[Adrian Owerko]

A good read on what is so great about Pentax (:

What if Nikon and Canon didn't make DSLRs? - DigitalRev.com

[bigdog104]

He makes some interesting points, thanks for the link.

[FullertonImages]

I love how he picks on the K-x colors, while failing to mention that it also comes in black and has the best noise control of any aps-c sensor out there, and for dirt cheap too. You know, just a minor detail...

[ghelary]

I love how he picks on the K-x colors, while failing to mention that it also comes in black and has the best noise control of any aps-c sensor out there, and for dirt cheap too. You know, just a minor detail...

I'll second that one. Pentax have understood that some people want to have fun with their camera and adressed this audience at minimal cost by putting on their camera.

But it doesn't mean that the cameras are not capable... Why a serious camera shall look serious ? I have a friend who in some circurstances (in Dubaï) couldn't take some pictures because the camera looked too professional (a 5MkII)

[reeftool]

His final point on his Pentax commentary is the best one. Go check out Pentax shots on various Flickr groups and see for yourself.

[24X36NOW]

I think it's a pretty dumb line of thought. Kind of like "if the Japanese and Koreans didn't make cars, everyone would think that GM is the cat's meow."

Pentax has bottom-fed their way into market obscurity for decades, and that's why DigitalRev, among others, doesn't pay it much attention. Yes, Pentax has produced some nice cameras, but the unpleasant reality is that they're still playing catch-up on too many fronts with Nikon and Canon. Hopefully they'll soon introduce some products that will fill some holes in their product offerings, narrow those gaps and raise their profile in the market, but the waiting game does get tiresome.

[Asahiflex]

I think it's a pretty dumb line of thought. Kind of like "if the Japanese and Koreans didn't make cars, everyone would think that GM is the cat's meow."

Pentax has bottom-fed their way into market obscurity for decades, and that's why DigitalRev, among others, doesn't pay it much attention. Yes, Pentax has produced some nice cameras, but the unpleasant reality is that they're still playing catch-up on too many fronts with Nikon and Canon. Hopefully they'll soon introduce some products that will fill some holes in their product offerings, narrow those gaps and raise their profile in the market, but the waiting game does get tiresome.

So you want Pentax to be on the same level as Canon and Nikon? Well, I don't. Because market leaders will always get bland and uninteresting, showing new products which are indeed improved/faster etc. but never with any hint of interesting new features. They simply never take as much risk as Pentax does. Really, I find Pentax interesting. You do so too I presume?

Bottom line: if you want a camera from one of the market leaders then by all means get one! Don't ever think that the David will grow into a Goliath.

[FullertonImages]

So you want Pentax to be on the same level as Canon and Nikon? Well, I don't. Because market leaders will always get bland and uninteresting, showing new products which are indeed improved/faster etc. but never with any hint of interesting new features. They simply never take as much risk as Pentax does. Really, I find Pentax interesting. You do so too I presume?

Bottom line: if you want a camera from one of the market leaders then by all means get one! Don't ever think that the David will grow into a Goliath.

But David is going to kick Goliath's ass. Gahahaha.

[Blue]

I would suspect that I had been pull into some sort of time vortex back to 1957.

[Asahiflex]

I would suspect that I had been pull into some sort of time vortex back to 1957.

Why not to 1952? You could see with your own eyes that Asahi was the one and only Japanese 35mm SLR maker

[Blue]

Why not to 1952? You could see with your own eyes that Asahi was the one and only Japanese 35mm SLR maker

I considered that, but this is what rattled the other Japanese firms to the foundation and put the German firms in denial until 1968!

[Asahiflex]

I considered that, but this is what rattled the other Japanese firms to the foundation and put the German firms in denial until 1968!

They still haven't bettered that design. It's simply beautiful. The Spotmatic does not even come close. The quality of the chrome... the silky smooth advance lever (because it's not ratcheted as in the Spotmatic)... Some people won't realize how small it is, especially considering its age. Show it next to a Canonflex RM2000 or a Topcon RE-Super, and see how perfect the design is...

