[Kerrowdown]

The biggest Pentax flop

Is taking so long to come up with a FF camera the correct answer?

[RobA_Oz]

After all the early disdain, you'd think there'd have been a chorus of "K-01!" comments in this thread, so the time must be right for the K-02…

The *istD may have appeared later than the Canon DSLRs, but it was a far better built camera than the rival 10D, which was Canon's third variant on its original D60. It was a mistake to simply re-work the *istD into three subsequent models, and that's what initially put them behind as DSLRs overtook film SLRs. It wasn't a flop, but it was a mistake.

[excanonfd]

After all the early disdain, you'd think there'd have been a chorus of "K-01!" comments in this thread, so the time must be right for the K-02…

The *istD may have appeared later than the Canon DSLRs, but it was a far better built camera than the rival 10D, which was Canon's third variant on its original D60. It was a mistake to simply re-work the *istD into three subsequent models, and that's what initially put them behind as DSLRs overtook film SLRs. It wasn't a flop, but it was a mistake.

+1. The K-01 was an unequivocal flop! Getting a big shot designer who probably is not at all interested in photography to design the camera only to mothball the project after one iteration, is a flop. It was kind of funny but pathetic to see all the K-01 fanboys and gals trying to work around the K-01's lack of basic ergonomic features which any decent camera should have had.

[vonBaloney]

+1. The K-01 was an unequivocal flop! Getting a big shot designer who probably is not at all interested in photography to design the camera only to mothball the project after one iteration, is a flop. It was kind of funny but pathetic to see all the K-01 fanboys and gals trying to work around the K-01's lack of basic ergonomic features which any decent camera should have had.

It was a flop I guess (until they lowered the price), but there is nothing whatever wrong with the thing (especially at that lowered price). It is a fine camera, just didn't hit.

[Steve.Ledger]

What an awful negative thread to open. Aren't people happy unless they are complaining and finding fault? You must have little else happening in your lives. Get a grip and look at all the good stuff and be happy.. Geezsh!

[stevebrot]

Sorry, I'm not aware of any Pentax reputation as being a manufacturer of unreliable equipment. Underdog, yes, but a very excellent and capable underdog.

I am not even aware of the underdog status. Everywhere I go, people who recognize the brand treat my cameras with muted awe.


Steve

[stevebrot]

In October 2003, Pentax canceled the camera, stating "The cost of manufacturing the prototype SLR 6-megapixel digital camera meant it was not a viable product for our target market."

That and the Phillips sensor intended for the camera was expensive and presented significant performance and reliability issues. The sensor was common to the Contax N Digital (announced 2000, released 2002, withdrawn 2003). Failure of that camera has been partially credited with the demise of the Contax brand in 2005.

...so 1+ for the MZ-D.

Can we give honorable mention to the incredibly long time-to-market for the 645D?


Steve

[stevebrot]

The first thing to come to mind is the ME F...that held them back several years in the AF department.

How does being first to market (1981) qualify as holding back. It was my understanding that Pentax made a measured manufacturing and marketing decision to not pursue AF beyond the single model. The same was true for Olympus, Nikon and Canon during the same period. By 1984, no one was making AF 35mm SLRs. Eventually it was Minolta that built a workable PDAF* camera (1985) with the result that all the other players were caught a little flat-footed. Pentax released its first PDAF body (SFX) in 1987. That same year saw Canon and Nikon doing the same.

If the Pentax AF history is to be faulted, it would be in regards to not being competitive with second-generation PDAF systems.


Steve

* The early AF 35mm SLR bodies all used some form of contrast-detect autofocus.

[stevebrot]

Then we have the film *ist - Pentax last SLR. Not a huge hit.

We try not to talk about that model...


Steve

[stevebrot]

By the time Pentax released the *istD, Canon had been selling digital SLRS for three years.

Add to that the fact that while truly compact (smallest on the market), the *istD was also priced at the high end. I was really excited about the camera at the time, but when I found out the price (over $2000 IIRC), it was no deal for me.


Steve

[stevebrot]

ES spotmatics seem to be quite unreliable too.

I think you may be thinking of the Electro Spotmatic.


Steve

[sergysergy]

I think you may be thinking of the Electro Spotmatic.


Steve

Yeah, that's what I meant

[wombat2go]

Was the ILC Pentax 110 an innovation?
I always puzzle why Pentax did not join the M4/3 project on the 110 basis , but then introduced smaller frame digital cameras of about the same physical size.

[boriscleto]

By 1984, no one was making AF 35mm SLRs. Eventually it was Minolta that built a workable PDAF* camera (1985) with the result that all the other players were caught a little flat-footed. Pentax released its first PDAF body (SFX) in 1987. That same year saw Canon and Nikon doing the same.

If the Pentax AF history is to be faulted, it would be in regards to not being competitive with second-generation PDAF systems.


Steve

* The early AF 35mm SLR bodies all used some form of contrast-detect autofocus.

Minolta caught everyone flat footed because they stole PDAF from Honeywell and got to market with a workable AF before anyone else. Who would want an AF camera that could only focus on stationary, well lit targets with good contrast?

[SpecialK]

The biggest flop for me was the K5 mirror (I did not have the string of pearls). I never had a problem until a few months after I started reading about it. A few flops from time to time, then a long burst, a black frame, and death. $275 mirror box motor. I still bought a second one, though.