So what you're saying is that you're missing the point of a dedicated
stills camera, or you're missing my point.
There are a lot of things that are available even on the K20D that I
don't ever use. However they also don't get in the way of things that I
do use.
From everything I know the only thing on the K-5 family of cameras that
I really feel I need that's been done away with is the external SR
switch. It was replaced, if you take an inventory of available controls
with the dedicated Live View button.
That is a valid tradeoff for a still camera. There are times that live
view can be very useful and getting there on the K20D is kludgey at
best. Especially if like me you check DOF in the viewfinder. However
Pentax could have mitigated the loss of the dedicated SR switch by
putting that functionality into the quick menu. As far as I know they
didn't so now if you want to disable SR you have to go menu diving.
I don't know how much the control interface changes on the K-3 were made
to accommodate video recording, but I'll bet most of them were. I
haven't actually handled the camera so I don't know.
Once again I don't have anything against a DSLR having the capability of
shooting a movie clip. But there are now two external controls
dedicated to movie mode the red button which I suppose gives you instant
ability to grab a quick movie clip and the movie still switch, which I
guess dedicates the camera as a movie camera.
There are also three user settings. So how about this, in the interests
of complicating things. Give me the ability to program the new
dedicated movie features to do something I think is important, say use
the movie still switch to override SR so I can turn it on and off with a
dedicated switch, and the red button to do something else I think is
useful for still photography and save all the movie settings to one of
the user settings, or forget about them completely as I am wont to do.
On 10/28/2013 6:18 PM, David Parsons wrote:
What is important to you isn't necessarily important to someone else.
I am really having trouble figuring out what specific problem there is
with video on a still camera. Don't use it. I don't use the video
function on my K-5. I also don't use the TAv mode, but I don't
complain that it takes up extra space on the dial, I simply ignore it.
What, specifically, about video on your dSLR is inhibiting your taking
still picture?
On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 6:07 PM, P.J. Alling <[email protected]> wrote:
That's very true of complex computing devices. Even Windows when it was
based on MS-DOS (and NT when it's UI wasn't tightly coupled it's DOS), there
were things that were at best cumbersome if not impossible to do except from
the command prompt.
But that's still a side issue. There are only certain core functions that a
camera needs to fulfill. In a still camera only one really, take and store
still photos. Everything that helps that should be available, every thing
that impedes that should be discouraged. Making movies with a still camera
is a nice feature, but it if begins to impede the ability to take stills
then it's counter productive. If a reviewer thinks that's a problem then
they've missed the point of having a dedicated still camera.
Hell I've got two printers currently set up, a laser printer for text
documents and a wide carriage inkjet for photographs. They can both do each
others job, but the laser prints only B&W and relatively low resolution
graphics, while the inkjet print quality is equal to the laser printer but
tremendously more expensive per page. Should anyone be upset if each isn't
as good at the others job?
On 10/28/2013 5:10 PM, Larry Colen wrote:
On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 04:50:31PM -0400, P.J. Alling wrote:
On 10/28/2013 4:33 PM, Larry Colen wrote:
On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 09:57:43AM -0400, P.J. Alling wrote:
I also want the camera to report to me what is happening at the raw
file level, not the processed jpeg. I want to know just how close
I am to clipping my whites and blacks.
That would be nice, does /any/ current camera actually implement it
that way?
I believe that Leicas do.
There is the ongoing problem that for any particular person,
just about any bit of software will consist of 70% cruft of
useless features that they never need. The problem is that
it's a different 70% for each person.
The same problem applies to government spending as well.
The author of the LL article held Apple up as a paragon
of clean simple design. I will say that in general Apple
products work amazingly well, as long as what I want to
do is something that the designers thought that somebody
should want to do. Anything else? You're best off opening
up a terminal window and writing a bash script.
--
A newspaper is a device for making the ignorant more ignorant, and the
crazy, crazier.
- H.L.Mencken
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
[email protected]
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and
follow the directions.
--
A newspaper is a device for making the ignorant more ignorant, and the crazy,
crazier.
- H.L.Mencken
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
[email protected]
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
