[Digitalis]

It's hard to recommend Pentax to someone who has expressed an interest in wildlife photography, for instance.

Hasn't stopped me...


Pentax K10D - Sigma 100-300mm f/4 APO EX



Pentax K5IIs - Sigma 100-300mm f/4 APO EX



Pentax K-1 - Sigma 100-300mm f/4 APO EX

The real question is, “Can you, in good conscious, recommend Pentax to a new (entry level) buyer?”

If cost wasn't any concern could you say the same for Leica, Phase one or any other niche brand out there? of course not. Cost and value are very subjective and relative things: and just because a camera is common doesn't make it the best possible choice for every photographic scenario. But in the hands of skilled hands even a 4X5 view camera can accomplish feats beyond the capacities modern mirror less cameras. This reminds me of a tale my teacher told me once of a photographer having bought a brand new and soul crushingly expensive Leica R7 with a 400mm f/2.8 APO Telyt lens. His mistake was his hubris: he assumed that such an advanced and expensive camera from Leica would have automatic film loading and frame advance, nope. He returned from an expensive wildlife safari in Africa with nothing but blank unexposed rolls of film.



Leica Monochrom - Pentax SMCP-FA43mm f/1.9 Special

---------- Post added 2022-07-22 at 03:39 PM ----------

I have a greater confidence that Pentax will be around than some of the other "big" players.

I rarely make specific predictions on the industry, but I suspect Pentax will be around in some form or another for as long as the last SMC Takumar 50mm f/1.4 still emits radiation.

---

Last edited by Digitalis; 07-21-2022 at 10:11 PM.

[pinholecam]

The buyer demographic for C/N was/is huge.
The low to mid tier buyers will likely go to the next latest and greatest that everyone else is using (or already migrated to HP)
The commercial users have already moved on to the latest stuff with the AF and lenses they want; Some niche people here and there who stick to OVFs but just look around on sites/forums/youtube and most have moved on.
So what remains is really niche users who some reason or other prefer (can only use) OVFs.
and even amongst those, you have the brand die hards or 'can't be bothered' or 'too much invested'.

If I were to guesstimate the size of that from the 100% market of C/N users. Maybe 5%-3% or it.
Perhaps still enough for Pentax to survive as having grown market share.



Even from local experience.
We used to have a small and active Pentax user community here in Singapore.
Some older members here will remember the time when users in Singapore might even be the first to review/get Pentax stuff.
But it started dwindling some 8yrs back.
Nowadays, its just "die hards", "too much invested" and "can't care less "
The number of users have been stagnant ( dwindling actually but really slowly now ).

[repaap]

While mirrorless tech is great, there is still and will be something special for you to have OVF. Ofcourse I’m long time Pentax user to say this, but also handling and feel of Pentax cameras are still in it’s own class.

A lot of photographers are also using completely manual lenses with their brand new state of art mirrorless cameras. Some of guys even buy camera with OVF for it. Why? Because they like to shoot like that. (One of the reasons why this is made possible by camera manufacturers at the first place) Just because there is so many different needs.

I’d say that there are any hybrid users mainly because they do think that this is the way, but also because they can’t afford 2. Cameras, video and photo. And that is also why most content at YouTube and instagram is filled with pure garbage… tech does help you to get so far, then it will be up to your own talent to get further…

Pentax is all about photography and it is quite high quality now a days. K-3III did really change the game. While K-1 started it K-1III is really needs to show where things are going be.
(Hoping to new 645 to emerge too)

[biz-engineer]

and even amongst those, you have the brand die hards or 'can't be bothered' or 'too much invested'.

Or system maturity. I'm still using the K1 system (camera+lenses) because the Pentax full frame and new lenses are from 2016 and later, it's DSLR but the new Pentax glass is state of the art optics like mirrorless glass.
For me it would be easier decision to switch to mirrorless if I was the owner of a 15 years old Canon full frame glass dating back to the 5D years. What I want to say is that Pentax came late with full frame, so yes it's DSLR, but at the same time the new DFA and DFA* lenses are superb (optically + AF motor), such that the tech gap between Pentax FF (except for AF) and MILC isn't as big as it can be for other brands. So I think it would be too early , in term of lens lineup maturity (Pentax) and EVF maturity (others), for Pentax to go mirrorless now, but Pentax deciding to never go mirrorless is IMO a mistake or pretty much kill Pentax in the long term as EVFs get better and better. And for Pentax apsc, as a customer, the situation may be similar, e.g if you own a new Pentax D-FA 16-50 and a K3 III, you wouldn't gain much for your money by switching to a MILC apsc. Now if you've go 15 - 20 years old Pentax lenses, you gain big by buying any of the new camera kits, mirrorless or not.

