HG1 eats Pentax lunch

Discussion in 'Pentax' started by jtk, Apr 22, 2009.

  1. jtk

    jtk

    Pentax will have to really hump if it's going to rival this:
    http://www.cameratown.com/index.cfm
    IMO Pentax should immediately dump its budget cams and professional fanasies and commit to something like HG1.
     
  2. I don't think that link is good. Are you referring to Panasonic GH1 ? And if so, do you have a link to the aforementioned eating of lunch?
     
  3. I think that this what he is referring to: http://www.cameratown.com/news/news.cfm/hurl/id|7300
    Yes, it is the Lumix GH1. Interesting concept, but I think its too soon to tell if EVIL (Electronic Viewfinder Interchangeable Lens) cameras will capture the market or not.
    Paul Noble
     
  4. 1. I will NOT go back to an electronic view finder on my pro-use still camera. Why? FOCUSING!! The auto focus is not smarter than I am, and even in manual focus, it's too small to tell..... It is IMPOSSIBLE to know just exactly where the auto focus chose to go (when looking at the camera), and the viewfinders are too small for me to watch where I want to put focus clearly enough.
    BTDT - not not not not going back. Period.
    2. I'm still trying to read the article & digest the specs.... but I'll stick to my "real" pro video cameras, thanks. The mini 3-chip camera we use on occasion IS, technically, a 3-chip camera. Doesn't mean it's quality can hold a candle to the full-size 3-chip cameras.
    WHAT is this NEEEEED people have for making movies with their digital photo cameras, anyway?!??!?!?!? GAH!!!
     
  5. Maria,
    Eventually EVF will be better than a "real" viewfinder. The problem is you and I only have those bad EVFs from earlier this decade to look back on and we can't imagine a crystal clear 100% viewfinder that actually enhances our autofocus ability, and eliminates the mirror.
    Actually, I can imagine it. Recent advances in EVFs have made me think EVF is not all that far off, however, I still look back on EVFs i used a few years ago and worry.
    That said, unless Pentax can produce a mind blowing EVF, I'd rather they sit back and let someone else take SLRs into the EVF realm.
     
  6. " . . .but I think its too soon to tell if EVIL (Electronic Viewfinder Interchangeable Lens) cameras will capture the market or not."
    Heh, heh, heh.
    Why should we believe that they should have to chase the next gizmo invention add-on to cameras when they've already produced units who have held their value for about 50 years? Pentax is not behind, they are ahead; and it's the gizmo electronics that's trying to catch up.
    Racing ahead to gain consumers and then losing them immediately to the next person who races ahead probably fell out of favor with people who thought about what they were designing some years ago. In the early 90s, you could have made a fortune by rushing ahead and getting there first. That's over. Now is a good time to start building products that will last again.
    Electronic viewfinder? Why? What good does it really bring to the camera? Just because someone else puts one on theirs is not a good enough reason anymore. It's got to have a clear advantage that's worth its cost.
     
  7. Interesting that even though some manufacturers are putting in EVF viewfinders and claim it does away with the mirror box assembly, they retain the pentaprism hump anyway. I guess they want to have it both ways. Olympus had a model a while back that did away with the hump but it didn't catch on.
     
  8. I've read alot about these Panasonics. Even considered buying G1 a few times but I won't. There are drawbacks and the price of GH1 makes it more than a curiosity. Isn't GH1 launching at $1,500? No one carrys G1 locally and I'm not in the mood to drop $629 on a testdrive. I've read some things that bother me so I'll skip G1 and at $1500 I'll skip GH1. Heck even at $1200 I'd skip GH1. I need a wimberley gimbal head so thats where I'll put my next spare $595.
    I'got to say theres nothing wrong with using full frame viewfinders. I do not chimp my full frame shots as I shoot. You see for me I've got to get the read'n spec's out each time I chimp so thats no fun. Thus having a camera I have to use reading specs all the time would be annoying for me.
     
