[mee]

I've come to the conclusion these arguments go no where. One person has an opinion, the other party just wants to be a contrarian and dismiss your view at all costs. The person then doubles down to establish they have validity in their opinion. Back forth back forth. In the end, no ones mind was changed, we just wasted time.


Even if you do change the other person's mind.. so what? We're talking about matters with no weight on anyone's actual life.

[Rondec]

I've come to the conclusion these arguments go no where. One person has an opinion, the other party just wants to be a contrarian and dismiss your view at all costs. The person then doubles down to establish they have validity in their opinion. Back forth back forth. In the end, no ones mind was changed, we just wasted time.


Even if you do change the other person's mind.. so what? We're talking about matters with no weight on anyone's actual life.

I think you've just described the internet.

But it must be worth something -- Ultron got so smart by reading it.

[mee]

I think you've just described the internet.

But it must be worth something -- Ultron got so smart by reading it.

Perhaps so.. definitely discussion forums it seems. But it makes sense as we all have different personalities, different experiences, and a different idea of purpose in these things. So people clash naturally.

I just think now maybe it's not worth it so much to keep some of these back and forths alive.. I've even had times when people have railed against me, telling me show proof of your opinion, I show proof off of 3 different links to three different sources. They skip the proof and nitpick something else.. it is just not worth it.

I'm not sure who Ultron is but I'm glad someone got something out of the argumentative internets.

[Dan Rentea]

Dan, why are you insisting so much in using an offensive term regarding Pentax? Why is it so important for you to call Pentax products "crippled", a derogatory term? This is nothing more than flaming, please stop it, it's so unsightly.

I don't use any offensive term regarding Pentax. If you're offended by a term used all over this forum (this thread included) to describe some limitations of a camera, no matter the reason behind it (reducing production costs, being protective with investments, etc.) then as I said, it's your problem, not mine.

You're also doing a series of subjective and completely unfounded assumptions (while challenging facts); "they don't want to", "they don't have". How on Earth could you possibly know? Well, of course you don't; you're just attacking Pentax. Why?

How on earth can you prove the contrary? I made assumptions based on the week spots of K1, you make assumptions based on what someone inside company say. Simple as that.

And you're attacking even the price point, which - again, a fact - was one of the correct decisions they've made for the K-1?

You imagine things as usual. I said on various occasions that K1 is probably the best full frame camera for its price point.

In the first place, you should be more honest with yourself, and ask why do you feel such a strong urge to defend Canon, here, by attacking Pentax. Only then you should talk about Mr. Takashi Arai's supposed dishonesty.
Or about the idea that I'm trying "to sell" you something, when it's you with the "Pentax is crippled!" all over.

I'm being honest and my honesty seems to disturb you, at least this is the impression you want to make here, on this forum. If by defending Canon you reffer to my affirmations like:
- "if image quality were the most important thing for me, then I wouldn't choose 7D Mark II over K-3 II because K-3 II has a lot better image quality than 7D Mark II"
- "K1 it's not in the same league as 6D"
- "6D Mark II is crippled"
- "I wouldn't choose a 5D Mark III over K1 because 5D Mark III has the old sensor"
- "K1 is probably the best landscape camera and probably the best full frame camera under 2000$"
- etc.

then my early conclusion is that you're just hunting me on every thread just because you like this kind of subjects. I shoot with a lot of cameras during my trips, from Fuji to Sony, Nikon, Pentax and Canon, and I value more than you K1 (even it's hard for you to understand this), especially for its price. You like your K1 because you bought it and that's it. I value K1 because I compared it in real shooting conditions with quite a few cameras. There is a difference here between us if you think about it. My complains regarding Pentax are more towards the slow developing of the system which make photographers to have doubts regarding investing in Pentax and I honestly don't blame them.

It's not my problem if you find the term cripple offensive. As you can see for yourself (there's a search button at your disposal), this term is used to describe some limitations of the camera. If those limitations were done on purpose or not, we don't know and that's why we make assumptions on a forum. Mr. Takashi Arai or anyone else from the company can't convince me of anything with his responses to some interview questions. It's called PR - the ablity to say anything using the right words.

