor. I believe all camera manufacturers want this to happen and works towards that goal.
I'm sure that excessive postprocessing is keeping lots of people away from the hobby......

[Serkevan]

Most photographers want what they see in front of their lens transferred as truthfully as possible to the sensor. I believe all camera manufacturers want this to happen and works towards that goal.
I'm sure that excessive postprocessing is keeping lots of people away from the hobby......

That is certainly true. I had a conversation just yesterday with one of my friends who said that he would like to take better pictures while traveling, but he is not really willing to put in the effort to learn postprocessing for a couple-times-a-year thing. And, if he doesn't learn PP, he won't be getting much better results than a decent phone, because JPGs in camera aren't showing off what a DSLR can do.

[reh321]

That is certainly true. I had a conversation just yesterday with one of my friends who said that he would like to take better pictures while traveling, but he is not really willing to put in the effort to learn postprocessing for a couple-times-a-year thing. And, if he doesn't learn PP, he won't be getting much better results than a decent phone, because JPGs in camera aren't showing off what a DSLR can do.

That highly depends on “what DSLR can do”. I use only ‘raw’ files to correct when I miss exposure badly, but my iPhone does not have the flexibility that my Pentax cameras do, for me to easily and quickly control shutter speed, aperture, and focal length.

[Serkevan]

That highly depends on “what DSLR can do”. I use only ‘raw’ files to correct when I miss exposure badly, but my iPhone does not have the flexibility that my Pentax cameras do, for me to easily and quickly control shutter speed, aperture, and focal length.

My point is that the built-in postprocessing and frame stacking tech on phones nowadays makes phones (at least those with a focus on camera arrays) give DSLRs with kit lenses a good run for their money in terms of SOOC JPG photos taken in full auto mode. The improved ergonomics of a dedicated camera and the higher exposure flexibility are not being utilized there. If you are okay with the burden of knowledge to know what goes into a good photo, a camera will always be a better option, of course, but it requires learning. If one isn't willing to put in time and effort to learn photography, a DSLR isn't better than a phone.

We are talking about people who want to take pretty photos while traveling - which means wide-to-normal FOV has you covered most of the time. A 300€ Xiaomi phone today has lenses with the FOV of FF 13mm, 25mm and 50mm lenses (plus a macro). Of course a phone isn't going to take bird photos unless the bird is somehow patiently posing in front of the photographer, but most people aren't interested in that.

[Lord Lucan]

I note with interest that so far not one poster has mentioned:

• The global pandemic and enormous job losses
• The uncertainty people fell who still do have jobs/work(I think I may have just lost a $14K+ contract through June, for instance)
• Thus from the above the need to save money
• The impact the pandemic has had on global supply chains
• The impact it has had on travel (maybe not such a hot need for a camera right now...)
• The continuing rapid ageing of a key demographic that bought a lot of cameras over the years.

Gosh! I wonder if any of this might have something to do with flat sales this year????? And the release of oodles of new gear????

This thread has drifted into the same discussion by largely the same people (including me) that has been going on for months now, across a dozen different threads under various titles (eg Is there a Pentax camera shortage due to the pandemic? - PentaxForums.com ). I think these points are taken as read by now.

[clackers]

All their sales numbers are going down but Canon, Nikon and Sony sales numbers are still high enough to be listed under brand name and not in the "other" category.

Yes my EF bodies are dinosaurs now and that's why I plan on picking up a R5 maybe but definitely a R1 when that comes out next year to replace my 5dsr and 1DX2, but all my EF glass will still work with the new mirrorless bodies.

Canon has had a number of people waiting to switch to mirrorless once they got the right bodies out and the R5 and R6 seem to be what they were waiting for. Canons sales numbers will probably bounce up this year if they can make them fast enough. The R5 is sold out everywhere in the US now with people being told maybe middle of November for some people who pre ordered in the summer from B&H.

They won't bounce up, KHP, the Canon CEO contradicts you, and I believe him. It's been a disaster, and they've concluded (like Ricoh) that they would rather sell gadgets to corporations than cameras to consumers.

