|
Forum: Photographic Industry and Professionals
05-31-2019, 01:17 AM
|
| |
Sounds interesting! :)
For that specific use case, I'd say a DSLR is simply the wrong tool, and most likely always will be. A fast continuous shooting APS-C mirrorless with low lag EVF and large, fast-clearing buffer seems more appropriate, and I assume that's what you're using. Of course, it won't be the most appropriate tool for every other situation. As always, it's a case of picking the right tool(s) for the job...
|
|
Forum: Photographic Industry and Professionals
05-30-2019, 05:39 PM
|
| |
Why say that, if not to criticise or ridicule the brand? What do you or I (or the vast majority of people) shoot that requires even that much performance?
There are plenty of photographic products based on - and performing similarly to - earlier models far older than that. It doesn't make them lesser products...
|
|
Forum: Photographic Industry and Professionals
05-25-2019, 05:48 PM
|
| |
Yep, when smartphones can offer the IQ of a 35mm sensor, real (not synthesized) depth of field control, focal length range offered by interchangeable lenses, interfacing with accessories, enclosed viewfinder and ergononomics to suit enthusiast / pro photography in a variety of circumstances, the K-1 is toast... ;) Watch out, K-1 owners - that's all that stands between you and smartphone photographers :lol:
|
|
Forum: Photographic Industry and Professionals
05-25-2019, 01:15 PM
|
| |
Those same folks wouldn't see the difference between the images from an inexpensive bridge camera and an expensive mirrorless or DSLR camera. But photographers - guys like you and I - notice things that casual observers wouldn't. That's why we're so picky about the IQ from the cameras and lenses we've invested in.
Phone cameras are getting better, but they don't (and won't) compete on IQ, creative control or ergonomics. They compete on convenience, portability and social media integration, and when those factors are of prime importance, we might reasonably accept compromises in the other areas. But, compromises they most certainly are, and always shall be.
We've been making similar choices for decades... We might choose a smaller, lighter, cheaper, slower variable aperture zoom lens over a bigger, heavier, more expensive, faster fixed aperture zoom because it's "good enough" for the intended purpose, and more convenient. But we know we're giving up creative versatility and image quality in return for that convenience. One lens doesn't replace the other...
|
|
Forum: Photographic Industry and Professionals
05-25-2019, 03:39 AM
|
| |
But how will we select ISO, shutter speed, aperture, drive mode, etc.? :hmm: Perhaps we'll need a module implanted in our brains that can transmit the settings we think of via wifi :p
|
|
Forum: Photographic Industry and Professionals
05-25-2019, 03:05 AM
|
| |
I've downloaded and played with raw files from a number of recent photography-optimised smartphones. The image quality can be surprisingly decent, but I've yet to see anything that approaches the quality of even a five year old DSLR. Smoothing of detail due to noise reduction (even at low ISO settings) seems to be the biggest issue. The internal image processing engines are becoming quite clever at applying varying levels of NR to different types of content - for example. clear blue skies and other blocks of solid colour receive heavy NR, while tree branches and leaves receive much lighter NR - but it still kills fine detail to a level most enthusiast photographers would complain about if using their DSLR or MILC. Having said that, at reasonable reproduction sizes and viewing distances, phone images are fine for many purposes.
I agree that a good smartphone could benefit most photographers. I'd actually quite like a decent Huawei or Samsung, if only they'd remove the phone module and give it a few more configurable buttons along the edges :p That kind of thin profile, jacket pocket camera would be a really useful tool to me, as an addition to my bigger, ergonomically better kit :)
|
|
Forum: Photographic Industry and Professionals
05-25-2019, 01:53 AM
|
| |
It's impressive that they figured out the phone's practical and creative limitations at such an early age. Smart kids, clearly... and spot on with their observations! :D
|
|
Forum: Photographic Industry and Professionals
05-24-2019, 06:17 PM
|
| |
Right. And when those kids growing up with smartphones reach the limitations of their photography and need better controls, depth-of-field control, lens choice etc. they'll have to step up to a better camera. Phones are phones, and in five years time they'll still just be phones...
|
|
Forum: Photographic Industry and Professionals
05-24-2019, 05:23 PM
|
| |
And you can choose to believe I'm missing it, if you like. I prefer to think we just have different views. And I clearly think mine are right, just as you think yours are. In the end, it really doesn't matter and has no value. No-one knows what will happen in the future, least of all us consumers. It's all just nonsense and navel-gazing. And certainly not photography ;)
|
|
Forum: Photographic Industry and Professionals
05-24-2019, 05:08 PM
|
| |
My, you're a barrel of laughs these days :o
Look, I say this with all due respect, I REALLY DON'T CARE about market stats, nor the individuals postulating about them. I'm a hobby photographer, not a statistician. Nor am I a market pundit, journalist, or photography blogger/vlogger looking for maximum hits. Honestly, I only care about "negative ninny" views in these forums because they have absolutely no positive value, whilst introducing entirely useless negativity and stirring up unnecessary discussion when folks ought to be out shooting whatever they own - be it a 2019 medium format mirrorless or 2009 6MP DSLR (or, for that matter, a simple compact).