[Kunzite]

I don't use any offensive term regarding Pentax. If you're offended by a term used all over this forum (this thread included) to describe some limitations of a camera, no matter the reason behind it (reducing production costs, being protective with investments, etc.) then as I said, it's your problem, not mine.

"Crippled". You should take some time and google it; you'd find out it's a derogatory term - not something to be used e.g. for a mere choice of storage media.

How on earth can you prove the contrary? I made assumptions based on the week spots of K1, you make assumptions based on what someone inside company say. Simple as that.

I don't have to prove the contrary; you must prove your claims.
Besides, let me quote your response from a while back:

All of your affirmations are assumptions. They couldn't do this, they couldn't do that because of the developing time... They could have done a lot of things, but they wanted to offer a very good camera in the aspects which count most for Pentax users (landscape mostly) and maintain a low price. Because with better af, USB 3.0, better video the camera would have cost 3.000 $ and it wouldn't stand a chance in the market. And not because it wouldn't have been competitive, but because the system is not mature and the lack of modern lenses and also the lack of a proper flash system would have had a negative impact on photographers if K1 would have been released with the above features, at 3.000$.

You're suffering from an acute case of double standards.
By the way, my "assumptions" were based on known facts and information from the camera maker. Yours...

I'm being honest and my honesty seems to disturb you, at least this is the impression you want to make here, on this forum. If by defending Canon you reffer to my affirmations like:
- "if image quality were the most important thing for me, then I wouldn't choose 7D Mark II over K-3 II because K-3 II has a lot better image quality than 7D Mark II"
- "K1 it's not in the same league as 6D"
- "6D Mark II is crippled"
- "I wouldn't choose a 5D Mark III over K1 because 5D Mark III has the old sensor"
- "K1 is probably the best landscape camera and probably the best full frame camera under 2000$"
- etc.

That's interesting, as it never was about those claims... but about repeatedly calling an amazing product "crippled", in response to someone saying the same about the 6D Mark II. So you're speaking about being honest while writing untruths...

Your conclusion should be that I reacted to you going on an offense regarding the K-1, a camera I own.

[Dan Rentea]

"Crippled". You should take some time and google it; you'd find out it's a derogatory term - not something to be used e.g. for a mere choice of storage media.

Video, storage media, tracking capabilities... They cut some features from the camera in order to maintain the low price. Canon cripple their cameras but not to maintain the low price but to protect other products. It's the same thing.

I don't have to prove the contrary; you must prove your claims.
Besides, let me quote your response from a while back:

You're suffering from an acute case of double standards.
By the way, my "assumptions" were based on known facts and information from the camera maker. Yours...

What do I have to prove? My assumptions are made based on the week spots of K1. If these week spots were solved, then K1 would probably cost 3000$. It's simple logic...

That's interesting, as it never was about those claims... but about repeatedly calling an amazing product "crippled", in response to someone saying the same about the 6D Mark II. So you're speaking about being honest while writing untruths...

Your conclusion should be that I reacted to you going on an offense regarding the K-1, a camera I own.

Crippled are also other amazing cameras like 5D Mark IV and 1Dx Mark II because of the video codec used, just to give you another example. So stop pretending you're insulted by a term used all over the internet. You just like to pose as a victim hoping that others will come and support you.

[Kunzite]

Dan, if English is too difficult for you, the Romanian term for cripple is "infirm". Something can't be "crippled" if it isn't broken.

Your assumption was that Ricoh Imaging "don't want to". I clearly wrote that... why won't you read? You're claiming with confidence: "They could have done a lot of things". That's BS; they could have done only what was possible for them, and they would have done only what makes sense.
Speaking of which, switching from SD to CF (or even XQD) doesn't make sense. Raising the product price by at least 50% and postpone the product didn't make sense either. All their choices for the K-1 were correct ones.

Oh, so I look like a victim in your eyes?
You know, this discussion would've been over immediately, if only you'd admit "crippled" is a mistake, and go for another word. I don't remember ever seeing you admitting a mistake.
Too bad, because otherwise you're a nice guy.