Canon CEO expects ILC market to shrink 50% by 2020 to just 5-6M units: Digital Photography Review

[mikesbike]

If one isn't willing to put in time and effort to learn photography, a DSLR isn't better than a phone.

True to a point, although many who have come up short using phones for this and other endeavors might take an interest in turning to better equipment and learning. This has been true since the days of the brownie camera with its fixed aperture- just be XX feet away or more from your subject and snap. Even just using fully automatic exposure and AF (and maybe a "scene" mode), a good ILC can be a solution for people who with phones can easily run into limitations, even for soccer moms and dads. But certainly, I do not expect beginners to be interested in a $2,000 + FF DSLR!

The technology advancement has indeed slowed in terms of meaningful results. The K-3 II was introduced some 5-1/2 years ago, and only now is its replacement coming, although knocking off 6 months credit for the pandemic's effect on production. I figure Pentax FF models will be yet slower in new development, although it will likely eventually come, as signified by the new FF lenses forthcoming. Nikon and Canon FF models have slowed in R&D as well. The K-1 II was introduced some 2-1/2 years back. Recent, it seems, for a FF DSLR. Still very highly rated, it looks like it will hang in there for at least 3 years longer. And why not? At its price point, and for what it is, it is more than competitive. It is a bargain. I agree, the APS-C K-new might point the way as to what the next FF model will be like.

[cometguy]

True to a point, although many who have come up short using phones for this and other endeavors might take an interest in turning to better equipment and learning. This has been true since the days of the brownie camera with its fixed aperture- just be XX feet away or more from your subject and snap. Even just using fully automatic exposure and AF (and maybe a "scene" mode), a good ILC can be a solution for people who with phones can easily run into limitations, even for soccer moms and dads. But certainly, I do not expect beginners to be interested in a $2,000 + FF DSLR!

The technology advancement has indeed slowed in terms of meaningful results. The K-3 II was introduced some 5-1/2 years ago, and only now is its replacement coming, although knocking off 6 months credit for the pandemic's effect on production. I figure Pentax FF models will be yet slower in new development, although it will likely eventually come, as signified by the new FF lenses forthcoming. Nikon and Canon FF models have slowed in R&D as well. The K-1 II was introduced some 2-1/2 years back. Recent, it seems, for a FF DSLR. Still very highly rated, it looks like it will hang in there for at least 3 years longer. And why not? At its price point, and for what it is, it is more than competitive. It is a bargain. I agree, the APS-C K-new might point the way as to what the next FF model will be like.

I think that this could come full-circle, as you say in your first sentence: Many more people are doing photography today because of their smartphone cameras than were doing photography 15 years ago, and many more people are taking lots more photos than they were 15 years ago, because of good smartphone cameras that have improved in their capabilities. With so many millions of people taking more photos today with smartphones than they were taking 15 years ago, there's a good chance that a small percentage of the younger people will continue to want to move up to better cameras (whether DSLR or mirrorless) in the coming years. Ironically, smartphones could keep some camera companies in business if even a small percentage of these mirrorless-smartphone photographers decide to try DSLRs. And some of these will get interested enough to buy FF cameras after getting into interchangeable-lens cameras, as time goes by.

As for what Pentax could do in a new FF camera, I think that there are really two key obvious ways to improve: more pixels (i.e., smaller pixels) and better buffering speeds. As explained in one analysis, it would take a 156-Mpx sensor to equal the resolution of the best film in a 35-mm camera (I STILL SHOOT FILM - The Real Resolution of Film vs. Digital). But more pixels means you need faster processors and better buffering. It's hard to imagine any two things that would be more important to improve upon in any FF camera such as the K-1 II (which already is a fabulous camera). (Yes, you could say "improve the video capabilities", but I argue that the video in current Pentax cameras is plenty fine for shooting YouTube videos and pretty much anything most people would want to do; if you want more than Pentax can do with video, buy a dedicated Sony video camera.)