|
Forum: Photographic Industry and Professionals
06-02-2019, 02:55 AM
|
| |
I can see that you believe firmly that mirrorless are just better by design than SLRs. I think SLRs are better than you give them credit for and most mirrorless models are worse than you think. In addition, tracking auto focus isn't the Holy Grail of photography. Even if mirrorless cameras absolutely destroy every SLR model out there in regard to tracking auto focus (which they don't) that wouldn't be enough reason for most of them to throw over their current SLRs and lenses.
Dan is right in that lens design and a batch of new lenses that are smaller and sharper and have fast apertures for MILCs could shift things. The only problem with that argument is that those lenses are also really expensive -- 3000 for the 28-70 f2, 2700 for the 85mm f1.2, and 2100 for the new 50mm f1.2. They are certainly awesome lenses from what I've seen, but they also make the Pentax DFA *50 look cheap in comparison... ;)
|
|
Forum: Photographic Industry and Professionals
06-01-2019, 02:48 AM
|
| |
Sony and Fuji have very large hype machines and paid photographers who churn out material for them telling about how awesome their gear is.
That said, there are actually very few scientific tests out there looking at auto focus. Beholder3 posted some results from a German magazine (Results from a really repeatable AF.C test (no Pentax inlcuded) as reference - PentaxForums.com ) and the results were mixed at best. Cameras that auto focus well in one situation don't necessarily do so in another situation and mirrorless aren't really better than SLRs when you view the overall package. The only thing you can say is that they have "the potential" to be so because of having the auto focus points on the sensor, but on the other hand, SLRs may have more processing power dedicated to auto focus due to have a specific auto focus module. Certainly, your statement about mid level mirrorless beating just about all SLRs when it comes to tracking auto focus is hyperbole at best.
I would add that lenses make a huge difference in this whole discussion. Even in the Pentax world, older SDM driven lenses like the DA *55 and 50-135 are going to track terrible and auto focus slowly, even on a brand new completely redesigned K3 III that Pentax releases with better auto focus than the A9. :) The newer DFA lenses are quite a bit better. Some of the fastest focusing lenses I have used are the DA 40 limited and FA 135 f2.8, simply because they have really short focus throws. But not all Sony and Fuji lenses are really fast auto focusers either and you simply buying a good tracking camera body doesn't really get you there.
|
|
Forum: Photographic Industry and Professionals
05-31-2019, 05:55 AM
|
| |
If you read the quotes from the interview, they were as follows: " I believe. Because as I said before, each system has its own benefits or appealing points. The mirrorless camera is very convenient to shoot, because users can [preview the final] image before shooting. But I believe the DSLR has its own appealing point, because users can create their own image from the optical viewfinder. People can see the beautiful image through the optical viewfinder, and then think how they can create their pictures -- for example, exposure level setting or white balance or ISO [sensitivity] -- and then imagine how they can get [the result they're seeking]. That is one of the big [advantages] of shooting [DSLR] cameras, so some users will come back to the DSLR system. But it might be they use both systems, DSLR and mirrorless. Because each system has its own benefits."
This feels like a very moderate response and definitely not one that either (a) indicates that Ricoh thinks that there is going to be a mass exodus from mirrorless or (b) that there is not some benefit to mirrorless technology. I feel like the interview was quite balanced, but for some reason or other it got spun into this "Ricoh's crazy and thinks everyone is going to ditch their MILCs!" mantra.
|
|
Forum: Photographic Industry and Professionals
05-31-2019, 02:46 AM
|
| |
The statement was that some would leave mirrorless and go back to SLRs or would shoot both SLRs and mirrorless. We have seen that with a number of folks showing up on the Forum who purchased K-1s either in addition to or instead of their mirrorless cameras.
Ricoh did not say that there would be a mass migration away from mirrorless. I'm putting words in their mouths, but my impression is that they feel that the part of the market that is not being developed as much right now is the SLR portion due to Canon and Nikon's recent shift to mirrorless and if they build nicer SLRs, they can snag a slightly bigger chunk of that market. That's all.
|
|
Forum: Photographic Industry and Professionals
05-31-2019, 02:37 AM
|
| |
MILCs aren't going away. If nothing else, companies like Fuji, Sony and Olympus have staked their futures on them. They will probably plateau as far as market share with some balance between them and SLRs.
