[Rondec]

"Gee Mr. Mentor, I really want to replace my iPhone with a 'real' camera and get involved in photography. What do you recommend?"

"Well Young Beginner, I think the best camera system for you is Pentax. All the other companies have moved on to some crazy mirrorless system that uses a little TV screen in the viewfinder. Pentax uses the good old tried-and-true prism and mirror system that's been around since the mid-20th century. Like a manual transmission in your car, you know it just works."

"And lenses! It's important to have lots of lenses to buy. With Pentax, you can buy some modern, up-to-date, lenses with motors right inside them and special Pentax screw-drive lenses that use a motor that is in the camera (the other companies don't have this option). These screw-drive lenses have a feature of a little noise when they are focusing, so you know what is happening. Also you can buy vintage lenses for Pentax cameras. These are lenses that you can focus yourself by twisting a ring on the lens. And if you want to feel completely at one with your camera, you can get a vintage lens that you not only focus yourself, but also adjust the aperture right on the lens!"

"Another neat feature with Pentax is you don't have to worry about your camera being replaced by a new model every three years. Six or eight years, maybe. But not three or four. Yes Young Beginner, I think Pentax is the right choice for you."

Do you actually have people asking you what camera to buy? I don't. I do occasionally have people ask me what brand "I" shoot because they like my photos and assume that they could get similar results if they simply purchased the same brand.

As far as the rest of your sarcasm, I would simply say that most people do not have an unlimited budget. Assuming you have roughly a thousand dollars to spend on a new ILC and lenses, you are actually going to get more bang for your buck going used SLR. You can learn photography with an EVF or an OVF -- that is neither here nor there -- on the other hand, if you are stuck with a kit lens because that is all you can afford because your full frame MILC used up your budget, then maybe that isn't ideal.

I believe that a K-70 plus an 18-135 would be plenty of camera to learn with. I come down to the fact that in most situations the issue with bad image making has nothing to do with the gear and everything to do with what is a few inches behind the viewfinder.

But I think Gatorguy is right. ILCs in general are in severe decline. Other than Canon, there is no guarantee that any of the brands will be around in 10 years. Most probably will be, but I think making a long term recommendation to buy Nikon, for instance, when they have lost a lot of market share and are now hovering around 14 percent of a shrinking market, is not a guarantee that they will be around in coming years.

[AstroDave]

In order to compete for the attention of someone like her, you would need a small camera that she would carry for other purposes, and that isn’t going to happen.

Well - maybe try something like a Canon G7X. I have an older G15, which takes great pictures and is my wife's carry-around camera when we go traveling. Ought to fit in the average purse!

[Rondec]

“Everyone”-1.
I would hate to lug a DFA *50 around.

Even if I got a K-90, I would use it mostly with something like a lens at 28mm focal length; I do already have a 20-40mm Ltd.
I would use a K-1 with 50mm; I already have several 50mm lenses, but I’m unlikely to get a K-1.

You have the right picture for me, but the wrong details.

When Adam was giving away K-1 camera bodies {summer 2018?}, I worked to bring the post total up, but at first I didn’t enter the drawing, because I was unwilling purchase a bunch of lenses. I did enter when Mark ii won, because I had decided I would retire my K-30 and use those lenses. I purchased a KP when the price went down, figuring it would be my last body purchase, but I have been frustrated with it’s focusing, and have said here that I would purchase a K-90 if it had the K-3iii’s focusing for $1000 {or less}.

My point was not that specific camera body and lens. My point was only that people want expensive performance for cheap. Maybe you would do better with a K-3 III and DFA 31 limited with updated silent drive and tweaked optics. That would be a relatively small package and be close to your 28mm focal length. But if Pentax updated the FA 31 limited to give it similar features to the DFA 21 limited, it would sell for 1300 or there abouts.

The K-3 III has come down in price and may end up around 1500 dollars, but I think it unlikely that Pentax would or could bring all of its features to a K-90 camera.

[ZombieArmy]

I'm starting to wonder if we camera users are the last of the dinosaurs. I wish asking for recommendations was still a common question. More likely is "why are you carrying around all that big camera stuff when my iPhone is just as good?".