[pinholecam]

Or system maturity. I'm still using the K1 system (camera+lenses) because the Pentax full frame and new lenses are from 2016 and later, it's DSLR but the new Pentax glass is state of the art optics like mirrorless glass.
For me it would be easier decision to switch to mirrorless if I was the owner of a 15 years old Canon full frame glass dating back to the 5D years. What I want to say is that Pentax came late with full frame, so yes it's DSLR, but at the same time the new DFA and DFA* lenses are superb (optically + AF motor), such that the tech gap between Pentax FF (except for AF) and MILC isn't as big as it can be for other brands. So I think it would be too early , in term of lens lineup maturity (Pentax) and EVF maturity (others), for Pentax to go mirrorless now, but Pentax deciding to never go mirrorless is IMO a mistake or pretty much kill Pentax in the long term as EVFs get better and better. And for Pentax apsc, as a customer, the situation may be similar, e.g if you own a new Pentax D-FA 16-50 and a K3 III, you wouldn't gain much for your money by switching to a MILC apsc. Now if you've go 15 - 20 years old Pentax lenses, you gain big by buying any of the new camera kits, mirrorless or not.

I am reminded about the path Leica had/has taken and how in the end, they have to venture into MILC (and a mix of it).
The road is not ended for Pentax and MILC imho.
I look at the Canon and Nikon dslr lens adapters for their respective MILC and also the Monster PK-FE AF adapter and I see that its actually possible to have both MILC + legacy lens support and a gradual move to MILC lenses. In fact the DFA lenses integrate even better than the screw drive ones with the Monster adapter.
The problem is customer perception and 'branding'.
A move to any type of MILC for Pentax means losing the confidence of existing and potential DSLR users, also messing with the 'Pentax = OVF = DSLR" branding they have chosen for themselves.

The CIPA data for DSLR shipments is 2.16million for 2021.
If even 5% of this now primarily becomes a Pentax monopoly, it seems significant enough.

[jersey]

Saying that Pentax "never" going MILC is a mistake is like saying that Leica never going making EVF RF is mistake or that Chamonics or Gandolfi made an error not going 35mm and sticking to large formats.

[simon_199]

Or system maturity. I'm still using the K1 system (camera+lenses) because the Pentax full frame and new lenses are from 2016 and later, it's DSLR but the new Pentax glass is state of the art optics like mirrorless glass.
For me it would be easier decision to switch to mirrorless if I was the owner of a 15 years old Canon full frame glass dating back to the 5D years. What I want to say is that Pentax came late with full frame, so yes it's DSLR, but at the same time the new DFA and DFA* lenses are superb (optically + AF motor), such that the tech gap between Pentax FF (except for AF) and MILC isn't as big as it can be for other brands. So I think it would be too early , in term of lens lineup maturity (Pentax) and EVF maturity (others), for Pentax to go mirrorless now, but Pentax deciding to never go mirrorless is IMO a mistake or pretty much kill Pentax in the long term as EVFs get better and better. And for Pentax apsc, as a customer, the situation may be similar, e.g if you own a new Pentax D-FA 16-50 and a K3 III, you wouldn't gain much for your money by switching to a MILC apsc. Now if you've go 15 - 20 years old Pentax lenses, you gain big by buying any of the new camera kits, mirrorless or not.

This is a fact, modern pro grade Pentax lenses leave nothing to be desired with respect to the competition DFA* 50, 85 ,DA* 16-50 and 11-18,...., all top notch.
However there are, in my opinion, quite big holes that the competition has covered with even 2-3 choices between third party and brand name lenses. For instance, a lighter, cheaper, f4, landscape-oriented 15-30 class lens at about 900-1000€, that accepts smaller and cheaper filters. As good as the 15-30 is, many shooters would prefer this kind of lens. All systems have it Nikon, Sony, Canon, Fuji (the APS-c equivalent that fulfills this role)...
In my opinion the amount of market share lost by Pentax due to not offering some highly sought after types of lenses that the vast majority of shooters want is significant. They have lots of interesting lenses, even quirky ones that I love (10-17 FE), but the "mainstream" focal lengths have not always been covered with great offerings. People considering to switch brands or to invest in a new system would browse the catalog, see the holes, and move on regardless of the many interesting features offered by the system.

---

Last edited by simon_199; 07-22-2022 at 01:09 AM.

