Video killed the Radio Star (digital Camera)

jstevewhite · 07-12-2009, 09:47 PM

Originally posted by nostatic

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.

jstevewhite · 07-12-2009, 09:56 PM

Originally posted by ozlizard

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?

troywhite · 07-12-2009, 10:03 PM

Originally posted by vincentgargano

...this is going to hurt

not from me it won't as I agree with you fully.

ozlizard · 07-12-2009, 10:10 PM

Quote:

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?

LeDave · 07-13-2009, 01:28 AM

Originally posted by troywhite

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.

causey · 07-13-2009, 02:11 AM

Originally posted by pingflood

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.

pingflood · 07-13-2009, 04:14 AM

Originally posted by causey

??? 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

Jasvox · 07-13-2009, 05:55 AM

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

Blue · 07-13-2009, 06:57 AM

Originally posted by nostatic

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.

Blue · 07-13-2009, 06:58 AM

Originally posted by Jasvox

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.

dylansalt · 07-13-2009, 07:33 AM

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

jstevewhite · 07-13-2009, 08:00 AM

Originally posted by ozlizard

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.

jstevewhite · 07-13-2009, 08:06 AM

Originally posted by pingflood

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.

GeneV · 07-13-2009, 08:28 AM

Originally posted by Blue

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.

heliphoto · 07-13-2009, 09:24 AM

This is all I have to say about this thread and it's title...

Quote:

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
...

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

07-12-2009, 09:47 PM	#31
jstevewhite Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Midwest Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,407	Originally posted by nostatic 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
jstevewhite Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Midwest Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,407	Originally posted by ozlizard 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
troywhite Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Canberra, Australia Photos: Gallery Posts: 170	Originally posted by vincentgargano ...this is going to hurt not from me it won't as I agree with you fully.

07-12-2009, 10:10 PM	#34
ozlizard Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Bridgetown West Australia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 903	Quote: 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
LeDave Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Minneapolis - St. Paul Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,067	Originally posted by troywhite 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
causey Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Arlington, VA Photos: Albums Posts: 3,757	Originally posted by pingflood 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
pingflood Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Borås, Sweden Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,169	Originally posted by causey ??? 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
Jasvox Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Melbourne, Australia Posts: 3,107	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
Blue Moderator Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Florida Hill Country Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,377	Originally posted by nostatic 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
Blue Moderator Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Florida Hill Country Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,377	Originally posted by Jasvox 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.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-13-2009, 07:33 AM	#41
dylansalt Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Durban, South Africa Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,052	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
jstevewhite Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Midwest Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,407	Originally posted by ozlizard 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
jstevewhite Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Midwest Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,407	Originally posted by pingflood 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
GeneV Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Albuquerque NM Photos: Albums Posts: 9,830	Originally posted by Blue 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
heliphoto Veteran Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Region 5 Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,539	This is all I have to say about this thread and it's title... Quote: 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 ...