All of that said, I thought the point of this thread was not an analysis of whether mirrorless as a whole are sticking around, but rather whether or not Pentax would be wise to make a mirrorless camera. The answer to that question feels like no to me unless something dramatically changes about how Ricoh is running Pentax.
I say this because Pentax isn't a tech company and doesn't have a track record for releasing new lenses quickly and typically mirrorless has meant a new mount. I suppose they could release a K-02 -- some full frame, k mount, mirrorless camera -- at which point they would have a decent lens line up (although still not complete), but it really doesn't feel like anyone is really wanting that option. A mirrorless camera with decent ergonomics but slow tracking auto focus, middling video, EVF a few generations old and lens line up that wouldn't be complete until 2027 doesn't feel like a winner in the marketplace to me. And so going back around to the beginning, Pentax is not in denial, they have honestly analyzed what they are good at and are targeting their offerings to that.
|
|
Forum: Photographic Industry and Professionals
05-30-2019, 04:00 PM
|
| |
I guess I'm in the minority, but I do have eye strain when I use an EVF for more than ten or fifteen minutes. Not sure why. I look at a computer screen for a good chunk of the day without a problem, but somehow, when I have a tiny screen that close to my eye, it bothers me. So, I guess I haven't felt much temptation to head towards mirrorless.
Back to the previous point, I am just not convinced that the majority of photographers need top end tracking auto focus and if you need anything short of that, most of the cameras out there can supply what is needed. I'm sure the K-1 III will be better than existing Pentax cameras, which will be nice, but I hardly need what is supplied already. All of the awesome advancements in mirrorless tech -- bumps in megapixels, super high frame rates, 4K video and now 6K video, and thousands of auto focus points -- just leave me a bit cold. They're fine, but I'd rather see simple advancements in still photo image quality -- that's what would lead me to buy a new camera, not the fact that Pentax now offers 12 fps and 4K video.
|
|
Forum: Photographic Industry and Professionals
05-30-2019, 12:15 PM
|
| |
You act as though weddings were sporting events. Sure, they do involve people doing activities and not necessarily in great light, but with a little skill you can capture good images with any full frame camera sold today -- and in fact with most of those that are a couple of generations old! Sports is a different animal and does require somewhat specialized gear -- both cameras and lenses, but even there I would be hard pressed to say that mirrorless has some kind of special advantage over SLRs and in fact, when I see coverage of Olympics, etc, most of the photographers are still using SLRs that are a generation or two old.
Regardless, if you have struggled with auto focus, I can understand your wanting something better. I just don't think it is as big a problem as poorly developed compositional skills.
|
|
Forum: Photographic Industry and Professionals
05-30-2019, 09:22 AM
|
| |
Do you shoot weddings? Because my wife does, with a K-1 and K-1 II. People like her photos because she has an eye for composition and light, not because the K-1 is awesome. And no, she doesn't struggle to get good focus, even inside a dark church. The only negative she has found with the K-1 and K-1 II are that the buffer fills fairly quickly when you are writing to two cards. And she does a fair amount of couples shots back lit with narrow depth of field. And no, the artifacts that come from PDAF points on the sensor are not masakable.
All of these discussions miss completely the fact that a sharp photo of a boring subject, poorly composed is not a good photo. Maybe mirrorless cameras add a few more sharp photos to the portfolio, but I have a strong feeling that they won't lead to as many "keepers" as what these discussions imply.
|
|
Forum: Photographic Industry and Professionals
05-30-2019, 07:50 AM
|
| |
The problem that I have with this discussion is that both SLR and mirrorless tech is so far advanced that if you can't get the photos with either format, that is on you, the photographer. Yes, the Sony A9 is pretty amazing, but I would be shocked if the same photographer couldn't get similar photos to it with a Nikon D5 or Canon 1Dx II. At a certain point, you just get good enough and it feels like both styles of camera are there already.