[biz-engineer]

The problem is customer perception and 'branding'.

You are right. However, history showed that Pentaxians tend to reject technology that others have when Pentax doesn't have it, and they immediately accept that new tech once Pentax offers it. I remember very well in lens motor , electronic aperture control and optical stabilization, all those ideas were rejected when Pentax lenses were mostly screw drive with an aperture lever, but nobody complained that the DFA*85, DFA*50, DFA70-210, aren't screw drive without aperture lever. It would be funny when Ricoh comes up with a MILC camera, with full image frame AF points coverage, eye AF, and seamless K mount adapter, with a traditional easy to use Pentax UI and very nice Pentax camera design, see if the EVF would still give a headaches to all Pentaxians.

As good as the 15-30 is, many shooters would prefer this kind of lens. All systems have it Nikon, Sony, Canon, Fuji (the APS-c equivalent that fulfills this role)...

IMO, such lens skews in the Pentax lineup are intentional (marketing). I could cover the focal lengths covered by my 9 Pentax lenses with 3 or 4 lenses from either of the 3 leading brands, although the optical performance / capability from 9 Pentax lenses is superior, that's why I can't really complain but I figured things out...

[simon_199]

IMO, such lens skews in the Pentax lineup are intentional (marketing). I could cover the focal lengths covered by my 9 Pentax lenses with 3 or 4 lenses from either of the 3 leading brands, although the optical performance / capability from 9 Pentax lenses is superior, that's why I can't really complain but I figured things out...

Who knows, some might be, some might not. IMO it's a vicious circle that has reinforced over the years. Small market share, hence little budget for refreshing lenses/filing the gaps, hence loss or inertia in gaining market share, and it goes on. What came before, that is marketing decisions to pursue "unusual" optics, or lack of resources to catch up with the competition we'll never know. I say this because there are lenses that would still be very good if refreshed with modern WR body and AF, like the 12-24 F4 for APS-c, why not ? It would be great, competitive with Fuji's offering (if not better, the 10-24 is nothing to write home about...). Many don't need the extra weight and cost of the 11-18. I don't think is a marketing decision not to refresh it. I mean, giving priority to other things is a marketing decision, but I doubt that there is a sort of veto that prevents to do that in view of some general "positioning" strategy, given enough resources. It's a perfectly reasonable optic to have in a system.

[Rondec]

Why can't I, with a full kit of Pentax gear, recommend Pentax to a new photographer? Because I can't feel that confident that Pentax will be offering much in 5 years if they are, indeed, still in business. I think a person staring out should start out with equipment from a dynamic company that is sure to be around in the future.

I think a lot would depend on what someone is interested in, what their budget is, and what their level of interest is. Wildlife and sport photography is a niche that Pentax probably doesn't have a great set of lenses for. That said, if someone wants to dabble in that, you could do worse than the 55-300 PLM, the DA *300 or the DFA 150-450. If wildlife photography is the only thing that you are interested in, then I would agree that looking farther afield may be in order. It would take quite a bit of investment to do better than a K-3 III and DFA 150-450 though and my experience is that most beginners aren't interested in picking up a 5000 dollar lens right off the bat.

I would argue that Pentax actually has a fairly complete line up at present, particularly when you include the legacy lenses that many of us still shoot with. You can fill out a lens line up quite easily with glass from e bay for reasonable prices and have a nice start.

More than that, with the dawn of mirrorless, even if your particular brand bites the dust, most lenses are portable over to MILCs. This is at least true for SLR lenses. I'm not sure if Sony decides to shut down their FE mount cameras, if their lenses could be mount on other brand's mirrorless cameras. Seems like that would be a tougher proposition as the adapters would need to be pretty slim.

Regardless, I would have no trouble recommending a beginner to buy a gently used D500 right now and some F mount lenses. Nikon has telegraphed that they are ending SLR development, but that doesn't mean those cameras cease to exist or that they suddenly stop taking nice photos. If in 5 years, someone who owns a D500 wants to move to whatever the hot Z mount camera is at that point, they should be able to do so pretty seamlessly.

Anyway, as I said before, I think that too many beginning photographers focus on gear. My daughter started with a K-S1 and has move on to our old K-3. She really enjoys shooting with it, particularly with the DA 40 limited and is learning things about photography, framing, and light that maybe she wouldn't if she was shooting with fully automated, green mode gear. I'm sure you can learn with MILCs too, but your question had to do with recommending Pentax for someone who was beginning.

[biz-engineer]

What came before, that is marketing decisions to pursue "unusual" optics, or lack of resources to catch up with the competition we'll never know.

