[Voe]

1. SR with any lens.
2. Love the Pentax color rendering on my K10D and lack of anti-aliasing filter.
3. Pentax Limited lenses.
4. Love the handling and controls.
5. Love the build quality of the cameras (and Limiteds).
6. It's not Canon or Nikon (I like to be different (I drive a rotary engine powered car instead of a piston engine) ).
7. The Better if not the Best price performance ratio.

[LRB21]

In a word color. I've used Pentax for 20 some odd years and there is something magical about the color. I think it has alot to do with the lenses and some with the camera too. Call me crazy, but I can pick out of a group the shots taken with a Pentax camera with a Pentax lens.

I started with an Agfa rangefinder and a minolta rangefinder. With my very first paycheck I bought a K1000 back in the late 70's. I now have a few more cameras like a 2 Mamiya's a Minolta SRT 101 and the K1000. I still love shooting film with all of them but when I do professional shoots I grab my K10D and the K1000. I like the feel of the Mamiyas and the Minolta but I love the Pentaxes. Pplus the fact that it's always been the best bang for the buck

[fiveo]

I started using Pentax when I got my K1000 in 1982. I used it until December of 2007 when I got the K100D. I think Pentax is the best value available with the SR, backwards lens compatibility, price and build quality. Most importantly to me, I just love the "feel" of my Pentax cameras and the way the pictures look. I went on a hunting trip to South Dakota with my Canon wielding friend and my Pentax pictures just looked better than his. They have better color and they "pop". Pentax isn't perfect but the weak points do not impact the type of photography that I do. I am now using my new K20D and when I feel I need to upgrade I will probably buy another Pentax. Crap! Maybe I'm a fanboy.

[PrimeObjectif]

Saw that I could get a great deal on an ist DS, then saw a nice price on the K10D, and I immediately returned the DS for the 10D. When I saw the great deals on the bodies, I researched the lenses and accessories and jumped right in. I don't have to compromise on quality (in both construction and images) for the price of the equipment.

[Furtivito]

Price plus performance -- more bang for my buck! And don't get me started on build quality!

[Douglas_of_Sweden]

Pick up a Nikon F2s sometime. Learn what it can do that no other mechanical SLR can do.

I used Nikon F2 and F3 in my military service (and Hasselblad) and loved both, but I still prefere LX and MX if nothing else for the size. Admitively Nikon would be my choise after Pentax due to this experience. However, I do think there are several other fantastic mechanical cameras. Have you held a Konica T3N? Heavy thing with an amazing transfer of apperture and exposure time to the viewfinder. Love the OM cameras as well. Same nice compactness as the MX. This was the golden age of SLR I believe.
In any case, Pentax has nothing to be ashamed of in this generation of mechanical cameras. But don't get me going on some of the awfull plastic bodies that came after the Super/program-A's. And of course I'm not going to claim that Pentax has the very best bodies today...but they may have the best value for money...and the K20D anyway does more than I ever asked a camera to do for me.

Just realised I have a 25 years anniversary this year. Got my two first Pentax bodies some time in 1984, a super-A (that body had just won all the three large camera design prices in Europe, US and Japan respectively just like the MZ-5 and the K10D did years later) and a 2nd body in the form of the program-A, with a A50/1.7 and an A100/2.8 as my first two lenses (and they all still work and are all still in use). I don't remember exactly when I got them, but I had them in June when I went to France for the first time with my French class. I was fifteen, and this was my 2nd SLR system as I sold my Konica system with two bodies and 28/40/50/85/135/200mm lenses. Why did I change? Konica appeared to be loosing speed in the technical development. Like Pentax their heart was in their lovely lenses, but Pentax made more technical progress and a large system and more of a future (which unfortunately came true when Minolta kild Konica). At the same time the rest of my familly changed to Pentax and so did half the camera club back home. From the Me-super Pentax got very big in Swedish camera/photo clubs during the 80's. And the Super-A got splendid press and got program, apperture priority, time priority and full manual and though I had to go down in number of lenses initially, I could share lenses. So that is why. Now I have too many favorite lenses to want to change. Many things have changed in my life in these 25 years. Nice that something is the same.

