Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Judging from years of posts on this forum, it makes you wonder about how many people are simply printing directly out of their cameras, on the default settings, and then thinking they need a different or more expensive camera.

And, how many people who are doing some post-production work are even close to doing it correctly.

Each brand of camera has its own default settings and if you print right out of the camera, the photos will indeed be different. If the default settings are all changed to the same values, then the results will also be about the same.

Post production will even things out even more. RAW, truly awful as it comes out of the camera, can be processed to an even further extent and the results will really end up equal.

Cameras vary in their mechanical quality, their ergonomics and such, but the actual results are ultimately about equal.

No offense, but not everybody has the skill or interest to do a lot of post-processing. Some people just enjoy the quality and flexibility of an SLR system to make photo's without being artists. Why is it that just because you have an SLR and the option to do post processing some feel the need to advocate you have to? How many people used an SLR in the pre-digital age and actually did their own film development and printing? Not a whole lot. I for one did not, and just because I can in the digital age does not mean I have to, nor do I have to like it.

Personally, I don't intend to create art. And I don't shoot for others, I shoot for me. More often than not, I use my camera as a kind of picture diary of the trips I make. As such I don't throw away a lot, as even the lesser pictures tell part of the story to me. I don't have time to properly process 500-1000 pictures. I do shoot raw, but set my camera to use parameters I like best, convert with the Canon software so that it uses the settings I set in camera after quick scanning for necessary adjustments and finish for in Lightroom. Everything I can do before I press the shutter to make it look the way I like saves me time at home. If I can get my pictures at 90% they can be in 10% of the time, that's just great for me.

Sitting at home bitching at raw converters that ignore everything I do on the camera for hours on end to create something that impresses other photographers is, to me, wasted time. I don't want to spend 90% more time post processing to make the end result 10% better. It's not a job.
 
Why the need for this posting? The OP doesn't need yet another sensor/color setting into the mix. Your posting does not help him either get the colors he wants out of the camera he has or get the camera that has the colors he wants.

Plus, Pentax has been losing market share in a growing market- while Hoya's CEO backed off on the statements about not really caring about the camera end of the deal (they bought Pentax for it's butt scope business, and it looked to me like a deal to dump the camera business fell through) you have to wonder how long Hoya's investors will continue to live with losses in a segment where the market is expanding and their unit is contracting. Once the market starts to contract, can a company with a small portion of the market stay in business? I don't know the answer to that question yet because we don't know how far the market will contract, but I do know one thing- I sure wouldn't be buying Hoya stock based on Pentax's performance over the last several years! Even their 2009 home market rise to about 4.5% doesn't necessarily bode well for them globally- they're still on very shaky ground, if I were looking for an alternative to Canon or Nikon at the moment, it'd be Sony that I'd go with, at least they've got a sustainable global market share.

Paul

Pentax is actually profitable.

For one, the OP is making a post about switching lock stock and barrel to a new mount. Therefore its appropriate that he may also should consider something outside of the "big two"

Pentax shoots video and fantastic near professional quality video at that because of the large sensor it can have that narrow depth of field that other "home movie" cameras do not. The Canon doesn't shoot video.

Pentax K-X has far better low light performance and I challenge anyone to prove that wrong.

The Pentax at the end of the day is better, by far. I mean if you want to recommend a camera to someone because of higher market share go right a head lol but that does not mean the camera is in anyway shape or form better. I mean a ford has higher market share than BMW, does that make a better car? no.

I mean you can buy a Canikon kit and pay twice as much money for it because they can charge you on the name.
 
Pentax is actually profitable.

Only if you include butt scopes, and that only recently (last quarter.) Pentax has lost money for Hoya ever since the acquisition- here's what Q1 of the current fiscal year was like according to Hoya:

With regard to Pentax medical endoscope products, although favorable trends were seen with regard to the new endoscope system that is compatible with mega-pixel imaging, there was a decrease in earnings compared to the same quarter last year as overseas sales were impacted by a strong yen.

For digital cameras, although earnings increased due to higher unit prices despite a decline in sales volumes compared to the preceding quarter, sales of compact digital cameras declined compared to the same quarter last year, while single lens reflex (SLR) camera earnings declined as a result of
fierce price competition breaking out with competitor companies.
As a result, Pentax segment sales during the quarter under review amounted to 24,640 million yen.