  9. I can imagine a day when EVF's could actually be better in many ways than optical viewfinders. Technically-speaking, they could actually provide more magnification and offer huge advantages in configurability of viewfinder information, etc. I love the idea of in-viewfinder live histograms and customizeable gridlines (I'm aware that some Nikon D-SLRs have the gridlines already)--and you could zoom for finer focus, etc. I think a hybrid (somebody was hinting about this recently, possibly in that K7D thread?) might be really cool too. The ability to de-couple sensor/focusing screen size from the physical size & brightness of the viewfinder is nice too.
    The fact that EVF cameras often still have a bulge is probably more for marketing purposes than a physical need--people often prefer cameras that look like cameras. It gives them a place to put a retractable built-in flash. And by moving the VF "porthole" out of the rectangular boundary of the main body form it makes room for the largest-possible rear review LCD.
     
  10. jtk

    jtk

    Responses so far have been predictable and amusing.
     
  11. Some future benefits of an EVF, you can get some of these with live view on some DSLRS.
    - zoom the screen to check fine focus.
    - brighten the screen for focusing / composing in low light
    - pick any spot on the screen for AF, not just the predefined points
    - more accurate AF because AF would be based on actual sensor data, not phase detect system that can be poorly calibrated, also no front / back focus
    - more fps (basically video) because there is no mirror moving up and down
    - smaller because of no mirror
    No EVF today meets all of these. Most EVF's today are slow, small, and generally unpleasant to use but in 5, 10, 15 years? In 1975 who thought AF would be dominant 10-15 years later? In 1995 who thought digital would be dominant 10-15 years later?
     
  12. IMO Pentax should immediately dump its budget cams and professional fanasies and commit to something like HG1.
    Responses so far have been predictable and amusing.​
    I can't tell if you're being serious or sarcastic. Pentax's partner Samsung is basically doing the same thing. Their upcoming NX camera is very similar to the Panasonic G1/GH1. Obviously it is not going to appeal to everyone. It doesn't appeal to me but then neither does rap music or watching soccer.
     
  13. I'm with Walt and Andrew. An EVF can offer many advantages, the only issue is that it needs to be a GREAT EVF in order to do so. A half-baked EVF isn't worth the LCD it's made of. As soon as EVF technology comes of age I will be requesting Pentax do away with the pentaprism, give us EVFs, and maybe change their name to Evax.
    I think we still have a good 10 years of optical viewfinders left; it's not like Pentax are renowned for jumping headlong into anything :)
     
  14. jtk

    jtk

    If there is a K7 it will certainly record video and audio as well as video... easy to add that functionality, doesn't take up significant space...much more useful than a flash when you've got 1600iso....but APS is the wrong format...4/3 makes more sense for a TV or computer monitor.
    Most photographers at weddings have RELIED on digital finders for decades (who cares about "professional wedding photographers?")... friends and family already love video and will love it more combined with near-APS quality and Leica optics. And...G1 is CHEAP compared to D90 and K20D, assuming equivalent lenses. See B&H/Adorama..local stores have been irrelevant since forever.
    Panasonic and Oly-pre-E3 designs have been limited by 4/3's squinty tunnel. EVF makes better sense for 4/3 than it does for APS format (which will lose market share to this Panasonic).
    Fun: G1/HG1 is Leica-M and Leica thread compatible, as well as Pentax K, 42, Canon FD, and Nikon. Even HASSELBLAD lens compatible and undoubtedly Pentax 645 (finally a use for them). All it takes an Ebay adapter.
     
  15. Anyone who thinks that EVF will never be good enough for manual focusing needs to rethink their opinion. The current G1 is the best I've seen for this use. Not perfect, but really good. And mind blowing compared the first gen evf's. Give it another couple of years of improvement and I think the quality will be hard to ignore.
    I'm not saying that photography should or should not go the way of the evf, I'm plenty happy with my SLR. But non-mirror box cameras open up a whole world of new options for camera design. The micro 4/3 GH1 with it's compact size and ability to AF while filming video is a good early example of that. I'm looking forward to more of the same type of innovation.
    http://blog.photo.net/?p=4591
     
  16. John Kelly wrote: but APS is the wrong format...4/3 makes more sense for a TV or computer monitor.​
    John, gotta disagree with you. TVs and computer screens have moved on from 3:4 format and are now 9:16 or 10:16 . I don't think there are TVs, screens or laptops being built anymore that use the old 3:4 TV ratio.
     
