Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
07-12-2009, 09:47 PM   #31
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Midwest
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,407
QuoteOriginally posted by nostatic Quote
Higher MP count in an APS-C sensor? Why would you want that?
One might ask the same thing about full frame, eh? I mean, we were told that the FF systems were going to be inherently better because of the lower pixel density, but now these 22MB monsters are hitting similar pixel density to APS-C. Now they're better because they have more dots. Do you think they'll stop there? I don't. And they'll still say that FF is better, because they said so.

07-12-2009, 09:56 PM   #32
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Midwest
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,407
QuoteOriginally posted by ozlizard Quote
If Pentax want to match it with the big guys (and I hope they do) then they need to produce a 20+ megapixel FF camera aimed at the serious photographer and professional. I understand the market pressures to include all the bells and whistles (or gimmicks for the more cynical) but please foreget the video, move on from the K7 and give us a camera to match the best!
Ah, Canon/Nikon marketing strikes again! If Pentax made a full frame sensor, it wouldn't make ANY DIFFERENCE in Pentax's market share. None. The LX was every bit the camera the F1 was, but Canon sold about a gozillion F1s while Pentax remained low in the pack. I know - I wanted an LX really bad, but F1s were so much easier to come by. If it hadn't been for the ubiquitous K1000, Pentax would have been dead last. Not because of the quality of their product. Guess what - all those cameras were FULL FRAME... It was because Canon and Nikon out-marketed them, and they're doing it still.

There's less difference between the full frame sensor's performance and the APS-C sensor's performance than there was between different types of film. There's *certainly* not as much difference between APS-C and FF as there was between 35mm and medium format. And I promise if we go through pixel-peeper.com and pull images from FF and APS-C, print 'em at 11x17 (a full cover bleed for a glossy magazine), you won't be able to tell the difference if I don't tell you which is which. If Pentax fielded the D645 it could deliver both higher pixel count and lower noise, with better dynamic range thrown in just for fun; do you think Canon and Nikon shooters would switch in droves because it produced better images?
07-12-2009, 10:03 PM   #33
Senior Member
troywhite's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Canberra, Australia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 171
QuoteOriginally posted by vincentgargano Quote
...this is going to hurt
not from me it won't as I agree with you fully.
07-12-2009, 10:10 PM   #34
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Bridgetown West Australia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 879
QuoteQuote:
If Pentax made a full frame sensor, it wouldn't make ANY DIFFERENCE in Pentax's market share
I disagree. If money had not been a problem I would have probably purchsed a Canon 5d II. However if Pentax had something comparable (which would probably also be cheaper) I would have definately gone with Pentax. Professionasl choose the Canon because it is the best in it's class but give them a choice and who knows?

07-13-2009, 01:28 AM   #35
Pentaxian
LeDave's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Minneapolis - St. Paul
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,904
QuoteOriginally posted by troywhite Quote
not from me it won't as I agree with you fully.
Same, been agreeing. I guess people just want more to their DSLR than just a camera. But what more could you want when you already have what the main thing the DSLR does and that is the reason why you bought it, taking pictures. I think it'd be better for Pentax to go against the bad boys big cameras, rather than spending all that waste in creating a video recording camera.
07-13-2009, 02:11 AM   #36
Veteran Member
causey's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Arlington, VA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,758
QuoteOriginally posted by pingflood Quote
The only people who should feel threatened by technology advances like these are the ones who rely too much on technology in the first place.
??? I don't get the idea. First, how would someone who, say, relies too much on technology in taking photos be affected by his/her dslr's video capabilities? Second, why would someone who relies a lot on technology be afraid of technological advances? It certainly doesn't sound right.

Video in the dslr might make sense for some consumers--as far as I'm concerned, it detracts from the effort of increasing the photo capabilities of the future cameras, while adding to the cost of the final product.
07-13-2009, 04:14 AM   #37
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Borås, Sweden
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,165
QuoteOriginally posted by causey Quote
??? I don't get the idea. First, how would someone who, say, relies too much on technology in taking photos be affected by his/her dslr's video capabilities? Second, why would someone who relies a lot on technology be afraid of technological advances? It certainly doesn't sound right.