"Real" photography enthusiasts - those who have the slightest inkling of what they're doing - are using the most appropriate technology available to them to achieve their goals, rather than obsessing over a specific tool or format. If that happens to be a phone, in certain limited circumstances, so be it. But I'd guess they're not shooting wildlife, sport, artistic shallow depth-of-field, and a great big bunch of other stuff... Hey, it's up to them. But, when they need better performance and creative control that isn't synthetically produced (read "emulated"), they'll pick up their real cameras. Those requirements won't go away, even when the current generation dies. There'll always be a need for the best tools to deal with each specific situation... and phone cameras are way off being even remotely the best tool in most of those...
|
|
Forum: Photographic Industry and Professionals
05-24-2019, 02:58 PM
|
| |
Bingo.
Smartphone cameras may be improving hugely, but they appeal mostly to casual photographers rather than enthusiasts. Yes, I know there are some pros choosing to shoot with just an iPhone or similar, and that's fine... But there really is no substitute for a bigger, modern sensor and well-corrected lens(es) where image quality is concerned (raw files from the latest smartphones quickly confirm this), and a proper camera body with physical controls for a versatile shooting experience that allows quick changes to settings...
If there is a war between phone cameras vs real cameras, it's at the bottom end of the market. Most enthusiasts and pros might consider a phone as an additional piece of kit, or use one because they already own it, but they're not giving up their real cameras as a result. Not in significant numbers, at least...
|
|
Forum: Photographic Industry and Professionals
05-23-2019, 03:38 PM
|
| |
"Phoners"... There's even a term... I love it :lol: Did you make that up? If so, it's brilliant, and I'll use it from now on :p If not, I'll still use it :lol:
Phoners (see, I told you I'd use it :lol:) are ignoring obvious image quality issues and claiming their images are good enough, whilst serious enthusiasts complain about the minor smoothing effects of mandatory NR on otherwise-jaw-dropping K-1II raw files. Just can't please everyone, no matter what manufacturers do... :p :lol:
|
|
Forum: Photographic Industry and Professionals
05-23-2019, 03:11 PM
|
| |
Ah, but you know that's not what we were talking about :D The conversation, as I understood it at least, was comparing DSLR vs MILC ;)
|
|
Forum: Photographic Industry and Professionals
05-23-2019, 02:13 PM
|
| |
With respect, it seems awfully premature to be so disappointed and write off the development before we've seen it implemented :hmm:
Who's to say that the CDAF functionality won't be usable when focusing manually? That could be more accurate than any split focusing screen. Of course, this might not be a part of the proposed development - but it equally might be. Personally, I'll be saving my own (proportionate) enthusiasm or disappointment until I've seen what it can and can't do.
Is there any reference material confirming how modern DSLR focusing screens "are designed to make el cheapo kit zooms look good", or is that an opinion (perhaps valid, but nonetheless an opinion)? I've always assumed - but only assumed, mind you - that DSLR focusing screens were designed with AF lenses in mind and, primarily, to support metering technology in the viewfinder module... But I'm keen to be corrected on that by evidence...
|
|
Forum: Photographic Industry and Professionals
05-23-2019, 01:53 PM
|
| |
That's a pretty bold and sweeping statement. Is it backed up by stats that you could point us to, or is it merely an assumption? I'm not trying to call you out or trip you up here... It's a genuine question, and I'd be interested in the numbers. There's a certain flurry of activity around new mirrorless camera models, that's for sure, but there remain an awful lot of established DSLR users. I respect your assertion, but I'd need to see numbers to assuage my doubts. Of course, 60% vs 40% in favour of mirrorless would count as "most people", as would 51% vs 49%. Neither suggests a big problem for DSLRs. 90% vs 10% might... hence why the numbers are important. And, given the point I made around rise and retracement of a technology that's only just reaching maturity, I'd be awfully cautious about concluding that "most people are into mirrorless these days"...