[24X36NOW]

So you want Pentax to be on the same level as Canon and Nikon? Well, I don't. Because market leaders will always get bland and uninteresting, showing new products which are indeed improved/faster etc. but never with any hint of interesting new features. They simply never take as much risk as Pentax does. Really, I find Pentax interesting. You do so too I presume?

Not necessarily at the "same level," but the gap is too large at this point, particularly the lack of a FF dSLR. I don't know how much innovation is really there to set Pentax apart based on its smaller market presence anyway. What "features" do you think Pentax offers but Nikon and Canon do not, due to their "blandness?"

Bottom line for me is I've been a Pentax shooter for decades and therefore have lots of glass to use if they'd just build the damn FF dSLR camera for them already. They may not have been at the same level as Nikon or Canon if they would have done less "bottom feeding" over the last few decades, but they wouldn't be quite so small a presence in the market either, and would be healthier as a result, with more and better products already in the market instead of on the "if only they made it" lists of Pentax shooters.

[dnaseigel]

Not necessarily at the "same level," but the gap is too large at this point, particularly the lack of a FF dSLR. I don't know how much innovation is really there to set Pentax apart based on its smaller market presence anyway. What "features" do you think Pentax offers but Nikon and Canon do not, due to their "blandness?"

Bottom line for me is I've been a Pentax shooter for decades and therefore have lots of glass to use if they'd just build the damn FF dSLR camera for them already. They may not have been at the same level as Nikon or Canon if they would have done less "bottom feeding" over the last few decades, but they wouldn't be quite so small a presence in the market either, and would be healthier as a result, with more and better products already in the market instead of on the "if only they made it" lists of Pentax shooters.

Many are with you on the full frame sentiment. Evidence of this is seen frequently in the forum marketplace. I also see it in the store where I work when a customer who has shot Pentax for years comes in to purchase some accessory for the other branded camera that uses 24x36. When the inevitable conversation comes up that they just wanted the features of the full frame, the conversation always includes some comment illustrating their regret the new camera lacks the color, depth of the image (whatever the hell that means) and the great ergonomics. They also tell me that they miss the enormous number of little differences like the creative filters, all the in-camera processing possibilities and some intangible inspiration they felt using a Pentax. The reality is that to a viable number of people, the Pentax brand actually does mean something.

These things don't necessarily mean anything to me. I shoot Pentax because I have a stable of lenses covering 12 to 500mm in some very nice glass. As a retailer I lack the credentials of an economist or accomplished photographer, so take what I say as you wish. Pentax has very much turned a corner where I will see fewer departures from the brand and more defectors to it. Whatever is causing this, I can't say for sure but I see it at more than at a end user level. I go to trade shows where the camera manufacturers are there representing their wares for dealers to buy. Last weekend I attended one in Cleveland and although Pentax showed no new products, nor even hinted at them, one thing was abundantly clear. They absolutely dominated the show. The prior year the Pentax booth was very sparsely attended even though they had just announced the K-7 and the W80, and Nikon's booth ruled. This year the Nikon booth looked like it was the company that is chronically on the brink. I compare these two brands because I see them at somewhat similar points in their product's life cycles. Yet dealers simply overwhelmed the Pentax staff. Even though both companies had the same number of people running their booths, Pentax needed to have Ned Bunnell and Mark Sherengo taking orders from dealers.

I realize that this doesn't give you that long overdue 24x36. I guess I am suggesting that Pentax will, at the very least, be much stronger this coming year. And that will be good even if all it does is give the bland, market dominating monoliths some ideas that are just a little different.

[Douglas_of_Sweden]

Rather pointless idea. For instance, had not Nikon and Canon existed, Minolta would maybe not have sold out DSLR to Sony and Konica would probably not have sold out to Minolta before that, and Sony would not have been making DSLRs (at least not with a Minolta mount) so he might have a choise between Pentax, Olympus, Minolta and Konica, and perhaps others that had survived as well without the competition from Canon and Nikon.