[Clavius]

$1860 vs $1100 = better price in what alternate universe?

Uhm... The MSRP of the K5IIs is $1199,95 for just an APSC. Whilst for only $1860,- you can go several levels upwards to FF, with fantastic AF in almost the same small form factor! That's an incredible bang-for the buck ratio, similar to what Pentax used to have about 6 years ago.

1/4000s, 4.5fps vs 1/8000s, 7fps = "many times" the performance?

How many times did you use 1/8000? Just as often as ISO 256000? Both extremely useful features. And how usefull is the K5's 7fps when its AF-C is so very "accurate"?

"Drip proof" (wow Canon, that terminology sure inspires confidence) vs K-5's well proven weather sealing?

Yeah, all the threads about Pentax leaking WR seals sure inspires confidence. (Humor me, do a search.) "Drip proof" applies to Pentax as well. My own experience with leaky Pentax seals forced me to place plastic rain sleeves on all my Pentax WR gear. Some real Japanese modesty in their terminology would have been very appropriate.

97% viewfinder coverage vs 100% (and absolute size only 12% more than K-5, despite FF being 50% larger linearly)?

For THAT price: FF sensor and 12% bigger viewfinder. That's pretty fantastic. Even without mentioning all the other pro's of the 6D.

And yes, the 6D is very much an "entry level FF" by virtue of it having the lowest price and the worst specs of any FF DSLR currently being produced.

Again, if that makes it "entry level" then what does that make the best Pentax gear?


All things considered, for just a little more money you can use your Pentax FF glass on it's appropriate format. That is something Pentax doesn't provide for at all, no matter what price you pay.

Pentax really should address their shitty bang for the buck ratio that they now suddenly seem to have

---

Last edited by Clavius; 02-23-2013 at 06:33 AM.

[Lurch]

I wonder if this thread will hit 20 pages?

Well, thus far its nearly 15 pages of Pentax-hate.
Not bad for a bunch of Pentax users.

[Cannikin]

Uhm... The MSRP of the K5IIs is $1199,95 for just an APSC. Whilst for only $1860,- you can go several levels upwards to FF, with fantastic AF in almost the same small form factor! That's an incredible bang-for the buck ratio, similar to what Pentax used to have about 6 years ago.

You're quoting the price of the K-5IIs? I recall you explicitly referring to the K-5II. And just for reference, the MSRP of the 6D is $2100 and that of the K-5II is $1200. This is an even worse price ratio. Obviously I was quoting the street retail prices of the 6D and K-5II right now.

How many times did you use 1/8000? Just as often as ISO 256000? Both extremely useful features. And how usefull is the K5's 7fps when its AF-C is so very "accurate"?

Yeah, all the threads about Pentax leaking WR seals sure inspires confidence. (Humor me, do a search.) "Drip proof" applies to Pentax as well. My own experience with leaky Pentax seals forced me to place plastic rain sleeves on all my Pentax WR gear. Some real Japanese modesty in their terminology would have been very appropriate.

For THAT price: FF sensor and 12% bigger viewfinder. That's pretty fantastic. Even without mentioning all the other pro's of the 6D.

Again, if that makes it "entry level" then what does that make the best Pentax gear?

All things considered, for just a little more money you can use your Pentax FF glass on it's appropriate format. That is something Pentax doesn't provide for at all, no matter what price you pay.

Pentax really should address their shitty bang for the buck ratio that they now suddenly seem to have.

That's your opinion that all these features are useless and the 6D is so much better value, but it doesn't change the fact you made wild claims that the 6D is a better price, and better in every single way, which are objectively false statements. Hell, many of the specs of the 6D are on the level of the 650D or even worse in a few cases.

PS: What use is 1/8000? Two words: f/1.4, daylight

[Kunzite]

Clavius, why to you have "PENTAX K-5 proud owner" in your signature? As you seem to be extremely unhappy with anything Pentax, past, present or future.
1. Your "bang for the buck" is highly subjective, because for you only "Canon" and "full frame" matters; and is used to justify bogus mathematics. The fact is, the K-5 II is $1100 (yes, the one with AA filter) and the 6D is $1860 (heavily discounted not long after introduction), and that's a $750 difference.
2. You claimed the 6D has "better features" than the K-5 II, now, confronted with facts, you claim features don't matter. Are you trolling? I'd like to think this is not your intention, but to me it appears you transformed into a Canon troll.
3. Defective products appear for any brand; it's the price we have to pay for wanting low prices (pun intended, not sure if successful...)
4. Let us decide how much we would pay for that FF sensor and a viewfinder only 12% larger (while losing other things we might like). After all, $750 is not a negligible amount of money.
5. How cheap do you want Pentax to be? Give us numbers, and don't forget to mention if you would actually buy - or if you're just talking.
FTR, Pentax tried the "cheap brand" route, it didn't work.