And the down side of adding a multitude of PDAF points on the sensor is that you get weird artifacts when shooting back lit images with wide aperture lenses. This certainly isn't something every photographer shoots, but anyone who does weddings or portrait sessions could easily run into this and it could be a major negative to this style of auto focus tech.
Pentax does lag some with regard to tracking, but honestly, it isn't because they have SLR tech, it is just that they haven't invested the same amount into their auto focus systems that Canon and Nikon have, particularly their top end systems and that tech tends to filter down to other models over time.
|
|
Forum: Photographic Industry and Professionals
05-29-2019, 08:00 AM
|
| |
The funny thing is that Fuji makes far more money on Instax cameras and film than they do on digital gear. In fact, it is the film money that has fueled their mirrorless offerings and not the reverse.
(It is better to have a "hot item" than the best tech)... |
|
Forum: Photographic Industry and Professionals
05-29-2019, 02:51 AM
|
| |
Kodak had many reasons why they went bankrupt and it didn't have much to do with digital, where they were actually at the forefront of development. They sunk lots and lots of money into creating digital cameras. It just happens that their tech didn't catch on... Kodak?s Downfall Wasn?t About Technology
Regardless, I don't see anyone saying that mirrorless cameras are a fad or are going away. What I see Ricoh saying is that (a) not everyone will want to shoot mirrorless cameras and (b) their strengths in creating new cameras are a better match for SLR technology. I, for one, don't mind an optical viewfinder and do think that Pentax's strengths are unlikely to result in some sort of an awesome MILC that stands out from those already offered by Fuji, Panasonic, Olympus, Nikon, Canon, and Sony. Releasing a me-too camera that doesn't sell is definitely not a good option for Pentax to remain viable into the future.
|
|
Forum: Photographic Industry and Professionals
05-25-2019, 03:11 AM
|
| |
People are constantly thinking that if they get a newer generation of sensor that it will give them so much better image quality. That was true at one time, but since the K5, I haven't seen nearly the improvements that we saw with each new camera prior to that. Instead, you just see camera that shoot faster frame rates and higher quality of video, which is something for sure, but just not that important to me.
Most of the smartphone improvements are software related and many involve trickery, like taking multiple images and combining them to create better low iso images.
I still come down to the fact that at this point, if you want better quality images you have to move up a sensor size. I don't honestly think that the Nikon D850 shoots better still images than the D810. It shoot more of them faster, if that is important to you, but I can't say that they are better quality.
|
|
Forum: Photographic Industry and Professionals
05-25-2019, 02:37 AM
|
| |
Smartphone cameras have cut out purchasers of ILCs who were never really interested in the ILC in the first place. Once their smartphone camera got to the level of a film point and shoot they were out.
That said, smartphones will never replace ILCs due to a number of reasons that have been stated already. Ergonomics are the most obvious one. Even if you somehow managed to get a 200mm equivalent optical zoom on to your smartphone, it would really be difficult to use it for several hours taking photos of your kid's soccer match or school play. Battery life is an obvious problem. Because most people actually want to have their phone available to make calls and text and not have killed the battery through taking photos. Lack of interchangeable lenses is another issue for anyone seriously interested in photography and difficulty in using camera accessories like external flashes, flash benders and tripods. Finally, the image quality, while touted by review sites is not great in my opinion. There is a lot of oversaturation of colors, oversharpening, and smoothing that is going on in these images behind the scenes that reminds me of someone going a bit wild with the sliders in Lightroom.
This is not to say that smartphone cameras aren't adequate for a big chunk of the population. They are very much satisfactory for many people, who mainly want it for occasional snaps and selfies. But there will continue to be plenty of people who enjoy making images who are innately dissatisfied with the process of doing so with a smartphone camera and who will look for something that has a large sensor and the ability to change lenses.
|
|
Forum: Photographic Industry and Professionals
05-24-2019, 03:10 AM
|
| |
This is very true. The style of camera has less to do with the final image than the abilities of the photographer using the camera. There are definitely situations where you need specialized gear capable of, say, really high frame rates or high dynamic range, but most of the photos we take aren't actually that difficult to take and a skilled photographer could just as easily take them with a K-1 or D810 as with an A7r II.