[Wheatfield]

I used Nikon F2 and F3 in my military service (and Hasselblad) and loved both, but I still prefere LX and MX if nothing else for the size. Admitively Nikon would be my choise after Pentax due to this experience. However, I do think there are several other fantastic mechanical cameras. Have you held a Konica T3N? Heavy thing with an amazing transfer of apperture and exposure time to the viewfinder. Love the OM cameras as well. Same nice compactness as the MX. This was the golden age of SLR I believe.
In any case, Pentax has nothing to be ashamed of in this generation of mechanical cameras. But don't get me going on some of the awfull plastic bodies that came after the Super/program-A's. And of course I'm not going to claim that Pentax has the very best bodies today...but they may have the best value for money...and the K20D anyway does more than I ever asked a camera to do for me.

I was thinking things like the rock solid build (paid for with size and weight), the 100% viewfinder, interchangable prisms and screens, the ability to do up to 10 second timed exposures, the ability to add shutter preferred automatic exposure and the very bright and visible LED metering, including the external readout on top of the prism.
This, from an all mechanical camera circa 1974.
There was nothing else like it, and frankly no one has made an all mechanical camera that outclasses it for sheer ability and robustness.

[Photo Tramp]

The question is phrased wrong My friend. Instead of why do you shoot Pentax it should be Why wouldn't you shoot Pentax? Ok there are some people out there that have reasons for faster AF and FPS but let's look at the right reasons for shooting Pentax. 1. Cost (best bang for the buck)
2. Lenses Over a million reasons (With backwards Technology.)
3. Built in SR to camera body (no VR lenses to buy.)
4. Low noise at High ISO.
5. Build quality compared to other brands.
6. Camera and lenses combined to give great results.
7. And The fantastic support of the people here on
Pentaxforums.com

What more could you want????

[ChrisPlatt]

Pick up a Nikon F2s sometime. Learn what it can do that no other mechanical SLR can do.

Been there; done that. Sold 'em. I prefer my Pentax cameras.

Chris

[Mallee Boy]

Had a Pentax MZ something or other film camera, 28-80 & 100-300 lenses.
With the arrival of digital I bought a Sony Mavica (yep, not too proud to say so). Soon realised that 1.3 mpx was less than desirable, moved to a Casio QV-R4 (4mpx)...great little camera, but soon started looking for more control and reach.

Was headed for a pro-sumer, super zoom Nikon. Bought a magazine that had a test on the Nikon, which also had a test on a *ist DS.

Given that I would never buy Canon, the Pentax became a very obvious choice with my two old lenses. Checked it out in Teds Cameras and bought it on the spot, despite some subtle pressure to consider other brands.

End of story.

No regrets.

Cheers
Grant

[iNVision ART]

Reason why I suaded to shoot with a Pentax after selling my nikon d40 is all thanks to my in-law. After toying around with his k20d and k10d, I was hooked!! I also toyed around with my friends Canon 5d mkII, 40D, XTi, d300, d80 but something about Pentax just snagged me. Plus it also helped that I use to work for RitzCamera so I would get a hands on feel for each of the popular dslr.

[barbosas]

I started with Pentax mainly because it was the cheapest body i could find, i had no clue about DSLR's, and i had no ideia what Tv or Av meant.. the only button i used on my P&S whas the one that said AUTO

After buying the body+kit lens, i found this forum and next.. oh next.. you know the drill... CBA, LBA..


But the main reason i shoot Pentax is because, as an amateur, my camera and lens give me all the images i need.


cheers

[gazonk]

I switched once, as a teenager, from Topcon to Pentax MX, which was replaced by an LX a few years later (and got company from my wife's ME Super and later another ME Super inherited from my father). Never looked back since

I waited a long time before going digital. First, because film was still better. Then because digital SLRs were too expensive. When the prices started to get affordable, I considered switching. But when the DS came out, I thought it was a no-brainer to stay with Pentax, and when I finally could afford the K10D, the choice was easy.

[Lowell Goudge]

I think you will find lots of people will respond,
- best value for the money (both 30 years ago and now)
- they had pentax film and a bag of lenses
- they like to be different than the masses
- they perceive a comittment to users (see second point and using legacy glass)

What ever the argument they are all good, but, really the question is is there a valid reason not to shoot pentax.

For 99.999% of all photographers, I don't think so. I think there are enough either old lenses or 3rd party ones (long fast sigmas for example) that eliminate most of the criticism.