  17. jtk

    jtk

    Mis, The vast majority of TVs currently in operation (the installed base) are 4/3 ..given the economy that won't change quickly. TVs last forever. Hopefully Pentax knows that.
    It'd be CRAAAAZEEEE to design away from the installed base :) ...easier to crop 4/3 to 2/3...we're all used to that with vintage DVD rentals etc. In any case, my particular HD TV does fine with various formats without cropping.
    G1 / G1H will be a winner .. fewer are likely to buy Pentax's loss leaders (the latex-painted versions without prisms). Watch for the clearance sales.
     
  18. jtk

    jtk

    Think of it this way: Panasonic, Olympus, Kodak (fwiw), and Leica (fwiw) bet on 4/3. Picture frame manufactures bet on 4/3. Most TV and monitors remain 4/3 and sales of new TVs and monitors are plummeting for obvious reasons ($$/credit).
    ...however, if you love, absolute LURVE, can't imagine anything other than 2/3, you can always buy Nikon or Canon for G1 functionality in a vastly larger package...
    The clacking mirror and bulk weight will be the death of DSLR with "street" photographers.
     
  19. Well, part of this conversation is pointless. The Panasonic G1 (and the GH1 and the LX3 for that matter) allow you to choose 16:9, 4:3, or 3:2. So arguing about that aspect is pretty silly.
     
  20. Ooooh, & better yet:
    GH1 is 12mp irregardless of which incamera crop you select.
    Still though, I'd rather the Big Two come out with articulated screens on their full frames. Its about the only feature left that would make me buy another full frame. Well and autofocus while filming. The two features go and inhand on my want list.
    Some say the 5-21-09 pentax dslr does HD video & sound. Likely Pentax announcement is planned to pull some Buzz off the GH1 arrival in peoples hands. GH1 should be superior to video recording in 5D Mark II, D5000,& D90. You know, especially with:
    silent autocus lens, silent image stabilized lens, multi formats all 12mp. 2nd generation articulated screen. They are starting off with one optimized HD lens and everybody gets it with admission price to GH1. Thats why its like $1500 or so or less...
     
  21. The g1 series is cool, but it's not that amazing in some ways. ISO performance isn't as good, lenses are all slow consumer lenses (though good quality), settings/menus aren't the greatest to navigate, the GH1 prototype I saw at PMA may or may not have had an external mic input, etc.
    It's an interesting camera, but it isn't a godsend.
     
  22. Josh and Lindy, the guaranteed 12MP at whatever aspect ratio you want is one of those features that I found myself smiling and nodding at when they came out. That is smart stuff; in fact, I think there's even a word for it: Innovation. For some it might seem like a gimmick, but I would use it frequently, espcially if they added other ratios, like 4:5.
     
  23. jtk

    jtk

    It's not a "godsend" any more or less than the first Leica was... like that Leica, it doesn't need to be perfect to revolutionize the game. I wouldn't want to be selling Sony's in here, nor would I want to be selling Pentax...until they offer some competition...
    K200D snappers will abandon still-only cameras just as they have abandoned making their own prints, if they ever did. It'll be good to see some creative energy coming back into photography after a decade of digital duckies and pussycat photos..
    ISO performance is irrelevant but it's already well proven to be excellent in low light....
    The kit lenses are said to be far better than those of Canon, Nikon, Pentax et al. There's no need for a fast zoom, but they're available: Pentax zooms, Nikon zooms, Canon zooms...they all adapt. Leica makes 1.4 lenses for it. What could be better?
     
  24. ISO performance is irrelevant but it's already well proven to be excellent in low light....​
    Is that so? "irrelevant" to you maybe. Not to me. High ISO is crucial.
    And the G1 is good in low light, but not "excellent". I just had one here for a few weeks and I can tell you that while it performs well up to 800 and perhaps even 1600, it doesn't hold a candle to the high ISO performance of the current C/N full frame cameras. You might make the argument that it matches up well to the current crop of C/N APS-C cameras, but that's hardly the benchmark for "excellent".
    K200D snappers will abandon still-only cameras just as they have abandoned making their own prints​
    John, you sure are predicting the future a lot from a camera you've never seen or held. Video only matters if you care about video. There are many MANY people in this world who could care less about video. They just want to shoot images. Of course some will care very much about video abilities, I'm one of them. However, your blanket statements don't add anything to your argument. They just make you sound like a cheerleader for the Panasonic marketing department. It's reasonable to say that video capibilities will be important as a feature in SLR (or SLR like) cameras going forward. But given that there are only a handful of video questions on photo.net in any given week compared to the tens of thousands of photo questions, I don't think your "snappers will abandon" claim holds any water at this time.
     
