Thanks Bill, I agree with that. Sony's policy of not discontinuing superseded models is just plain confusing. Canon will have to quit the DSLR market at some point, the question therefore is not if but when.
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
The dying of the DSLR
- Thread starter Photo-opinion
- Start date
"Thanks Bill, I agree with that. Sony's policy of not discontinuing superseded models is just plain confusing. Canon will have to quit the DSLR market at some point, the question therefore is not if but when."
I don't see what is confusing about keep making a product that sells.
I don't see what is confusing about keep making a product that sells.
What's confusing is the number of similar products in the Sony range, not just cameras either, I am no particular fan of Sony but if I buy new I expect to be able to easily identify the appropriate, newest, model.
Last edited:
Those numbers with no context do not tell the story you are presenting though.
Here is a recent article on interview with a Pentax rep:
Loading…
www.digitalcameraworld.com
And further this recent industry data:
Loading…
www.dpreview.com
Ricoh may be the only DSLR maker who has not admitted they are done producing new models, but they remain a very small fraction of what remains of that segment and even Ricoh acknowledges it is not really their future focus. The rep admits they have not been able to attract new customers. They are focusing on product lines that generate an acceptable profit, and that is not DSLR. The same CIPA numbers contributing to that profit statement show that DSLR production last month alone exceeded Ricoh’s total annual production of all classes of cameras.
Of course none of this means that any new DSLR offered by any of three remaining producers will not offer excellent results for years to come.
There, fixed it for ya
I mean, a person could move a bazillion 1 oz. gold bars in a day if each bar was priced at a dollar. They'd be billions of dollars in debt...but moving a lot of product
Canon, in particular, is in a tough spot. The market for new DSLRs is almost non-existent. Last year, they sold more than 800K units, but at what cost to their dealers and the home office? How deep were the discounts and rebates?
The European Union law requiring all mobile devices to be chargeable via USB-C goes into effect in just a few weeks. My Z9 has a USB-C port. One of the motivating factors for Nikon to develop the Z50II was to have an entry-level APS-C body compliant with the law.
How many DSLRs are compliant?
--
Bill Ferris Photography
Flagstaff, AZ
Last edited:
That is because you probably think that we all want to buy the latest. Some are happy with older technology at a lower price.
(I bought cameras for a living, the idea was for me to buy the stock that customers then wanted to buy...)
tbcass
Forum Pro
"But increasingly Ricoh, owner of the Pentax brand, is making more money from its non-DSLR lines. Compact cameras like the Ricoh GR III still selling like hot cakes, as are waterproof cameras like the Pentax WG-6."
"Ricoh has just announced its latest financial report, declaring "good performance with increased revenue and profits" from its camera division. But going forward, it sounds like DSLRs will be less of a focus."
"Ricoh has just announced its latest financial report, declaring "good performance with increased revenue and profits" from its camera division. But going forward, it sounds like DSLRs will be less of a focus."
Holger Bargen
Veteran Member
As an example of photographers using different systems, I found a comment of Mr. Kuster, a German photographer, on Pentaxforums as citation:
And if you want to read further - there's my personal opinion on Pentax, as I also have a Leica and a Sony system in addition to Pentax.
I use Sony when the equipment can't be too bulky, everything has to happen very quickly and the light is difficult, the photos are used primarily for advertising and media purposes (and therefore have to look good without being really "honest") - for example for concert photography.
I use Leica where the typical Leica-look is expected and for "retro" purposes.
For me, Pentax is still the most honest form of photography.
The K1-II for everything in nature, architecture, etc...
The 645Z especially in studio use and for portraits.
And from my experience I can say that the Pentax lenses are in no way inferior to the Leicas (which are much more expensive).
They are simply different (and superior to the Canon's and Nikon's of this world).