Not only the small market share, but also the nature of customers. I believe the key problem specific to Pentax is that a large proportion of Pentaxians who stayed Pentaxians for using their old FA lenses. I was looking at Pentax year book, and I noticed more than 2 images out of 3 were taken with lens models from the years before 2012, so I guess the sales of new Pentax lens models are very slow and need a very long time to pay back what it cost to develop it, a reason for selling the FA limited for so long, not having replaced those lenses with new design with WR and in lens motor. Other brands have discontinues lens mount backward compatibility with newer camera bodies, and increased marketing to move customers to the new lens mounts. Keeping full backward mount compatibility is the double edged sword, one the one hand backward compatibility makes it easy to keep loyal customers, but on the other hand it strongly limits the amount of lens business.

[simon_199]

Not only the small market share, but also the nature of customers. I believe the key problem specific to Pentax is that a large proportion of Pentaxians who stayed Pentaxians for using their old FA lenses. I was looking at Pentax year book, and I noticed more than 2 images out of 3 were taken with lens models from the years before 2012, so I guess the sales of new Pentax lens models are very slow and need a very long time to pay back what it cost to develop it, a reason for selling the FA limited for so long, not having replaced those lenses with new design with WR and in lens motor. Other brands have discontinues lens mount backward compatibility with newer camera bodies, and increased marketing to move customers to the new lens mounts. Keeping full backward mount compatibility is the double edged sword, one the one hand backward compatibility makes it easy to keep loyal customers, but on the other hand it strongly limits the amount of lens business.

Agree 100%, this is another key aspect that motivates the relatively slow release cycle. As a result, some really good lenses came very late to the market, when the "golden age" of DSLR was already slowing down and the market was shrinking. A 55-300PLM is every bit as good as any other comparable telezoom, even more modern ones; probably cheaper and better built. But it came late after years of various unappealing screw driven 55-300 iterations while the competition already offered fast and silent AF motors years before.

[JPT]

I read this article a couple of days ago and while I agree with a lot of what it says, I kind of take objection to the idea that if Pentax's strategy succeeds, they will have "lucked out". Pentax has decided to focus in SLR cameras deliberately. Another way of putting that is Ricoh Imaging has decided not to market mirrorless cameras under the Pentax brand (because there is nothing they have said to preclude them from doing it under Ricoh). In case anyone thinks this is accidental, Pentax literally put out a statement outlining this strategy a whole two years ago. I don't know of any other camera company that has done this so explicitly. The way PetaPixel writes this is as if it's all accidental and that Pentax is just powerlessly reacting to forces out of their control rather than in control of their own destiny.

So if Pentax does do well after Nikon and Canon leave the SLR market, it will be a result of their quite deliberate strategy. It will not be luck. And conversely if they do badly it will be the failure of their strategy. However, given that no-one can agree on whether these companies are doing well or badly, I don't expect that question to be answered to everyone's satisfaction. A lot of companies go bankrupt every year and Pentax is still making cameras. By my estimation that's success enough for the people who make and buy their cameras.

The other smaller point that annoyed me is a something that is occasionally expressed on this forum as well - that Pentax had a kind of golden era just before Hoya took over. It's true that a lot of the DA line-up was introduced in quick succession, but at the same time a lot of problematic lenses were put out that really cost Pentax in the long term. One thing I like about Ricoh-era Pentax is that they don't come out with duff lenses. They'll delay them rather than sell something substandard. It may feel frustrating to wait, but it's better than buying something and being let down by it.

[Rondec]

I remember the pre-Hoya years of Pentax fondly. There were some amazing prices at that point -- particularly for US folks buying from Canada. I remember getting my DA *16-50 for 600-ish and 50-135 for 750. Flagship camer bodies often dropped to around 600 dollars at the end of their life span.

The problem is of course that that sort of pricing made for losses on the imaging side of things. Much like with Olympus, the medical side of Pentax carried the imaging side of the company for years till Hoya bought them up.

The challenge for Pentax is to release products that people are willing to pay premium prices for. No one is going to pay high dollar for a poorly specified, uncomfortable camera to use, but if people enjoy using the camera and getting high quality images from it, they will be willing to pay for it, even if it doesn't have the highest end video out there or a million frames per second frame rate.

[peptheyep]

I've heard that DFA*50 is pretty fast and K3III has AF on par with competition. Solution is already in stores.

You're right, but we're talking about the top tier and newest camera Pentax sells and a pretty expensive 50mm lens, we should hope to see these kind of improvements on every camera and lenses in the future