  25. Mis, The vast majority of TVs currently in operation (the installed base) are 4/3 ..given the economy that won't change quickly. TVs last forever. Hopefully Pentax knows that.​
    At my gym all the TVs are LCD 16:9 and at any Dr's office or bar I've been to recently it's all wide screen HDTV. At all the sporting venues I shoot at the TVs wide screens. I'm going to venture to say you are way off on the 4:3 aspect still being the "installed base".
    What is kinda funny is my wife and I are probably among the last people to not own a single HDTV. We were watching a 32in CRT till very recently. We really don't watch much TV but do enjoy movies and the Wii so we finally upgraded to a 65in.
    Actually the economy, and the fact the DLPs are headed out of production is the reason we upgraded now. My brother paid $2000 for a similar DLP just 2 years ago, we got ours for under $1000. DLP is IMO, the best of the big screen technologies. Plasma has major burn in issues (even that little station ID watermark can burn in), and selective contrast zone LCD is making big strides but 42-50in seems to be the biggest reasonably priced size. 50in doesn't cut it if you want a theater like experience. Only regret is we didn't go 73in. DLP is actually what is used at your digital movie theater in the mall, great techology that fell victim to the "I want a slim profile, wall mountable TV".
    Anyway, being among the last people that I know, and seeing daily boxes of LCD TVs on the curbside I have to say I don't think the 4/3 ratio of TVs is all that strong anymore. As far as the economy, this is America, land of TV. People will go without gas before turning off the cable, and they'll skip a mortgage payment before going without TV.
     
  26. No, justin, you aren't the last. That will either be us, or Matt's dad. Our ONLY tv in the house (other than 13" monitors for video, that I actually don't use) is a 27" CRT that is occasionally showing a purple spot in the upper R corner - very occasionally, so I'm betting I can drag it out for another 2 years min. Being able to see all the tv's on our street through living room windows, I can also definitively state that we are the LAST people on our 3/4 mile stretch of street to upgrade.
    Matt's thinking we actually WONT go LCD, because of the HD projector we got for the business. Eh.
    um... mebbe it's having got a whiff of our girl's nitrous today... but, DLP? What's the acronym stand for?
    TVs last forever.​
    HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
    Sorry - but if that were true, I WOULD still be using my grandpa's console TV. Yes, I CAN be that cheap.
    1st rule of thermodynamics sez this can't be true.
     
  27. "Mis, The vast majority of TVs currently in operation (the installed base) are 4/3 ..given the economy that won't change quickly."
    And almost all of the movies that I watch on a 4:3 screen have black bars top and bottom.
     
  28. Great point about the lines on the 4:3 sets, I have noticed those are gone with a 16:9 set. Actually quite a few news stations are broadcasting in 16:9 now, and what I've noticed is that if I turn the 16:9 into 4:3 (or go into bedroom where the 32 is now) it crops off the status bars. So even stations that still technically format the main screen in 4:3 are using the 16:9 format to an advantage.
    John tends to make a few blanket statements but few are completely true.
    Maria,
    DLP: Digital Light Processing...
    From Texas Instruments (the creators of DLP):
    The DLP® chip is probably the world's most sophisticated light switch. It contains a rectangular array of up to 2 million hinge-mounted microscopic mirrors ; each of these micromirrors measures less than one-fifth the width of a human hair.
    When a DLP® chip is coordinated with a digital video or graphic signal, a light source, and a projection lens, its mirrors can reflect a digital image onto a screen or other surface. The DLP® chip and the sophisticated electronics that surround it are what we call DLP® technology.​
    Key advantages: No burn in (great for gamers), full 1080P, lighting fast response time (no ghosting like cheap LCDs), ability to make huge screens (not as much an issue anymore since LCD/Plasma have to some degree caught up but still cost a lot more), great contrast ratio, colors that are much closer to CRT than LCD (and 3 chip DLPs are capable of 35 million collors), super simple system consist of 5 total major parts of which only the light engine actually cost anything to replace.
    Some people have bulb issues (others don't) but 3 things impact bulb life 1) keeping the fan clean (vacuum it every now and then) 2) turning TV on an off all the time (my inlaws turn TV on at 10am, and it's on till 10pm every day. they are still on 1st bulb over 18 months later) 3) current to TV....simply put an uninteruptable power supply (UPS) between the TV and the AC wall outlet and you solved that problem.
    Oh and coolest thing about DLP....3D viewing, if a movie is released in 3D, DLPs have the ability to let you watch it in true 3D.
    Anyway, if you go to a movie theater that advertises it's a digital movie theater the projectors are DLP.
     
