P.J - you say: >>> 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. >
There is an interesting feature on the K-5 that I recently discovered. Assume SR is turned on. Put the camera on a tripod and set the shutter release for Remote activation. Et voile, the SR is automagically turned off (and cannot be turned back on as long as you stay with a remote-release.) So, under the circumstance when you would be most likely to want the SR to be off, it is off, and without any menu diving. One person's feature is another's bug, of course, and this could be frustrating if for some reason you did need SR while using remote release (maybe an assistant rather than a tripod is holding the camera?) But still, I thought it was a clever bit of compensation for the loss of the SR switch. stan > 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. On Oct 28, 2013, at 6:53 PM, P.J. Alling wrote: > 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. -- 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.