This sounds very reasonable for me and I see here a market that will be stable with an option to grow, as a lot of people who just know mirrorless will be triggered, if they get the option to look through an optical viewfinder and get the option to get optical high end for a reasonable price. I do not want to bash mirrorless - it has some advantages for sure. However, also DSLR has its advantages and if you are interested in "honest photography", DSLR will be an advantage for you.
And if you want to read further - there's my personal opinion on Pentax, as I also have a Leica and a Sony system in addition to Pentax.
I use Sony when the equipment can't be too bulky, everything has to happen very quickly and the light is difficult, the photos are used primarily for advertising and media purposes (and therefore have to look good without being really "honest") - for example for concert photography.
I use Leica where the typical Leica-look is expected and for "retro" purposes.
For me, Pentax is still the most honest form of photography.
The K1-II for everything in nature, architecture, etc...
The 645Z especially in studio use and for portraits.
And from my experience I can say that the Pentax lenses are in no way inferior to the Leicas (which are much more expensive).
They are simply different (and superior to the Canon's and Nikon's of this world).
This sounds very reasonable for me and I see here a market that will be stable with an option to grow, as a lot of people who just know mirrorless will be triggered, if they get the option to look through an optical viewfinder and get the option to get optical high end for a reasonable price. I do not want to bash mirrorless - it has some advantages for sure. However, also DSLR has its advantages and if you are interested in "honest photography", DSLR will be an advantage for you.
You may be shifting to a different topic. The response to your post regarding Pentax DSLR was not about whether some photographers, including yourself, are using and enjoying several systems including Pentax. It was a response regarding your interpretation of a Ricoh financial statement.
Pentax is selling very few DSLR, under 1% of 2023 DSLR market if Mistral’s corporate data is correct. (10000 of 1060000 DSLR produced in 2023)
Is not the only DSLR still in production- but in fact a very minor presence in the DSLR category.
Ricoh has made no statements to suggest any more new models on the horizon than its competitors, who have essentially admitted they are done developing new models.
And, in a recent statement by their EU rep admitted they are not attracting new customers.
Ricoh is satisfied with the financial performance of their other product lines as indicated by units produced and profit margin.
None of this has any impact on how you or others prefer your current Pentax gear. It may suggest the future path for Ricoh offerings.
Photo-opinion
Well-known member
Interesting; I’d missed that.
Photo-opinion
Well-known member
I don’t think my photography became more ‘dishonest’ from 120 roll film to 35mm to DSLR to mirrorless. . .
anotherMike
Forum Pro
What the hell is "Honest Photography"
When I started several decades ago, I used a Zeiss Super Ikonta of some sort, with a lousy fresnel screen and a mirror that didn't return. I managed to take great photographs.
When I went to RIT and had to learn the view camera, looking at an upside down/backwards image on a dim ground glass under a cloth. I managed to take great photographs.
When AF cameras were introduced, with screens that weren't as nice looking at the film era SLR screens, I managed to take great photographs.
When I started using twin lens (Mamiya C330 and and old Rolleiflex) medium format cameras, to enjoy their zero lag time which was nice for my dance photography, but had to look unnaturally down at a viewfinder with a reversed image, I managed to take great photographs.
These days, I shoot both DSLR and Mirrorless. While initially I thought I would really miss the optical viewfinder for everything I do, it turns out I simply adapted to mirrorless and I honestly could care less which type of viewfinder I use. And I manage to take great photographs with either system.
But I guess I'm not involved in "honest photography". Give me a break. Same commentary to those morons who think "film is the only true photography" and that nonsense. And about Pentax. They were great - 50 years ago, I remember the MX (and the spotmatic before) and those lenses quite well. They're a shadow of their former selves these days, and I honestly don't even know if they have an active lens designer on staff - their last truly great lens designer, Jun Hirakawa, moved on years ago to Tamron and I think is retired today. And no, their lenses were not, and are not, uniformly superior to all other brands either. Nobodies lenses are universally and uniformly superior to everyone else.