  29. Well, if we're going to wander off topic and talk about TV's. I'v gt to say that we've been nothing but happy with the budget priced 42" Vizio plasma LCD I got from costco last year. Excellent price (even cheaper now) and quality has been just great.
    I'm sure side by side that the DLP sets are better. But for me, the price difference is way too much to justify.
     
  30. Well only slightly off topic.
    Other than movies, the biggest reason I wanted an HDTV (and a fairly big one) was slide shows, now that most of my images are either 1st gen digital, or scans, having a digital means of viewing in the living room at a decent size is nice.
    I was all set to go plasma myself, right up till I realized just how prone to burn in they are. I figured us not being "gamers" it wasn't a big deal, I forgot that in many games, and sports shows there are boxes around the TV edges with text.
    Plasma is actually probably the best viewing (truest blacks) overall, and has most of the pros of DLP, but reflections and burn in are two big cons. Sadly, I think plasma is headed for extinction along with DLP. It's a shame because both offered much better viewing quality than LCD.
     
  31. FWIW, "burn in" is not really an issue with recent (past few years) plasma models. Decent article here:
    http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-6449_7-6844370-1.html
    However, it occurs to me that I am an idiot and should not have typed "plasma". I have an LCD Vizio. Blame it on lack of sleep, we're teething around here.
     
  32. One thing that annoys me in most pubs I go to is when they show games in 4:3 format streched into 9:16 screens. I thought ESPN broadcast in 9:16 (I don't have cable at home, so I don't know). There is no point in having a 9:16 screen if you're just going to horizontally stretch a 3:4 image.
     
  33. That right there is the sign of a pub too cheap to pay for real digital programming
     
  34. That right there is the sign of a pub too cheap to pay for real digital programming​
    Sadly, the food is very good. Luckily, they have LOTS of TVs, some of which are still 3:4, so I watch the sports on those. It also makes it apparent that the images on the 9:16 screens are stretched :)
     
  35. Every time I've checked out tests of these 4/3 sensor cams I've seen the same story: awful high-ISO quality... In some cases these 4/3 efforts seem barely better than a P&S, and significantly worse than a proper camera... ;)
    Unless Panasonic have significantly improved this aspect, these cameras will remain firmly in the "No thanks!" pile, at least for me. HD video? Pfft, big deal... That'll be a pretty standard feature on the more upmarket P&S cams within a year or so... Decent quality pics in low light will not... :)
     
  36. Mis,
    They might not have the TV setup correctly. An issue with the newer TVs is they usually require quite a bit of calibration out of the box, including color, and format. Plus, unlike the old CRT tubes, if the input signal into a new digital set is crappy, you are getting a really bad picture.
    My TV can cycle through about 10 different options. including several 1080 options, and a bunch of 480 options. They might just need to hit the format button on the remote a few times at the pub.
    Josh,
    Not so sure this is true. The reason I skipped the plasma was the reviews for both the TVs I was looking at (42in Panasonic "The leader in plasma") and 50in Samsung had major complaints about burn in and need to "white wash" the screen almost daily. Good reason not to buy an open box plasma since you aren't supposed to white wash more than a few times. I don't think too many companies make plasma, so beyond Samsung and Panasonic there aren't a lot of options these days. Samsung, like with it's LED DLP is phasing out plasma.
     