Operating losses were contracted due to the impact of cost reductions resultant from structural changes implemented during the previous reporting period. As such operating losses during the quarter under review amounted to 941 million yen.

The phrase that pays is OPERATING LOSSES, which is NOT a sign of profitability.

Q2 said this:

In medical endoscopes, restrained buying by medical organizations, and the impact on the yen on overseas sales, which make up most of the segment, resulted in a fall in earnings for the quarter relative to the same period last year.
In digital cameras, were there were some products launched on the market which generated interest, the number of units sold fell relative to the same period last year, and price declines due to tough price competition led to reduced earnings.
As a result, segment sales during the quarter were 27,920 million yen. In terms of operating profit and loss, the cost reduction impact from restructuring implemented in the prior year led to a profit of
1,185 million, an improved profitability than in the same quarter last year or preceding quarter.

If you look at the quarterly report for the second quarter, you'll want to pay special attention to the sales numbers versus the same periods in the prior year (which wasn't a stellar year- Pentax lost share) Down 32.4% over the prior year, and 24.4% for the prior six month period in the prior year.

The Yen is still high against the dollar and the Euro, the Hoya folks are counting on the butt scope business to pick up- because as you can see, profitability in the DSLR world is down, and Pentax have yet to announce a full-frame camera where the margins are higher (expect it to happen in 2010, but I don't expect it to help.)

In case you're still all religious, you might want to peek at:

http://www.amateurphotographer.co.u...report_Hoya_issues_statement_news_291437.html

Here's the part that's important:

Hoya's chief operating officer Hiroshi Hamada reaffirmed Hoya's aim to join forces with another company for the long term survival of its camera business.

You're not worried about the "long term survival" of your camera business if it's all profitable and gaining share, Sony, Canon and Nikon aren't looking to partner with anyone to ensure the "long term survival" of their camera businesses.

While market share isn't a high metric on the list, I'd rather purchase from a vendor that has a better than average chance that their business will survive in the long term. At this moment, neither Pentax nor Olympus are healthy enough in camera-only sales to ensure long-term DSLR survival (nor really is Sigma.) Market contraction is projected to happen by 2012, if you're struggling in a growing market (and I'd say that 10 quarters of loss after being down enough to have to merger despite a promising butt scope business is probably a good definition of struggling) then how you expect to achieve success in a down and shrinking market is a good question. Fortunately, there are three companies who are both strong in the segment and not in dire enough straights to be thrashing around for a partner to throw them a life ring- I'd go long on Samsung way before I'd go long on Hoya in the current market.

In fact, the best thing that could happen to Pentax's camera division is that Samsung takes it over.

Before you think the above is out of context, I'd urge you to read the full article:

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUST15448620090818

This looks pretty dire, because you can't truly cost-cut your way to profitability (Business 101)- you must *sell* your way there- and Pentax is not doing so, and worse-yet doesn't seem to have a strategy to do so. "It's small, we probably can't do it alone" is not an encouraging statement for a CEO to make. Other than electronics manufacturing- which doesn't help in the profitability thing, I can't see JVC bringing much to the table- I think it has to be Samsung if Pentax is to survive. Efficiency raises your margins, but it won't bring you base profitability.

Paul
 
For one, the OP is making a post about switching lock stock and barrel to a new mount. Therefore its appropriate that he may also should consider something outside of the "big two"

He's considering switching because of a particular color gamut- so no, it's not appropriate to the conversation. If he had other concerns, or if you could demonstrate a near-perfect match in color gamut, *then* it would be germane.

Pentax shoots video and fantastic near professional quality video at that because of the large sensor it can have that narrow depth of field that other "home movie" cameras do not. The Canon doesn't shoot video.

Canon offers many models that do, and some with even larger sensors, but the OP hasn't mentioned video at all, so this is a strawman.

The Pentax at the end of the day is better, by far.

You're asserting that the Pentax is better for the OP's desire to get a Canon color gamut than a Canon? You're reasoning is odd.