So much of this really does come down to personal preference, in the OVF versus EVF debate, which is truly unsolvable.
But we shouldn't lose track of the fact that the image is the point of photography, not the accumulation of gear and glass.
|
|
Forum: Photographic Industry and Professionals
05-23-2019, 07:41 AM
|
| |
Other than ergonomics and maybe astro tracer, I'm a bit confused as to why you think anyone would buy a Pentax camera over something like an A7 III or A7r II. As far as performance, Sony mirrorless is way ahead of where Pentax is at. Just look at comments on the web with regard to the GR III's video performance.
Pentax's strong points are best seen in their SLR design and likely would be lost with a mirrorless design. And they wouldn't even have the benefit of selling many lenses as most people would just get Sony and third party lenses rather than wait on Pentax's e mount lens line up, which would be forthcoming, I am sure. ;)
|
|
Forum: Photographic Industry and Professionals
05-23-2019, 02:51 AM
|
| |
Mirrorless comes up regularly on the Forum with people suggesting that Pentax should release one. I just think that the best Pentax could do with a mirrorless camera probably wouldn't actually satisfy. They just aren't a tech company and so their EVF would probably be a couple of generations old, their auto focus would be whatever we see with next generation cameras in live view (not great), and their video would continue to be suboptimal. In that situation, you are unlikely to be able to steal photographers from other brands' MILC offerings.
What Pentax is likely to do is to figure out some kind of hybrid viewfinder that allows the best of both worlds and to add additional contrast auto focus processor that would allow for eye AF when using the OVF. SLR development doesn't have to be dead. Pentax probably will never have frame rate monsters, but they can have some really nice features that will help make their cameras stand out from the others on the market.
|
|
Forum: Photographic Industry and Professionals
05-22-2019, 09:03 AM
|
| |
Absolutely.
The price has to be right.
The specs have to be right.
The lens line up has to be there.
The EM1-x is just too expensive, even if its specs and lens line up are great. Pentax would have trouble meeting the specs and lens line up issues without a huge boost in their R and D budget.
|
|
Forum: Photographic Industry and Professionals
05-22-2019, 08:48 AM
|
| |
Strengths of MILCs tend to be in a few areas: really high frame rates, video performance, and manual focus lenses. Otherwise, if you usually shoot auto focus lenses, don't need top end video performance, and are satisfied with 7 to 10 frames per second frame rates, SLRs are fine.
The idea that Pentax would be another entrant into a tech heavy market that is looking for a level of specifications that Pentax hasn't met in the past, seems unlikely. For an 1800 dollar full frame MILC, Pentax would need to have something that is at least Z6/A7 III level of capability -- 4K video/10-12 fps/decent tracking auto focus/etc. Releasing a K-1 II with an EVF (basically running in live view mode all of the time) as a "K-02" might make some Pentaxians happy, but would likely be a disaster on the market.
|
|
Forum: Photographic Industry and Professionals
05-21-2019, 06:24 PM
|
| |
Let's be clear that cameras will not be successful purely based on whether they have an EVF or not. The question is whether the specs are up to what the market expects at the price the camera is offered combined with how developed the lens line up is. This second place is where Canon and Nikon are lagging a bit at present (and no, adapted lenses don't really count).
For Pentax to launch a mirrorless camera, assuming that it would have a new mount, it would require years to develop a decent lens line up. And many of Pentax's classic lenses wouldn't be easily adapted as they have mechanical aperture linkage and in lens motors.
|
|
Forum: Photographic Industry and Professionals
05-21-2019, 02:08 PM
|
| |
I think it is clear that there is going to be some balance of people who prefer optical viewfinders to EVFs. I have no idea what the percentages are, but lets say that 40 percent of people like OVFs better, for whatever reason, but Canon, Nikon, Sony, Fuji, Panasonic, and Olympus for the next few years at least, are completely focused on churning out cameras with EVFs. That certainly could be an opportunity for a traditional company to gain some market share by releasing top end SLRs and lenses.
|