Video in the dslr might make sense for some consumers--as far as I'm concerned, it detracts from the effort of increasing the photo capabilities of the future cameras, while adding to the cost of the final product.
The point I am making is that people who go on rants about how things like this will "kill" photography or something along those lines, are the people who expect that the equipment is what is key to producing the results. In some areas, YES, equipment is of great importance but when it comes to photography as an art form, it isn't quite as relevant.

And the people who rely on technology fear that
a) It'll get so cheap to "compete" that anyone can do it
b) They won't be able to afford the latest and greatest so they can remain competitive
07-13-2009, 05:55 AM   #38
Veteran Member
Jasvox's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 3,110
As I recall...the K20D and the K-7 both were released with the same retail price in the USA of $1299...the K-7 has many more bells and whistles (including video) as well as more pure photography related features...both are capable of producing wonderful photographs. Why complain about bell and whistles if they are useful to many and don't cause the price to skyrocket?

Jason

07-13-2009, 06:57 AM   #39
Moderator
Site Supporter
Blue's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Florida Hill Country
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 17,212
QuoteOriginally posted by nostatic Quote
I agree, but it is a question of scale. Go back 30 years and count the number of people who would do their own prints and dodge/burn. Now fast forward to today and count the number of people who shoot digital and click the "red eye" button or "auto expose" button in a photo program. I would guess a couple orders of magnitude change in numbers.
30 years ago, you would have been lucky to find someone who knew what dodge and burn was.
07-13-2009, 06:58 AM   #40
Moderator
Site Supporter
Blue's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Florida Hill Country
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 17,212
QuoteOriginally posted by Jasvox Quote
As I recall...the K20D and the K-7 both were released with the same retail price in the USA of $1299...the K-7 has many more bells and whistles (including video) as well as more pure photography related features...both are capable of producing wonderful photographs. Why complain about bell and whistles if they are useful to many and don't cause the price to skyrocket?

Jason
I just checked. My K20d still works! I may keep using it until the K9 comes out.
07-13-2009, 07:33 AM   #41
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Durban, South Africa
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,051
30 years ago there was a huge difference between a consumer instamatic(Kodak) 35mm and a decent slr re: resolution,sharpness, creative, interchangeble lenses etc

I started 28 yrs ago and unfortunately was never able to get my own darkroom together and did depend on pro photolabs.

A consumer digicam today can produce results today - with ease - that would have been nigh impossible many years ago.

My son uses my Oly 5060 which is possibly worth $59 and has quite a following with his art/goth model shots and the lens on it is incredibly sharp (as good as any Ltd lens). His pp is quite outrageous (I dont get it) but his friends like it.

We have become obsessed with pixel peeping, gear tech, research and spending hours and hours sifting through pics and pp'ng - this just never "was" 28 years ago.

Today we could have an uber $ 4000 dslr take what we think is an incredible pic and have an instant re-awakening moment when the person (we are showing the pic too) chooses a p&s pic over the one we have taken.

Is Video in DSLR a market driven consumer request - no - its a marketing plan - to purely increase sales (as is the "my camera has more MP than yours" so gives better pics)

My daughter has used Canon p&s (all with video) for years - how many videos taken - er - 3

As for my son - the Oly took very good Avi - I took one short clip - he none.

Yes technology advancement is part of life today and unless we are prepared to get off the "grid" we will just have to accept and go with the flow.