  37. jtk

    jtk

    Without getting into discussions of the finer details of who-pays-whom, the TV smoke screen seems intended to draw attention away from a product that Pentax should fear nearterm. Why should Pentax fear Panasonic? For the same reason every other rival does: Panasonic seizes big market share in every market it enters.
    In this specific instance, every dollar spent on G1 and other Panasonic is a dollar that Pentax threw away by marketing inferior models, rather than emphasizing photographic quality. When Asahi, later Pentax made it's name it did so by marketing incredibly fine cameras. Today's company, whoever it really is, only recently resorted to marketing latex-painted cheapos :)
     
  38. No.... the "tv smoke screen" is because we
    1. Don't seem to agree with you
    2. Don't care what Panasonic is doing
    3. Think you're acting more like a troll trying to stir the waters
     
  39. jtk

    jtk

    :) :) :)
    Maria, "we" isn't quite the same as you, but it's intersting to see "you" defending the smoke screen.
    Attacking me, vending wildly false info (Wilkins re 4/3=digicam), and creating/defending smoke screen doesn't seem similar to discussing Pentax photography...
     
  40. Sorry John, I'm with Maria. The TV discussion wandered in because this thread is useless and going nowhere.
    As I said before, you are making expansive claims about a camera that isn't even on the market yet. Not only is it not on the market, I'm probably the only one on this thread who has even held it in their hands. You're making pretty big assumptions about the photographic public's purchasing habits and what buyers want or not regarding video. Thus, the thread is pure opinionated speculation from you with very little basis in fact. Not only that, but it has little to do with Pentax specifically other than you throwing out random insults at the company.
     
  41. I find that smoke screens are generally due to low contrast levels. Boosting the contrast either in-camera or in postproduction generally solves this problem.
     
  42. jtk

    jtk

    Josh, Doesn't your active effort to divert this thread seem improper on P.N ?
    How is it better to fantasize about K7 or K30 or 645D vaporware than to for me to wonder if Pentax will respond to an explosive, genuinely new market?
    Have you noticed that B&H has repeatedly sold out of the black versions? (it's not just the EVF or the video/audio or the small size or the fabulous Leica optics...a combination that introduces video to still photographers...like Nikon advertised in the Superbowl with D90 to tremendous sales success).
    Seems silly to comment on P.N's lack of interest in video when you work so hard to prevent discussion of convergence of video/still/sound, right?
    Visit design studios, advertising agencies, brand managers, stylists, architects, fashion studios, product studios, art gallery directors...see what they think about convergence of video/sound/still. Potential photo buyers and exhibitors are already shooting videos in the mix with stills. If you want a staff position with a real magazine or newspaper today you need convergence skills, video/still/sound/editing.
    Weddings? Have you even seen one recently? Dozens of uncles with video cameras, DSLRs, digicams...the B&G don't need to pay big $$ to a purported pro if all they want is a few stills...if they pay serious money they want a video along with stills...all you have to do is ask around.
    If you really aspire to K200D, watch for sales. $400?
     
  43. Seems silly to comment on P.N's lack of interest in video when you work so hard to prevent discussion of convergence of video/still/sound, right?​
    Oh yeah, I'm really trying to kill video discussion on photo.net John. That's why I started the video forum on photo.net . And that's why I just last week wrote an article about how to do basic video editing with imovie .
    More statements not based in fact. Just like most everything else you've posted on this thread. I'm done here. But by all means, continue on without me.
     
  44. jtk

    jtk

    Bye Josh.
    To evaluate, others may wish to review Josh's posts and mine, above.
     
  45. I was enjoying the tv info. Isn't GH1 related to hd format flat screens? I own no flat screens and the way its going it may be years before I do.
    I'm the fellow who's many local relatives call and offer to give their 32" crt tvs too. I'm a sucker for free 32" tvs. One day I'll buy me an HD TV and then I'll want hd video camera or hd-dslr. Until then I've got a 32" in the kitchen, livingroom, & bedroom and I got a spare one to fit in somewhere or replace a dead one. I've never bought a 32" tv.
    Hmmmm, the blue glow is cool.
     
  46. Wow, and here's me thinking Pentax threads never turn sour. Seems like the spell of the EVIL eye's been cast here.
     
  47. I can't believe I just read this entire thread... I'd like those 8 minutes of my life back please. And Maria, no you're not the last I still have a 37" CRT TV with (gasp) an over the air antenna & DTV converter. It's turned on maybe 4 hours a week, but when it is on there is often a couple of little back boxes top and bottom from the playing movie.