Until you can make a convincing argument to them for spending a few $Thousand dollars on a camera and lenses and bags and speedlights and whatever there is no mirrorless or DSLR that makes sense to recommend.

I feel like I'm being gaslit or something because I still think phone photos suck. Sure it looks ok at web quality but so did my photos on my hacked note 2 10 years ago. The one inch sensor ones are getting better but still struggle greatly compared to a bigger camera system with larger lenses. No I don't think an iphone is even in the same universe as a dedicated camera system.

[reh321]

My point was not that specific camera body and lens. My point was only that people want expensive performance for cheap. Maybe you would do better with a K-3 III and DFA 31 limited with updated silent drive and tweaked optics. That would be a relatively small package and be close to your 28mm focal length. But if Pentax updated the FA 31 limited to give it similar features to the DFA 21 limited, it would sell for 1300 or there abouts.

The K-3 III has come down in price and may end up around 1500 dollars, but I think it unlikely that Pentax would or could bring all of its features to a K-90 camera.

That is fine; I was merely stating my ‘wants’. My DA 20-40mm Ltd lens already pleases me.
If Pentax is to receive any more of my money they will have to produce a K-90 that focuses as I need - I have no desire for the K-3iii’s prism.

[gatorguy]

I feel like I'm being gaslit or something because I still think phone photos suck. Sure it looks ok at web quality but so did my photos on my hacked note 2 10 years ago. The one inch sensor ones are getting better but still struggle greatly compared to a bigger camera system with larger lenses. No I don't think an iphone is even in the same universe as a dedicated camera system.

You and I don't think it is. We've used both.

For someone with a newer gen iPhone or Google Pixel, and using a few apps to modify, fix or augment the photos they take on them good luck to you convincing them that spending a grand+ on am ILC, plus more on a couple of lenses, is going to make a noticeable difference in the quality. We won't even discuss arguing over user convenience.

It takes a while as a photographer before you recognize some of the shortcomings of a smartphone camera, much less what makes a photo memorable or interesting to begin with. Just look back at some of your earliest ILC photos that at the time you thought were great. If you're like me you now see perhaps they weren't all that.

So the benefits of a "real camera" may not be as obvious to casual smartphone users as it is to us. For Sally and Dave and Aubrey their phone is just as good as your big'ol stodgy camera. Heck, you see brides-to-be asking smartphone using acquaintances to do their wedding photos and don't see a good reason to pay a pro with cameras for it. That skin-smoothing and face slimming app makes the bride and groom look so young and attractive in just minutes, and is on Facebook before the cake is even cut! Looking like yourself, recognizable, is not all that important. Speed and simplicity, something effortless, is the name of the game.

[Serkevan]

I feel like I'm being gaslit or something because I still think phone photos suck. Sure it looks ok at web quality but so did my photos on my hacked note 2 10 years ago. The one inch sensor ones are getting better but still struggle greatly compared to a bigger camera system with larger lenses. No I don't think an iphone is even in the same universe as a dedicated camera system.

Yeah, any time I hear that nonsense I whip out whatever K-1 shots I have on hand in my phone (sent through Whatsapp, so horridly compressed, and that after starting from - usually - the XS or S-size JPG). That tends to make the point abundantly clear within seconds.

[Rondec]

I feel like I'm being gaslit or something because I still think phone photos suck. Sure it looks ok at web quality but so did my photos on my hacked note 2 10 years ago. The one inch sensor ones are getting better but still struggle greatly compared to a bigger camera system with larger lenses. No I don't think an iphone is even in the same universe as a dedicated camera system.

I think for many people phone cameras are good enough for their needs. They many not even see the difference between the latest Google Pixel or Samsung phone and an ILC with a sharp prime. That doesn't mean that there isn't a difference. It simply means that they haven't developed an eye for it and that they are viewing their images on tiny phone and tablet computer screens.

Clearly an SLR or MILC with a decent sized sensor is going to do a lot better than a phone camera.

[luftfluss]

Hasn't stopped me...

Lovely photos.

I'm not saying that Pentax shooters can't make wildlife photos - of course they can, and do. But of all the mainstream-ish brands, Pentax has the weakest selection of modern lenses suitable for wildlife

Of course, if one is willing to use older, manual-focus glass, the options are much greater.