Paul
 
You really think that Pentax is just going to suddenly die??? End of the K-Mount?? very very unlikely. For one, Samsung is really only flirting with the DSLR market (i am sure you pay attention enough to know that the K10D was kind of a joint effort between the two) and while Samsung may eventually buy Pentax, they are mostly only doing DSLR's because of Sony; which bought Minolta and they reason they are in the business anyway.

Both the K-X and the K-7 have gotten rave reviews and are widely considered to be equal to or better than there competitors. While Pentax has recently had loses, the K-X and the K-7 show Hoya does have a strong commitment to putting pentax into profitability. That goal is currently set at March of this year and will likely be accomplished.

What Hoya will do with the camera business after this is unknown. However whoever owns Pentax doesn't really matter. It has shown that they can turn out professional quality product. They have a very strong line up of very quality glass and would look appealing to anyone wanting to get into the camera business.

Pentax is also planing to launch into the medium format business this year with the 645D. Which is what they are really treating as their full frame. But really full frame has really been nothing but a world of hurt for anyone.
 
He's considering switching because of a particular color gamut- so no, it's not appropriate to the conversation. If he had other concerns, or if you could demonstrate a near-perfect match in color gamut, *then* it would be germane.



Canon offers many models that do, and some with even larger sensors, but the OP hasn't mentioned video at all, so this is a strawman.



You're asserting that the Pentax is better for the OP's desire to get a Canon color gamut than a Canon? You're reasoning is odd.

Paul

Color Gamut ... hah. No can tell the difference i can promise you that lol.
 
You're not worried about the "long term survival" of your camera business if it's all profitable and gaining share, Sony, Canon and Nikon aren't looking to partner with anyone to ensure the "long term survival" of their camera businesses.

At this moment, neither Pentax nor Olympus are healthy enough in camera-only sales to ensure long-term DSLR survival (nor really is Sigma.)
Paul

Thats Funny because Olympus has the #1 dSLR on amazon.com right now :rolleyes: and the Pentax K-X is at #12. Looks pretty good to me. lol.
 
You really think that Pentax is just going to suddenly die??? End of the K-Mount?? very very unlikely.

I don't consider it "very very unlikely." Pentax has been losing share in a growing market- that's not a sign of brand strength, and I actually think that once we've gotten to saturation, someone is going to be forced out of the market. That could change if the Yen weakens significantly, but right now the US is 30% of the DSLR market and coming out of the recession jobless, Europe isn't firing on all cylinders and they're another 30% of the market. I don't think we'll keep one of the Pentax or Olympus companies doing DSLRs- maybe they'll both drop out. I think it's more likely that Hoya will drop Pentax before Oly will give up- though it's still possible that Panasonic will force Oly out more quickly than they'd like. In either case, I give Pentax less than a 50% of survival. When the CEO of a public company says "I don't think we can float this by ourselves" it's a very worrisome thing, "We're going to expand our efforts into blah, blah, blah" would be the business as usual spin, that statement is bad- and unless they're close to a deal, it's really bad- even then it's not a good negotiating position even if it's the truth.

I had a Contax/Yashica mount film camera way back when, I feel your pain.

For one, Samsung is really only flirting with the DSLR market (i am sure you pay attention enough to know that the K10D was kind of a joint effort between the two) and while Samsung may eventually buy Pentax, they are mostly only doing DSLR's because of Sony; which bought Minolta and they reason they are in the business anyway.

If Samsung do not buy them soon, then it may not matter. They went with a proprietary mount for the NX and if that does well, they may not see an advantage to Pentax (Having a Korean company swallow a Japanese one isn't going to go well no matter what.) Sony killed off a lot of stuff over the last four years, Samsung haven't, so I've actually got some optimism that Samsung will do well- but it's going to come at someone's expense if they do- although short-term, I think if the NX does well, that and Panasonic will have more of a negative effect on Oly than anyone- but those customers won't be buying Pentax either.

My other thought is that it may be that Samsung are the ones who decided not to purchase Pentax's camera division when the Hoya merger happened. Because it sure looked like someone was near an agreement initially.