    Regarding the new micro 4/3 and similar cameras, I just don't see them gaining that much traction. One, I am in the group that could not care less about video in an DSLR. Though I have used the video mode on my Canon P&S while SCUBA diving a few times. People that are invested in a system are rarely going to jump, though I can see people adding it as a travel camera. Looking at the ongoing improvements in higher end pocket cameras like the Canon G10 and similar Pana models or even the newer super zoom models I think these make more sense to supplement an existing system for a casual camera. As far as getting new users into a system for the first time. Yea that's tough and getting more difficult all the time. Especially if as a newbie someone does not know what they really need, the safe thing is buy a Canon / Nikon. In that sense having more market choices like the new 4/3 systems and perhaps the Samsung NX and all the rest of them makes it a lot more difficult for Pentax to catch the new customers eye, especially when they have little to no retail shelf space. New customers have to seek out Pentax where they are all but clubbed over the head with Canon / Nikon choices. I think getting new people into Pentax is the most significant challenge Hoya / Pentax faces.

    Oh and Justin, as a recently laid off Texas Instruments employee on behalf of my former colleagues thank you for buying the DLP.
     
  48. With two DSLRs and a bunch of lenses on my shelf, I reckon I'm pretty well sorted for Pentax gear for years to come... With that in mind - and with the used market there to be milked - would I really give a flying poop if Pentax went bust tomorrow...? Doubt it... :) Quite frankly, that's their little corporate problem, not mine... :)
     
  49. <p>This thread is great. I tried to keep it civil by deflecting chatter towards TV.<br>
    <br>
    Roger, you are welcome, I only wish I could have done more.<br>
    <br>
    The bottom line there was a lot of nonsense in this thread, much of which was illogical. That is as opposed to logical nonsense if there is such a thing!<br>
    <br>
    BTW, reading Paul's last post, am I to assume (not having read every post on this thread) that we are back to talking about Pentax survival? I seem to remember spending almost a year on this before the merger. What do people get out of fear mongering this stuff.
     
  50. Justin, I've been treating this crappy thread as a worthless trash can since I read the original post... ;)
    That said, the 4/3 sensors are rubbish, I couldn't care less about HD video, and if Pentax went bankrupt tomorrow I'd chuckle to myself and be on the lookout for clearance bargains...
    :)
     
  51. I was hoping for something like a Ruben (hold the dressing) or a Pastrami for lunch...
    The Lumix (at least USED to) give a 100% pixel peep when MF'ing. Of course, pixel peeping a liveview that has no sharpening applied NEVER really looked sharp...
    I've said this before but it's been a year or two: Put a prism that feeds 4 sensors (R, G, B, IR) AND an optical view finder with the option of a switchable live view projection through the eye piece and you would REALLY have something innovative and useful...
    My video projector is also DLP, glad I could help...
    Oh, yeah... Who is selling 4:3 tv's today? Would anyone consider the standard 4x6 print an existing base? Oops, thanks to APS-H and APS-P, just about any lab can print 4x7's and 4x10's just as easy if you know how to ask. I'd still LOVE a square sensor though (dang - that would mean buying new lens hoods)...
     
  52. Mis - YOUR smoke screen problem can definitely be traced to watching tv in pubs.
     
  53. The time to respond to an explosive new market is when or if it arrives. Otherwise, a big waste of resources. But I am reasonably sure all makers are doing research on EVF's. The perpetual problem they've been having is indeed with higher ISO. Actually, most are somewhat noisy even at any higher than about ISO 200.
    If the undesirable side-effects are overcome, the EVF could provide advantages. But then this means even more dependency on electronics, the accuracy of which can vary, and even change over time- something more to monitor, and possibly require service!!
    Video clip capability could be a nice feature to have in a mainly still camera. But the controls and design aspects for taking movies or video as the main interest, are inherently different than the same for still-camera serious use.
     
  54. The G1 and GH1 ARE going to drag camera design into the 21st century. It IS time to move on from the Canon T90 now.
    We are all going to have to get used to the electronic v/f becasue its much cheaper to make than mirror/prism. Since when did the camera industry make what people want? Much easier to make what THEY want and then persuade consumers it what they also want.
    Pentax WILL be influenced by the G1/GH1 and they will make a much better version,...but not for a couple of years, IF they still exist, or if someone buys the brand (which is more than likely)
     
  55. . . .except for the fact that lens mount matches none of the dozens of lenses in my collection, yes it is a fine looking DSLR.
     

Share This Page

1111