Each one of these is taken with a different lens or lens/TC combo, on a Pentax body:









































There's a lot of capable gear out there, but it is difficult to recommend a system to new user where the top-level option is a pricey 150-450/5.6 while other systems feature comparably-priced xxx-600mm zooms and 500 or 600mm f4 primes + TC's for enthusiasts to grow into.

[reh321]

{

I feel like I'm being gaslit or something because I still think phone photos suck. Sure it looks ok at web quality but so did my photos on my hacked note 2 10 years ago. The one inch sensor ones are getting better but still struggle greatly compared to a bigger camera system with larger lenses. No I don't think an iphone is even in the same universe as a dedicated camera system.

I was driving {in snow} one year when I saw a locomotive that I had never seen before {and have never seen since}.
Since I was 'running errands' it turned out I had no camera with me - not even my "Q" ..... other than the one in my smart phone,
so I took this photo. Certainly, I could have taken a better photo with a K-1 {if I had one, and I had it with me}, but I took the best photo I could with the camera I did have with me.
It even looks OK on my computer screen - certainly better than the photo I would have taken with the imaginary camera I didn't have with me.

On another occasion, I was returning to my car after having taught {I taught several classes at a local women's college}, when I saw a maintenance man, seemingly photographing my car with his smart phone. He explained that he was photographing the hawk in a tree over my car, so I grabbed my phone and took a photo also. After that, I made a practice of taking my "Q" with me to class, but I never again saw a hawk. Would a K-1 have been better than my "Q" - of course - but dragging it to class would have been a bother - and I had neither of them with me at the time, and I do use photos to tell the story of my life ..... " photograph today before tomorrow comes and everything is different".

[Wheatfield]

Doesn't depend. D850 is better. First, it offer slightly more resolution and the sensor is dual gain BSI, less noise at high ISO without low pass filter (=Pentax accelerator chip in the K1 II). Second, 145 AF points and 3D tracking, and up to 9 FPS with grip (4.4 FPS for K1). Third, more CIPA shots on one battery charge. Fourth, D850 cost more than Pentax K1, but you can easily save more than the difference because Tamron lenses are all cheaper than the Pentax rebaged ones. Fifth, auto-calibration lenses for AF. Sixth, you can even have all the primes you want from Tamron, Sigma etc. D850 is a solid DSLR choice. Strange, when I read your posts, they don't seem to be fully informed.

While you are lost in the weeds debating the merits of the D850, which given how much they cost compared to a K1 had better be a higher performance body, you are conveniently ignoring the lenses.
Sure, you can get a slew of Nikon lenses you can take your pick from third party manufacturers, but there isn't a Nikon SLR made that will mount a Pentax branded lens.
Being tied up on quantity ignores the qualities of the lenses that brought many people, myself included, to Pentax in the first place.

When the shutter is open, the only thing between the sensor and the subject is the lens. Pretending the body is the most important part of the photographic system is the part that is not fully informed.

[Wheatfield]

I feel like I'm being gaslit or something because I still think phone photos suck. Sure it looks ok at web quality but so did my photos on my hacked note 2 10 years ago. The one inch sensor ones are getting better but still struggle greatly compared to a bigger camera system with larger lenses. No I don't think an iphone is even in the same universe as a dedicated camera system.

Cell phones are OK because other than a very small fraction of users, the display medium is at best an iPad with a 12" screen, and is more likely the same screen that is behind the cell phone camera.
Nothing has changed in the past 100 years in terms of the size most photos are viewed at. The 4x6 print was the quality benchmark for most pictures for most people from about 1960 until they started putting camera in phones. Prior to that it was contact prints or maybe 3 1/2 x5. That's a pretty low bar, and the cell phone has, if anything, lowered it even more.
People don't care about quality if it gets in the way of convenience.

[BruceBanner]

"Pentax was also quick with its mirrorless release; in fact it was innovative in releasing not one, but two, mirrorless models. The minuscule Q featured a 1/2.3″ IBIS sensor, while the later K-01 (using a Marc Newson-designed body) had an APS-C IBIS sensor but with a traditional K-mount. Unfortunately, both were failures and Pentax has never revisited its mirrorless graveyard."