Both the K-X and the K-7 have gotten rave reviews and are widely considered to be equal to or better than there competitors. While Pentax has recently had loses, the K-X and the K-7 show Hoya does have a strong commitment to putting pentax into profitability. That goal is currently set at March of this year and will likely be accomplished.

I don't think it shows a strong commitment, especially given the statements when they purchased Pentax and more recently. They've done what they need to so that there's still enough value to sell- there has been no long-term commitment to Pentax since the sale.

Home Betamax was vastly superior to VHS- it doesn't matter if you don't gain sales. Nothing I've seen shows Pentax doing anything new marketing-wise, distribution-wise, or in any way that'll increase sales- and that's the name of the game.

What Hoya will do with the camera business after this is unknown. However whoever owns Pentax doesn't really matter. It has shown that they can turn out professional quality product. They have a very strong line up of very quality glass and would look appealing to anyone wanting to get into the camera business.

Who owns Pentax matters a *lot*. In case you haven't noticed, dedicated camera and processing stores are failing. That means to get in front of customers, you must have a good box store distribution channel and be able to incentivise the distributors to get your product onto limited shelf space- Samsnug can do that, JVC, not as well...

Leica's not doing well, and their brand is much stronger- the general purpose brands have been knocking out the specialty brands left and right. If you want a parallel, look at high-performance computing- Cray, SGI, Hitachi, IBM... Not many HPC players amongst those who survived and all of those government subsidized.

It's not a good time to be a niche player in the DSLR market. Nikon's Ashton Kucher advertisements did very well, and Nikon's low-end strategy did very well- I think they're mistaken to not reinforce that low-end stuff at this juncture, but they want the hobbyist and pro markets. I think they need them too, but I think only Canon gains from them not pursuing the entry-level market full on.

Pentax is going to have to take on Sony, and at this point, Sony is just a much safer bet.

Pentax was way too slow out the gate with digital, and I don't think they can compete well in the Costco/BestBuy world. They may have gained some home market share this year, but I'd be very surprised to see it translate to global share. Nikon was slow out the gate with full frame, but when they came out, they came out strong- Pentax came out ok, but not strong- this is a little late in the game, they've missed most of the market's growth and the years of very high margins.

Pentax is also planing to launch into the medium format business this year with the 645D. Which is what they are really treating as their full frame. But really full frame has really been nothing but a world of hurt for anyone.

I'd consider that a bad thing- I'm not sure Hasselblad will weather the next few years, with the D3x arguably beating a couple of low-end PhaseI backs, Pentax would probably be better served by putting those resources into a marketing effort. On the contrary, MF has been declining, but the margins on the 5D, D3 and D700s have been great, one of the reasons that MF is in decline is that you can get a high-end Canon or Nikon body that'll rival MF for nowhere near the price- close enough for most commercial usage. It'll be interesting to see if we get sales numbers for the Sony's FF cameras though.
 
Thats Funny because Olympus has the #1 dSLR on amazon.com right now :rolleyes: and the Pentax K-X is at #12. Looks pretty good to me. lol.

You need to look at all the red ink that's been piled up for the last couple of years first. Oly's sold way more EP-1s than it has DSLRs, which doesn't argue well for them continuing to support them, and again neither company has gained more than 1% share in the last 3 years- that's not a long-term viability sign. When the market shrinks, probably in 2012, if they're still at 3-4% each, they're going to have to run on thinner margins against companies with more distribution and marketing power.

4% of a 350M market is a lot different a number than even 6% of a $100M market. Losing share in a growing market, you can still be making more money- you must be growing by a lot to make more money in a shrinking market.

I don't think the market will continue to support as many companies as we have today when it contracts.
 
Well, as of around november last year, Hoya was increasing RnD in the pentax division while decreasing work force and moving factories to lower cost countries like vietnam. This doesn't really sound like moves from a company that is slowly trying to phase out its camera business. Hoya is putting money into pentax and Pentax released two solid cameras in 2009. The K-X is also of course doing pretty well (I have a friend who bought one over a canon and loves it) and Pentax advertisements have also been spotted recently in magazines like PP.

Who knows what surprises Pentax is going to put out for PMA and there is rumors that this medium format Pentax will be very reasonably priced and within the reach of pro-sumers.