Dyl
07-13-2009, 08:00 AM   #42
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Midwest
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,407
QuoteOriginally posted by ozlizard Quote
I disagree. If money had not been a problem I would have probably purchsed a Canon 5d II. However if Pentax had something comparable (which would probably also be cheaper) I would have definately gone with Pentax. Professionasl choose the Canon because it is the best in it's class but give them a choice and who knows?
Pentax made full frame 35mm cameras that were comparable with the "best in class" - and sometimes superior - but couldn't make inroads against the Canon and Nikon marketing. I'm not bashing C&N - I was a Canon shooter back then (80s). I liked the images I got with my wife's ME Super and the Pentax primes I had bought her ( bought for her initially because of how compact they were ) better than most from my Canon F1, but the ME wasn't ready for the kind of abuse I gave my F1s, and I couldn't find an LX used. It wasn't because the F1 was inherently superior. It was because Canon and Nikon had much better marketing than Pentax. The LX was a beautiful machine, and made images just as good - and better, if you like the Pentax palette better, as I did - but you couldn't *find* 'em, and they cost as much as the F1 (appropriately).

Pro shooters would tell me they wouldn't consider Pentax/Olympus/Minolta because they didn't have the lens lineups that Canon/Nikon had, or the 6fps motor drives, or the ... insert thing here. Most of the time, those same pros used third party telephotos (after complaining because Pentax 300 2.8 cost more than the Canon one), or left their motor drive in "single advance", or... you get the idea. Marketing, not reality.
07-13-2009, 08:06 AM   #43
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Midwest
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,407
QuoteOriginally posted by pingflood Quote
The point I am making is that people who go on rants about how things like this will "kill" photography or something along those lines, are the people who expect that the equipment is what is key to producing the results. In some areas, YES, equipment is of great importance but when it comes to photography as an art form, it isn't quite as relevant.

And the people who rely on technology fear that
a) It'll get so cheap to "compete" that anyone can do it
b) They won't be able to afford the latest and greatest so they can remain competitive
Absolutely. Too many people lose sight of what you're pointing out here. Equipment != art. Technique != art. If you give people a camera that exposes perfectly every time, they'll still make mostly poor images. A good photographer is someone who, given the same equipment, consistently produces better than average images. That constant will always remain, IMO, even when we have high-resolution zoom cameras built in to our retinas.
07-13-2009, 08:28 AM   #44
Site Supporter
GeneV's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Albuquerque NM
Photos: Albums
Posts: 9,775
QuoteOriginally posted by Blue Quote
30 years ago, you would have been lucky to find someone who knew what dodge and burn was.
It was something I enjoyed almost as much as taking photos. My current home is my first home built without a darkroom. I am all for the technology that let me do what I used to do without chemicals, air filters and lots of water (precious in these parts).

OTOH, Video--meh, I wouldn't intentionally pay more for it. Yeah, it's nice to have a screwdriver that you can use as a crowbar, and sometimes that is all you have, but I'd rather use a tool that is really made for the job.
07-13-2009, 09:24 AM   #45
Veteran Member
heliphoto's Avatar

Join Date: May 2008
Location: Region 5
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,540
This is all I have to say about this thread and it's title...
QuoteQuote:
I read it on the wireless back in may or june
K-7's coming out vid-e-o it will do
lying awake intent on shooting a clip or two
the technology's young it dosen't stop it being cool

Oh-a oh
...
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!
art, camera, dirt, dont, dslr, future, people, photographer, photography, video, videographer
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Video but not the K-7. Looking for advice on a video camera Peter Zack Photographic Industry and Professionals 12 09-11-2009 05:24 PM
My Camera Waves Internet Radio Interview Part 3 benjikan Photographic Technique 0 08-01-2009 03:44 PM
My Camera Waves Internet Radio Interview Part 2 benjikan Photographic Technique 0 07-31-2009 04:49 PM
Digital Filters in Pentax Digital Camera Utility 4? lawsonstone Digital Processing, Software, and Printing 0 07-19-2009 04:44 PM
The PENTAX Digital SLR Camera K10D's Video Output Format Timon@pentaxforums Pentax DSLR Discussion 21 09-20-2006 08:44 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:02 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.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