I don't really agree with this, in my mind Pentax has not yet done a mirrorless camera. Those aforementioned cameras are more like DSLR's without the eye piece. How are we defining 'mirrorless'? Is the GR mirrorless? My smartphone? The MX-1? Does it have to be ICL camera? Does it have to have an eye piece or EVF? Point n' shoots? Of course it means the absence of a mirror but plenty of cameras were meeting that criteria for a long time before the term 'mirrorless' started floating around. I dunno... I just think its kinda cruel to say Pentax did MILC and it failed, I don't think they have even tried yet.
Today we have certain expectations when the word 'mirrorless' is mentioned and one defining aspect would be the replacement of an OVF with an EVF (or at least a hybrid viewfinder like the XPro3 has). K-01 and Q don't meet either of those expectations, I just don't think of them as mirrorless cameras in the same way I do with any modern system (or even aging MILC system that provided the user with an EVF).


I find it somewhat interesting that in an age where manufacturers are ditching the mirror, the brand that probably needed the most to go mirrorless can't and those brands that were already offering super duper AF via DSLR's have ditched it. K3III is a nice camera but let's be honest here, it's not even at D500 level let alone some other later iteration DSLR's with well renowned and respected AF. Pentax innovates in fantastic ways but just drops the ball hard on bread and butter items like buffer, fps, AF etc. Had it not then it might be in a very different financial situation than what it finds itself in today. Perhaps Pentax may have struggled less with AF under a MILC hood, for whatever reason they seemed to struggle with the mirror.

I don't really think Pentax being the last DSLR manufacturer is really going to make a slightest bit of difference to the company. I don't really think any Canikony DSLR user is going to move to Pentax once their DSLR dies, they'll simply buy a used one or (finally) go MILC. I think what was once a huge gripe against MILC systems was the 'tv' vibe from the EVF, but EVF's today are better and better, those complaints seem to be less prevalent today and dare I say it most users that still hold a grudge about it won't be around for much longer (ie the younger generation don't seem to care the eye piece interface the same way that the elder demographic does).

[gatorguy]

K3III is a nice camera but let's be honest here, it's not even at D500 level let alone some other later iteration DSLR's with well renowned and respected AF..

I had no idea you had the D500 Eddie. The only comparison I've come across had the Pentax on top.

Other than that we all have our own equally-valid opinions on the chances of Pentax being successful. I think it's financially unsupportable over the long-run that 4 name mirrorless camera companies, Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Fuji, all fight over the same dwindling pool of pseudo-professional and consumer photogs, and all four using lineups of cameras with similar features, similar lenses, similar performance, similar capabilities, and similar shooting experiences. It already just a game of leapfrog. I see little chance that all four are still around in their current form/ownership 10 years from now and some not at all.

With Pentax lone-man standing with a unique connection-to-the-subject OVF experience and a century-long understanding of the photographic art, I believe they'll still have a chance of standing proud when others of the four fall to the wayside over the next few years.

But you think the chances for Pentax would be improved by fighting with their own me-too mirrorless bodies against the other four over the remnants of what was once a vibrant pool of happy camera users, a pool that no longer will exist. I think as little as half the camera market size we have now may be all they have to profit from within 5-6 years. Will Fuji or Nikon or even Sony have any interest in designing new cameras when total unit numbers drop into a few 10's of thousands as IMHO they almost certainly will over the next 10? I don't believe they will. You can of course disagree as you probably will. If we're both still in this world 10 years on we can see which of us is correct.

The fact is that some so far undetermined percentage of buyers simply won't ever be happy with an EVF mirrorless. When they decide to purchase a new OVF camera I believe Pentax has an excellent chance of still being here to serve them with a healthy lineup of lenses to go along. They don't rely on big numbers to survive now. But I don't think many of the others will have the dedication to the craft to stick with it when their own revenues inevitably fall to current Pentax levels. We're dinosaurs Eddy, and the number of us won't be increasing. On the contrary...

[AggieDad]

I was driving {in snow} one year when I saw a locomotive that I had never seen before {and have never seen since}.

At the risk of seeming a bit goofy, I think your locomotive is an Electro-Motive (EMD) SD70ACe. According to the webpage I am looking at, it was built from 2005 through 2015. It has 4300 HP through six axles.