When I started several decades ago, I used a Zeiss Super Ikonta of some sort, with a lousy fresnel screen and a mirror that didn't return. I managed to take great photographs.
When I went to RIT and had to learn the view camera, looking at an upside down/backwards image on a dim ground glass under a cloth. I managed to take great photographs.
When AF cameras were introduced, with screens that weren't as nice looking at the film era SLR screens, I managed to take great photographs.
When I started using twin lens (Mamiya C330 and and old Rolleiflex) medium format cameras, to enjoy their zero lag time which was nice for my dance photography, but had to look unnaturally down at a viewfinder with a reversed image, I managed to take great photographs.
These days, I shoot both DSLR and Mirrorless. While initially I thought I would really miss the optical viewfinder for everything I do, it turns out I simply adapted to mirrorless and I honestly could care less which type of viewfinder I use. And I manage to take great photographs with either system.
But I guess I'm not involved in "honest photography". Give me a break. Same commentary to those morons who think "film is the only true photography" and that nonsense. And about Pentax. They were great - 50 years ago, I remember the MX (and the spotmatic before) and those lenses quite well. They're a shadow of their former selves these days, and I honestly don't even know if they have an active lens designer on staff - their last truly great lens designer, Jun Hirakawa, moved on years ago to Tamron and I think is retired today. And no, their lenses were not, and are not, uniformly superior to all other brands either. Nobodies lenses are universally and uniformly superior to everyone else.
Last edited:
"And no, their lenses were not, and are not, uniformly superior to all other brands either. Nobodies lenses are universally and uniformly superior to everyone else."
You will be pleased to know that I have the nicest looking dog in my street.
And so does my next door neighbour.
You will be pleased to know that I have the nicest looking dog in my street.
And so does my next door neighbour.
MyReality
Veteran Member
To me it is an unprocessed RAW file with no post processing. In film days or film now, it is an unaltered negative or positive.
I bought most of my Nikon Gear a few years ago at 37, 38ish. I'm now in my early 40's and did not buy it because I remember holding Nikon SLR's (I don't). I simply liked the ergonomics and menu/dial, viewfinder, etc.
I'm not trying to be standoffish, I'm just saying
I own one Sony camera- an RX100 and I dislike it. I cannot stand the convoluted menu or the boxy design.
M
Mark B.
Guest
So what about film prints that are processed with burning & dodging?
tbcass
Forum Pro
Sounds as if he's a Pentax Fan whose opinion should be taken with a pound of salt. Every brand has their fans and will have similar opinions about that brand. What the H*** is "honest photography"?
--
Tom
Last edited:
Howard V
Veteran Member
The way it used to be at least forty years ago, whatever that was.
tbcass
Forum Pro
Well, I've been involved in photography since the 60s and I don't feel dishonest when I take photos with modern cameras.
Holger Bargen
Veteran Member
It was a citation from a photographer who has Pentax and Sony as gear.
Take both cameras in your hand and fell what you get: which of them feels more solid, more honest. You have the term "the real McCoy". This addresses originally a technical product from the original inventor and maker of it, which includes the expectation of superior quality. I see the comparison a little similar.
With the Pentax in your hands, you know you have a reliable working horse that feels solid and well-designed. The Sony maybe even superior in terms of technical options. However, if I should have an expedition through a rainforest or Antarctic, I know which brand to select ...
Regarding lens design, there was an area with true gems - and for Pentax some of these lenses are still build - just think of the "three amigos": FA 31, FA 43, FA77.
The new developments are optimized products from computer calculations. They all deliver almost sterile, error free results. However, are they created as true and honest craftsmanship, can we see them as "masterpieces"? Looking at the lenses you can buy: for which system can you still get these old masterpieces?
Just as an idea to explain the word "honest".
Looking at the cameras you used, most of them I would place in this category - with lenses available that fit with this expression, too.
Regarding the latest high tech stuff: which cameras and lenses would you put into it?
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum