[GUB]

If only they would build a larger K-1 ( and one designed for a munted index finger as well)

Attached Images

View Picture EXIF

File Date

 

[zapp]

It doesn't seem all that many years ago when DSLRs were considered the top of the heap and mirrorless was a less relevant format. Nothing really wrong with it but the DSLR format was often considered superior. Not only that, the variety in brands and options available were so much greater for DSLR product. Possibly this changed due to new technology introduced to camera equipment or possibly it was due to a commercial need. Or, maybe it was a combination of the two.

Today, the majority of manufacturers of camera equipment seem to be firmly on the mirrorless bandwagon. I wonder if commercial realities have anything to do with this. In order to sell new product, you need to have new product. As the DSLR market has been a mature market for several years now and the sales figures for camera manufacturers have taken a nose dive in the recent past due in no small part to the enhanced quality of the cameras in cell phones, it is understandable that manufacturers thought that something new had to be introduced to jump start camera sales. Ergo: mirrorless. These have been a niche product category for years but now this format has the commercial advantage of not only making a new variety of camera readily available and commercially competitive, but you also get all the new mirrorless lens business to accessorize these cameras. It might not be surprising to see a switch back to DSLRs in about 5 to 10 years time, again to create a new product and therefore sell more product.

Turntables and LP records were considered an outdated and obsolete product 10 - 15 years ago but look at how that format has come back onto the marketplace. What was once old is new again.

As a dedicated Pentaxian, I just hope that Ricoh can keep Pentax equipment relevant as a niche product until the pendulum swings back again and DSLR comes back into vogue. Times are tough for all camera manufacturers now, regardless of which format they support. Let's hope that evolution will occur such that this product continues to evolve and succeed. Time will tell.

I like my DSLRs a lot. The technology is outdated as are turntables and LPs. Still fun to use, but hyped and revived for the wrong reasons. Mirrors in cameras are not required. Change the CD compression format and you get the old sound.

[Lord Lucan]

That [living in a VR world] seemed to be Mark Zuckerberg's big idea. How's that working out for him?

Zuckerberg is obsessed with it and has made himself and his VR world avatar laughing stock, while personally losing about $40 billion in a week recently because most of his money is in his own company shares. I think his ultimate idea was that if you blinked at the right (or wrong?) moment, your life savings would automatically be transfered to his own bank account

[reh321]

I like my DSLRs a lot. The technology is outdated as are turntables and LPs. Still fun to use, but hyped and revived for the wrong reasons. Mirrors in cameras are not required. Change the CD compression format and you get the old sound.

I don’t believe that digital encoding can ever produce the “old sound” - nor the “old distortion”. It is physics.

[slartibartfast01]

I don’t believe that digital encoding can ever produce the “old sound” - nor the “old distortion”. It is physics.

Rip your vinyl to a digital file and you have vinyl sound digitally encoded complete with pops and crackles if you like

[reh321]

Rip your vinyl to a digital file and you have vinyl sound digitally encoded complete with pops and crackles if you like

Audiophiles tell me that digital simply cannot match analogue regardless of compression. Discuss that with them if you want to.

[ffking]

What is hard to predict is what will happen as the generations who grew up with SLRs die out. At the moment, that style of object is what we regard as a proper camera - but it doesn't need to be. I think there will always be a place for seeing the real world through the viewfinder - I suspect it will be preferred by people who enjoy the process of image creation and like to feel that the final image is down to them not the camera.s. But it will be a small market sector - serious enthusiast photography always was!

Also, Fuji still dine out on physivcal controls and many people buy Fuji cameras for that reason. Maybe there are things that people simpy prefer once the excitement of shinier and better have quietened down.

[slartibartfast01]

Audiophiles tell me that digital simply cannot match analogue regardless of compression. Discuss that with them if you want to.

Well they would, wouldn't they . Mention blind tests to them and they run a mile....

[reh321]

What is hard to predict is what will happen as the generations who grew up with SLRs die out. At the moment, that style of object is what we regard as a proper camera - but it doesn't need to be. I think there will always be a place for seeing the real world through the viewfinder - I suspect it will be preferred by people who enjoy the process of image creation and like to feel that the final image is down to them not the camera.s. But it will be a small market sector - serious enthusiast photography always was!

Also, Fuji still dine out on physivcal controls and many people buy Fuji cameras for that reason. Maybe there are things that people simpy prefer once the excitement of shinier and better have quietened down.

The final image is and always has been up to me, how I set up the camera and how I set up the photo. The camera always has done what I tell it do.

[mikesbike]

I like my DSLRs a lot. The technology is outdated as are turntables and LPs. Still fun to use, but hyped and revived for the wrong reasons. Mirrors in cameras are not required. Change the CD compression format and you get the old sound.

Well, there's no valid way to compare audio with camera equipment. Phono has nothing at all to do with photo. These are two different worlds. A DSLR VF is just as valid today as it ever was, for the reason of getting accurately close to the visual reality, which is what you are looking at through a good OVF. The new technology in the EVF has its uses and is valid for such uses, but has a long way to go for presenting a guaranteed accurate visualization of the reality being seen through it. And some people do encounter eye strain with prolonged use of it.

---------- Post added 12-04-22 at 05:04 PM ----------

Audiophiles tell me that digital simply cannot match analogue regardless of compression.

They are chasing a myth. It comes from those who use high-level equipment for vinyl, a very high-grade phono cartridge into a high-grade phono section of the preamp, but then they compare that to a less than optimum digital system and maybe a CD mastering not done to best standards. To get the best from both technologies, one has to be using high-quality equipment and optimum setups with both.

When this is done, digital wins hands down. The most obvious aspects it lacks are the distortion-causing mechanical aspects inherent in any vinyl reproducing turntable/phono system, not to mention the pops and clicks. Pre-recored tape is much better, but falls short for background noise, and both fall short for dynamic range, compared to a good digital setup with well-engendered CDs.

I've been a serious music-listener for many decades, and have high-level setups in the above reproducing types. I also know numerous experienced people who concur with my observations. One is Brian Ventura, recently-retired Assistant Principal Oboe of the Detroit Symphony Orchestra. He also played with the Boston Symphony Orchestra, even in a recording with them and Leonard Bernstein. He has known of this superiority in high-level digital equipment for years when set up to show its best potential. In this case, it is the more modern technology that is more accurate in presenting reality.

[Jonathan Mac]

I think the point made of mirrorless having fewer moving parts and being less expensive to make, therefore bringing in greater profits, is indeed true. This whole shift is about making lots of money.

If Pentax decided to eventually come out with a FF mirrorless model about the size and design of the KP, that could take the DFA and FA lenses, I might even decide to put up with the artificial VF (EVF) instead of the real thing in order to use it (maybe). But I do not feel any shortcoming of performance from my equipment, not even AF performance. It operates just fine for my needs.

I have very rarely used it for video, then only short clips. It was fine for that. I have a video cam for more extensive shooting, and sometimes I am using my DSLR to shoot stills while having my video cam running on a tripod.

I remember well the promise of lower price along with smaller size when mirrorless first appeared but the lower price never materialised. I don't think the shift is about "making lots of money" to any greater extent than any other business, it's more about keeping up with the market, which has moved in the direction of video more than anything else. I am dubious about the number of photographers who are interested in video but video capability is a large part of what has been the push to get users to buy new equipment the last few years. I am sure that there has been cost-saving in not needed a mirror box but I think the money saved there has gone into the development of video tools - sensors with faster read-outs, encoding, AF etc, and that's what has eaten up the promised cost saving of losing the mirror box. I don't care about video but there isn't a camera I can buy that does all I want photographically without having video capabilities too. I'd love to save some money by omitting them but that isn't an option.

[Steve Beswick]

I remember well the promise of lower price along with smaller size when mirrorless first appeared but the lower price never materialised. I don't think the shift is about "making lots of money" to any greater extent than any other business, it's more about keeping up with the market, which has moved in the direction of video more than anything else. I am dubious about the number of photographers who are interested in video but video capability is a large part of what has been the push to get users to buy new equipment the last few years. I am sure that there has been cost-saving in not needed a mirror box but I think the money saved there has gone into the development of video tools - sensors with faster read-outs, encoding, AF etc, and that's what has eaten up the promised cost saving of losing the mirror box. I don't care about video but there isn't a camera I can buy that does all I want photographically without having video capabilities too. I'd love to save some money by omitting them but that isn't an option.

The cheapest DSLR on Adroama is $20 less than the cheapest mirrorless camera. The cheapest full frame DSLR is $500 MORE than the cheapest full frame mirrorless camera. Depending on the bracket you are shopping in, the price aspect has been here for a while.

[Rush2112]

It doesn't seem all that many years ago when DSLRs were considered the top of the heap and mirrorless was a less relevant format. Nothing really wrong with it but the DSLR format was often considered superior. Not only that, the variety in brands and options available were so much greater for DSLR product. Possibly this changed due to new technology introduced to camera equipment or possibly it was due to a commercial need. Or, maybe it was a combination of the two.

Today, the majority of manufacturers of camera equipment seem to be firmly on the mirrorless bandwagon. I wonder if commercial realities have anything to do with this. In order to sell new product, you need to have new product. As the DSLR market has been a mature market for several years now and the sales figures for camera manufacturers have taken a nose dive in the recent past due in no small part to the enhanced quality of the cameras in cell phones, it is understandable that manufacturers thought that something new had to be introduced to jump start camera sales. Ergo: mirrorless. These have been a niche product category for years but now this format has the commercial advantage of not only making a new variety of camera readily available and commercially competitive, but you also get all the new mirrorless lens business to accessorize these cameras. It might not be surprising to see a switch back to DSLRs in about 5 to 10 years time, again to create a new product and therefore sell more product.

Turntables and LP records were considered an outdated and obsolete product 10 - 15 years ago but look at how that format has come back onto the marketplace. What was once old is new again.

As a dedicated Pentaxian, I just hope that Ricoh can keep Pentax equipment relevant as a niche product until the pendulum swings back again and DSLR comes back into vogue. Times are tough for all camera manufacturers now, regardless of which format they support. Let's hope that evolution will occur such that this product continues to evolve and succeed. Time will tell.

For the bigger companies and their investors, the money ship sails the high seas.

What I'm excited about, is how much further Pentax will push DSLR development so when the other manufacturers finally decided to sell them again, it will be Pentax in a strong lead. They already have the most advanced DSLR of any brand out right now, so they are ahead by a nose .

K1 Mark III will put them a full body length ahead.

[zapp]

Well, there's no valid way to compare audio with camera equipment. Phono has nothing at all to do with photo. These are two different worlds. A DSLR VF is just as valid today as it ever was, for the reason of getting accurately close to the visual reality, which is what you are looking at through a good OVF. The new technology in the EVF has its uses and is valid for such uses, but has a long way to go for presenting a guaranteed accurate visualization of the reality being seen through it. And some people do encounter eye strain with prolonged use of it.

---------- Post added 12-04-22 at 05:04 PM ----------

Maybe you want to quote the initial post of this thread or have a look why people talk about differen5 digital products at the same time.

[mikesbike]

or have a look why people talk about differen5 digital products at the same time.

I have no idea. I just wanted to make clear these two subjects are unrelated, and hopefully put that other matter to rest so the thread did not go an entirely different direction. In the case of cameras, there is still much to be considered in favor of the traditional technology when it comes to a VF. From what I have seen, I believe Pentax right now has the finest FF DSLR on the market for image quality, build, and features for general imaging.

When it comes to the top-level equipment, mostly FF, I received a pre-holiday brochure from B&H featuring every major brand except Pentax. All except for a very small picture of the Nikon D850, were mirrorless models. From what I gather, there will be no more new lenses for DSLR use by Nikon. And the prices for these top-level FF mirrorless models and lenses were really up there. Nor, from what I saw, were the camera and lens combos especially compact or lightweight for the format and resolving power of the model.