---

Last edited by Kunzite; 02-23-2013 at 05:19 AM.

[audiobomber]

Clavius, why to you have "PENTAX K-5 proud owner" in your signature? As you seem to be extremely unhappy with anything Pentax, past, present or future.
1. Your "bang for the buck" is highly subjective, because for you only "Canon" and "full frame" matters; and is used to justify bogus mathematics.

That's not correct. He also bashes Pentax in favour of m4/3. It's clear that sensor size is irrelevant to Clavius. What matters is whether it's a Pentax, and therefore no good.

[Aristophanes]

Uhm... The MSRP of the K5IIs is $1199,95 for just an APSC. Whilst for only $1860,- you can go several levels upwards to FF, with fantastic AF in almost the same small form factor! That's an incredible bang-for the buck ratio, similar to what Pentax used to have about 6 years ago.

I get a kick out of comparisons like this.

You do realize that the $600-$800 price jump (about 40% + tax in most places) loses you something like 80% of your potential sales volume.

It's like saying everyone should buy a Lexus instead of a Toyota, and you get better value in the end.

By that logic, all sales should be Lexus.

[Clavius]

That's not correct. He also bashes Pentax in favour of m4/3. It's clear that sensor size is irrelevant to Clavius. What matters is whether it's a Pentax, and therefore no good.

No, I didn't buy two K10D's, a K20D, a K7, two K5's and truck load of lenses, because I detest Pentax. I praised Pentax into heaven years ago, when they were actually doing very well.

Moreover, it's a lie. Please quote where I expressed me favouring M4/3.

3. Defective products appear for any brand; it's the price we have to pay for wanting low prices (pun intended, not sure if successful...)

Why do you insist on making this so easy for me? Want to see how long it takes, and what it costs (money and efforts) on average for Pentax to repair your gear in comparison? I prefer not to go there.

4. Let us decide how much we would pay for that FF sensor and a viewfinder only 12% larger (while losing other things we might like). After all, $750 is not a negligible amount of money.

That amount doesn't even represent an entire extra month of savings. It takes THAT little to be able to buy off-brand FF instead of Pentax APS-C. That's pretty negligible.

5. How cheap do you want Pentax to be? Give us numbers, and don't forget to mention if you would actually buy - or if you're just talking.
FTR, Pentax tried the "cheap brand" route, it didn't work.

I don't want them to be cheap at all. You're uttering the term "cheap", not me. The K20D was the most expensive in it's class when it came out. But it had an extremely attractive bang for the buck ratio. All those high quality Pentax lenses, that were still very affordable because they didn't need their own motor or stabilisation.

And back then, Pentax was in almost EVERY serious camera store in the Netherlands, Belgium, Germany etc... Now that they kept letting everybody down, they disappeared. Funny how that works huh?

All I'm saying, they need to return to making good products, with features not found in the competition. Just like they did years ago. Stakes are high for their upcoming K3's.

---

Last edited by Ash; 02-23-2013 at 01:16 PM.

[Kunzite]

I don't care what you did in the past, I see what you're doing now. If you would praise and bash brands on a whim, I'm not going to approve.
The "bang for the buck" BS means cheap Pentax and expensive Canon; unless you're trying to say no matter what, Pentax can't be your "bang for the buck".

[monochrome]

Actually what Clavius has recently consistently posted about Pentax (and other brands) has generally been on the mark, or at least in range. Pentax has a reputation for business blunders going back decades - as far as staying too long with the M42 mount. For a long time they were fondly labeled "conservative" - as in too conservative - while Canon, Olympus, Nikon, Minolta and others took their market.