[Dan Rentea]

Dan, if English is too difficult for you, the Romanian term for cripple is "infirm". Something can't be "crippled" if it isn't broken.

Your assumption was that Ricoh Imaging "don't want to". I clearly wrote that... why won't you read? You're claiming with confidence: "They could have done a lot of things". That's BS; they could have done only what was possible for them, and they would have done only what makes sense.
Speaking of which, switching from SD to CF (or even XQD) doesn't make sense.

Oh, so I look like a victim in your eyes?
You know, this discussion would've been over immediately, if only you'd admit "crippled" is a mistake, and go for another word. I don't remember ever seeing you admitting a mistake.
Too bad, because otherwise you're a nice guy.

There is no mistake from my behalf as far as I'm concerned when I use the term "cripple" which is used all over the internet to describe the limitations of a camera, any camera, not just Pentax cameras. I understood my so called "mistake" regarding the term "cheating in photography" which is an expresion that was not familiar to photographers from other countries and I appologised for missunderstanding and I also deleted those comments, but this is not the case because it's a term used and known by almost everybody.

What makes you so sure that they "could have done what was possible for them..."? How do you know what's possible or not for them? Reduced price of K1 giving the limitations of the camera is more close to reality than your assumsions of what was posible for Ricoh regarding the developing of K1.

When you say "...only what was possible for them..." is like saying "Hey, I'm the Pentax's lawyer, I studied al the documents and facts and I know for sure that Pentax has done with K1 only what was possible to them." Guess what, you know 0 (zero) things from inside and you make assumptions just like me, only that my assumptions regarding the price of K1 are more close to reality, like it or not.

[redpit]

Video, storage media, tracking capabilities... They cut some features from the camera in order to maintain the low price. Canon cripple their cameras but not to maintain the low price but to protect other products. It's the same thing.

I have told you three times but you don't seem to read different opinions. Read and think what I'm talking about and you can understand my point.
Pentax doesn't have any better AF module than that of the K-1!!! How many times do I have to write it? If the K-3 for example had a better AF module that they didn't use on K-1 I would agree with you in the crippled camera thing (or intentionally degraded - that is what I'm talking about). If you know that Pentax had a better AF module in their hands (or at their labs) at the time of development of the K-1 then you have a point. But these are not just assumptions (or marketing talking like my points you say they are) these things are science fiction. The low price comes from their marketing policy (I believe that the K-1 would easily cost $500-1000 if it wear the canonikon mark on it and still would be a bargain) - the fact that they knew very well those weak points in comparison with the competition and finally the fact that Pentax is a small firm and must be aggresive at pricing if they want to attract customers.

Anyway enough with this "conversation", it's pointless and loses its interest. It's a typical string of monologues instead of opinion exchange and rethinking to find a common place.

[Rondec]

I hope this discussion is about done. To me, to cripple a camera you need to deliberately withhold a feature that you could easily place within the camera for minimal price change in order to push photographers to purchase a more costly camera. That certainly hasn't happened with the K-1. I have a feeling that Canon and Nikon do this more with their entry level cameras as they have more price points they are targeting. Be that as it may, most people still buy what they can afford.

[surfar]

the K-1 would easily cost $500-1000 if it wear the canonikon mark on it

I'D definitely pay $500, dunno about $1000 if it had a CaNik badge![COLOR="Silver"]

---------- Post added 08-17-17 at 08:30 PM ----------

to me, to cripple a camera you need to deliberately withhold a feature

yes!

[Dan Rentea]

I have told you three times but you don't seem to read different opinions. Read and think what I'm talking about and you can understand my point.
Pentax doesn't have any better AF module than that of the K-1!!! How many times do I have to write it? If the K-3 for example had a better AF module that they didn't use on K-1 I would agree with you in the crippled camera thing (or intentionally degraded - that is what I'm talking about). If you know that Pentax had a better AF module in their hands (or at their labs) at the time of development of the K-1 then you have a point. But these are not just assumptions (or marketing talking like my points you say they are) these things are science fiction. The low price comes from their marketing policy (I believe that the K-1 would easily cost $500-1000 if it wear the canonikon mark on it and still would be a bargain) - the fact that they knew very well those weak points in comparison with the competition and finally the fact that Pentax is a small firm and must be aggresive at pricing if they want to attract customers.