And who knows what is going to happen to Hasselbald and Leica. They are kind of stuck in the moment and not really doing anything new.

Sony if anything has lost large amounts of money is trying to force its way into the camera business. Sales of of their cameras were down in 2009 significantly.
 
Well, as of around november last year, Hoya was increasing RnD in the pentax division while decreasing work force and moving factories to lower cost countries like vietnam. This doesn't really sound like moves from a company that is slowly trying to phase out its camera business.

We'll have to agree to disagree, as to me it doesn't look like they're doing much than trying to float it rather than taking a total loss. Nothing says suck as much as a CEO who says he doesn't think the company can float a business itself. I sincerely wish you luck with your optimism though.

Sony if anything has lost large amounts of money is trying to force its way into the camera business. Sales of of their cameras were down in 2009 significantly.

Sony at least is up in market share since acquiring Minolta, and they have way better channels and way more advertising revenues than Pentax. They can't afford the losses as much as they once could, but Hoya is in a worse overall position IMO. You can float a camera business with 10% share, 4% is on the border when we reach contraction.

Paul
 
We'll have to agree to disagree, as to me it doesn't look like they're doing much than trying to float it rather than taking a total loss. Nothing says suck as much as a CEO who says he doesn't think the company can float a business itself. I sincerely wish you luck with your optimism though.



Sony at least is up in market share since acquiring Minolta, and they have way better channels and way more advertising revenues than Pentax. They can't afford the losses as much as they once could, but Hoya is in a worse overall position IMO. You can float a camera business with 10% share, 4% is on the border when we reach contraction.

Paul

Well, The HOYA CEO comments, at least the way I and many other pentax users see them is basically because Hoya/Pentax wants partners/alliances with sensor makers. Canon, Nikon and Sony are big enough to make their own but Pentax is a pretty small operation. The K10D was a joint effort so Pentax could get their hands on a Samsung made sensor. The K-X uses a Sony sensor. I am not sure what they K-7 has it in.

Pentax's expertise is in lenses. They make them better than just about everyone else unless you want to buy a 2000 dollar Nikon 70-200 F/2.8 or a Canon 300 F/2.8 or 3 or 4 grand lol. Pentax is however not experts in the electronic side of dSLR's. They are learning however as evident in improvements in the K-7 and K-x.

Sony will eventually be the leader in mass market purely because they are willing to sell their cameras that don't make up R/D budgets currently to push their way into the market. This is of course not exactly great news for Nikon and Canon who rely on expensive equipment to make up R/D budgets.
 
This is the way I see it. To use an analogy, let’s say I’m an amateur artist, and can paint reasonable pictures but don’t have a lot of time to indulge my hobby.

Say I find the brand of paints that I’m using a little intense in colour, would it make sense for me to change to a brand of paints that will give me subtly different colours that I like better? I bet some of the artists would say, go ahead and change your brand, and others would say you can mix the colours you want with the ones you have in your box already! And it’s true, I can, but is that the best solution for me?

For me, apart from a little tweaking, post-processing is, of necessity, for the minority of my pictures. There are people on here with far greater technical knowledge than I have on this subject, and others like me who find it an enjoyable hobby they wish they had more time for. Everyone's been generous with giving their thoughts and expertise. I will experiment with what you’ve advised and compare cameras before deciding but I’m not in a hurry.

Thanks! :)
 
My first SLR was a Pentax Spotmatic II, and I loved the Takumar glass - great stuff (especially my 50mm f/1.4 and 135mm f/2.5)... but... in keeping with the original topic, it seems to me that for in-camera .jpg processing with the D40 one should be able to change the settings to get as saturated/sharp a "look" (or the opposite) that you want, and just make that the default. I haven't used a D40, but my D50 had that adjustability... I'm not sure what the issue is that can't be dealt with...short of buying a completely different camera...?

You should be able to set contrast, saturation, sharpness, hue, white balance, etc. parameters and leave them that way, as well as exposure compensation +/- , which will obviously change the "look" of you out-of-camera images. If that won't do it for you, then as Compuwar said, go ahead and switch. You gotta like what you use, or it ain't worth it in the end.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.