More recently Hoya changed Pentax. Hoya's change to Pentax's business philosophy, to narrow Pentax's target market to buyers of small APSc cameras with a reputation for making limited-quality pancake lenses, to target active, younger, outdoor users of durable cameras including compacts (pedestrian, licensed copies aside), to reduce the number and frequency of new offerings, (i.e. to pick niches and refuse to play in high-traffic market segments, etc.), to decimate the USA distributor business model (only 50 people supporting a "Box-store" distribution channel - hell Bootic.com has 25 employees - apparently doing the same in Europe outside France) and to closely manage and raise their end-prices is clearly undeniable. Pentax's resulting change of market share, loss of identity and loss of momentum is undeniable.

The 645 is a sport, almost an accident, but it is a success, it appears. Every other mainstream Hoya offer has been a success. The MILC attempts have been questionable - great cameras, but introduced at a time that Pentax was distracted in the pre- and post-acquisition disruption (which takes over a company's attention in unimaginable ways; trust me on that). During the Ricoh change it appears the product development cycle was again disrupted, and development around the 24Mp sensor was unsuccessful, forcing Pentax to extend the K-5, thus allowing competitors to redefine the market once again.

On any given day we have the choices we have. We can wish for the past. We can hope for the future. We can only choose to use what is available.

We could choose to be thankful that Hoya kept Pentax's heart beating just long enough to sell it to Ricoh.

We'll see what happens in the next 12 months. But right now Clavius has some valid opinions.

[ak_kiwi]

We could choose to be thankful that Hoya kept Pentax's heart beating just long enough to sell it to Ricoh.

The term "hospital pass" comes to my mind when considering the Hoya to Ricoh transition

We'll see what happens in the next 12 months.

Right on!

[Kunzite]

Monochrome, of course I can't disagree with everything Clavius said; however, some of his claims were out of this world, and others extremely subjective. I don't think you'll agree that 6D is better featured than the Pentax, for example.
Your posts quite always makes sense, this one is not an exception - but I don't see a connection with Clavius' claims.

We know Hoya was asking margins, with little regards for anything else. I think that if it were to happen one year later (i.e. after the K10D), Pentax would've been able to resist the hostile takeover and survive on their own. Which what result, I don't know (but it wouldn't be unimaginable that they would be in a better shape than today).
The 645D project was started before Hoya, otherwise I doubt it would exist. With R&D costs already spent, and with much potential it had a go.
Ricoh generating another disruption was to be expected. But there is a big difference: they want to be more active in the camera business, in stead of simply having to accept Pentax IBS division. Indeed we have no choice than to wait and see what happens, however wait and spreading FUD are two different things.

[monochrome]

I did write some and opinions.

they want to be more active in the camera business

The investment community doesn't want them to spend the money. It is clear from their writings, at least some Japanese security analysts would lower thier earnings projections for Ricoh if they made a major effort to increase camera market share.

[audiobomber]

Moreover, it's a lie. Please quote where I expressed me favouring M4/3.

My apology, but it was not a lie, it was a mistake. I confused your views on m4/3 with the other Pentax basher's in the "OVF vs. EVF thread", where you were both on the EVF bandwagon.

[Zygonyx]

The investment community doesn't want them to spend the money. It is clear from their writings, at least some Japanese security analysts would lower thier earnings projections for Ricoh if they made a major effort to increase camera market share.

And you keep on taking this as intelligent and appropriate statements ?
What practical action do you think Ricoh's top management can take from this "advising-never-paying" goldenboys' originating interpretation you establish?
Will they carry on with continuous shrinking market shares tracking ?
In my opinion this is anything but commonsense.

[monochrome]

Oh boy. Here we go again. I'm not a "Golden Boy," whatever you mean by the aspersion. I consider the business implications of Pentax's position and decisions, which have so often disappointed us recently. I fail to understand why writing about such things doesn't contribute to our understanding of what might come from Pentax next - and how we might temper our hopes and prevent disappointments if we thought about such things.

Without business decision makers there wouldn't even BE a Pentax today. They're acting within their Fiduciary Duty, and investment analysts are writing favorable opinions based on their actions. To me, that isn't difficult to understand, nor is it in any way reprehensible. It is a good and valuable strategy for the long term health of the company.

Once their Balance Sheet and Income Statement have been healed Ricoh might just decide to make the investment. Without a healthy Balance sheet and Income Statement you can bet Ricoh would never permit, nor even be able to permit the investment