Anyway enough with this "conversation", it's pointless and loses its interest. It's a typical string of monologues instead of opinion exchange and rethinking to find a common place.

Ok, my bad. Then this affirmation from Ricoh talking about the succesor of K3 at the press release of K-3 II is quite accurate. I quote Ricoh "Thanks to the combination of a state-of-the-art AF algorithm and the advanced PENTAX Real-Time Scene Analysis System, this AF system assures much improved AF tracking performance in the AF Continuous mode". We all know by now how much improved the af is on K-3 II over the one from K3.

It's funny how marketing works...

Later edit. Let me see if I can find the article were it says that K1 was developed with a close look at the price point. To me, that is called reducing costs by deliberating not including/developing some features. How do you call this? To me it seems that they had the technology, but they didn't used it at its full potential because of the final price which they wanted to be under competition, so they crippled the camera in some areas were they thought it will have a minimum impact. Giving the fact that most of Pentax users are into landscape, af, processing power and flash system was somehow left at the end of their list.

[Rondec]

Ok, my bad. Then this affirmation from Ricoh talking about the succesor of K3 at the press release of K-3 II is quite accurate. I quote Ricoh "Thanks to the combination of a state-of-the-art AF algorithm and the advanced PENTAX Real-Time Scene Analysis System, this AF system assures much improved AF tracking performance in the AF Continuous mode". We all know by now how much improved the af is on K-3 II than the on from K3.

It's funny how marketing works...

Later edit. Let me see if I can find the article were it says that K1 was developed with a close look at the price point. To me, that is called reducing costs by not including or developing some fetures. How you call this? To me it seems that they had the technology, but they didn't used it at its full potential because of the final price.

It is totally clear that Pentax didn't want to go over 2000 dollars. They still put everything they could to still be under that price point. That's a little different from withholding or not turning on certain features to try to get folks to buy a more expensive product.

As far as auto focus goes, the K-1 was the best Pentax camera at the time of its release. I don't think the K3 II is any better -- certainly it has a different auto focus system though as it would make little sense to stick an APS-C sensor array in a full frame camera (although it has been done before).

We are still arguing about what the word crippling means. Every camera is a compromise and that is a lot more palatable word for Pentaxians than crippled.

[surfar]

---------- Post added 08-17-17 at 09:12 PM ----------

[/COLOR]

K1 was developed with a close look at the price point

The K-1 is the entry level FF from Pentax,so of course they built it to a price.....IF they put all the modern features in it, then it would cost more.

Very smart marketing from RI,...a basic camera with a good set of zooms.Gradually they fill in the lens catalogue with high quality Primes(year of!)

When that's done,the 2nd generation gets released with all the bells and whistes which puts it at a pricepoint of U$ 3000-4000(in direct competition with CanIkon)

They have a PLAN!

[Kunzite]

There is no mistake from my behalf as far as I'm concerned when I use the term "cripple" which is used all over the internet to describe the limitations of a camera, any camera, not just Pentax cameras.

Just because you don't think so, it doesn't mean you don't make mistakes. Listen to the others' arguments.
"Cripple" is regarded as a pejorative term since 1970 (see Wiki). It kept its negative connotation when used for cameras; and nobody cares how you feel about it. A language doesn't change for a single person, not even for Dan Rentea.

What makes you so sure that they "could have done what was possible for them..."? How do you know what's possible or not for them? Reduced price of K1 giving the limitations of the camera is more close to reality than your assumsions of what was posible for Ricoh regarding the developing of K1.

I know as a fact that the K-1 was possible for them. I know as a fact they were time constrained (as they had to postpone the launch date from 2015 to 2016). Everything extra, which you say that they "didn't want to" do, is an assumption - you are making assumptions here.

"Hey, I'm the Pentax's lawyer

Lawyer? Another misused term. Perhaps you mean advocate? (since in Romanian, it's "avocat" for both). Are you Canon's advocate on Pentaxforums, then?