There are risks in committing to any market, mass or niche, for both manufacturer and end user. Leica's still around and going strong, as are its loyal followers... weathering some ups and downs, but still here. Hey, the big boys like Nikon and Canon are having a hard time too. Ricoh / Pentax has a fairly limited stall set out, so at least the risk management aspect is strong. If it continues to service its niche well (and I think it could improve there in a few ways, but still...), it should do OK. We Pentaxians might not get much of what we want, when we want it... but when it arrives, it's generally very capable, high quality, and awfully good value for money :)
|
|
Forum: Photographic Industry and Professionals
05-23-2019, 01:38 PM
|
| |
With respect, I disagree. Some manufacturers - Nikon, Canon, Sony etc. do indeed seem to target the mass market, covering all possible bases with their products, and I'd probably agree that some of their design decisions are targeting a very wide selection of potential buyers. But then you have Leica, Hasselblad, Phase One and others who design very much for niche buyers. Ricoh / Pentax is a little different, yet clearly a niche player. Given the limited scale of its R&D, manufacturing, sales and distribution, it can't hope to compete in the mass market against the "big boys". It can, however, focus on an established niche of committed enthusiasts, plus a small handful of professionals, and look to tempt enough new buyers based on the type, quality and pricing of its products. There's money to be made there, for sure.
Maybe so... in the short term, at least. But if an established niche is large enough to support a manufacturer's activities and result in acceptable profits for a relatively low risk profile, does that matter? I suggest not, but I guess we'll see :)
That aside, I can't help but think that mirrorless cameras will experience more-or-less similar growth then retracement to rangefinders and (D)SLRs. They've not been around as long, and the market segment is really only maturing around now...
|
|
Forum: Photographic Industry and Professionals
05-23-2019, 12:45 AM
|
| |
What are the numbers, out of interest? I'd be curious to look at those..,
|
|
Forum: Photographic Industry and Professionals
05-22-2019, 05:46 PM
|
| |
You can add me to the list too. For some years, Pentax was my digital photography platform. I bought my A7 MkII primarily for adapted lens use, and as a backup to my occasional Sony A-mount platform. It's great for both use cases. But I gravitate back to my Pentax gear and K-mount for the most rewarding chunk of my photography activities. Actually, I enjoy being in the position I'm in. I'm relatively balanced and unbiased about manufacturers and DSLR / mirrorless technlogies, because I enjoy more than one of each, so there's little anyone can do to shoot down my preferences. And when I say that I enjoy shooting my Pentax DSLR gear most of all, I can be pretty confident that it's not from a "fanboy" perspective as some folks would hope and/or suggest...
|
|
Forum: Photographic Industry and Professionals
05-22-2019, 12:19 PM
|
| |
Because it's awesome, that's why :D
|
|
Forum: Photographic Industry and Professionals
05-21-2019, 02:52 PM
|
| |
Though a select few might argue otherwise, "I'm here to help" :D
Please PM me the link for your crowd-funding campaign. I'm in :D
I totally see why that would work. Me? I'd love to have an overlayed histogram (JPEG would be fine, raw even better), quick switch from optical to magnified electronic view for manual focus adjustment, perhaps overlayed focus peaking, amplified electronic view for low light situations, back and forth switching to show optical vs electronic when different aspect ratios are required (I love 4:3 and, occasionally, 1:1)... I could think of more. But even just the overlayed histogram would be boon for me. Maybe that says something about my lack of confidence or ability in exposure management... Anyway, I'd like to have it :)
|
|
Forum: Photographic Industry and Professionals
05-21-2019, 02:19 PM
|
| |
Fixed that for you...
(Hey, a guy can hope, can't he? :p :lol:) |
|
Forum: Photographic Industry and Professionals
05-21-2019, 01:50 PM
|
| |
Possibly. But I also suspect they've read (and, undoubtedly, been somewhat relieved by) a vocal user base that largely favours the use of optical viewfinders.
I've said many times in these forums, I use both DSLR and mirrorless cameras, and get different benefits from each. If I'm shooting old, manual focus glass for a variety of mounts, I'll use my full frame MILC every time. It's fantastic for that. And I have no trouble with the EVF - it feels fine to me, plus it's ideally suited for manual focus work. But if I want maximum enjoyment from the photographic process (when using primarily, though not always, AF lenses), I'm far more likely to pick up one of my DSLRs.
They're very different shooting experiences. Some folks like DSLRs and dislike mirrorless. Some are the exact opposite. I like both, for different reasons. What I wouldn't like is if my favourite DSLR manufacturer stretched itself too thinly, and put the whole business at greater risk, by moving into an area already swimming with models and - in a few cases - mature lens catalogues. That way madness lies...
|
|
Forum: Photographic Industry and Professionals
05-21-2019, 01:34 PM
|
| |
I've moved your thread to "Photographic Industry and Professionals"...
In answer to your question, yes - it appears to be for real.
I don't think we can call it denial or truth. It's the view held by Ricoh executives - or, at least, the view they're giving to the press. All we can do is take them at their word, and agree or disagree. We won't know whether they're right or not until further down the road. What's certainly true is, the mirrorless market has now become highly competitive. Anecdotally, sales are not matching expectations for the newer market entrants. So, whatever you and I may think of Ricoh's views, it's decision to eschew mirrorless and stick with DSLR products seems to make sense for now...
|
