[hnikesch]

I was quite excited about the visible focus points moving from my Km to the Kr but in practice for me I found them unusable. I would try to framing a shot the way I wanted it (you know subject not on center) and the camera would focus on the wrong point over and over again. It made taking my shots take much longer and frustrating process. Now I just use the center point and recompose and get the shot I want. Even my K30 still can't guess my wanted focus point more often than not. I shoot my Q's, and my Canon S100 & SD990 all on center focus point. Coming from film that only makes sense, split image on center then recompose.

Now for the K500 I believe it's made for the big box stores Costco, Sam's, Best Buy, wallyworld etc...to get Pentax into someone's hands. Today in Michigan you can't touch a Pentax before you buy one, If it wasn't for my old film lenses I would have gone for Canon or Nikon but after having shot my Pentax DSLR's I wouldn't change, they feel much better than most of the competition.

And the people here are much friendlier than the folks on the Canon sites, trust me.

Hans

[RonakG]

So what we are really struggling with here is how to understand how Pentax has managed "waste" K-500 slot for a camera with almost insignificant difference from the production and design perspective when compared to K-50.

May be we will get a K-5000 as trimmed down entry level camera like Canon and Nikon?

[Aristophanes]

I was quite excited about the visible focus points moving from my Km to the Kr but in practice for me I found them unusable. I would try to framing a shot the way I wanted it (you know subject not on center) and the camera would focus on the wrong point over and over again. It made taking my shots take much longer and frustrating process. Now I just use the center point and recompose and get the shot I want. Even my K30 still can't guess my wanted focus point more often than not. I shoot my Q's, and my Canon S100 & SD990 all on center focus point. Coming from film that only makes sense, split image on center then recompose.

I just used a Nikon D5200 that easily found its focus points bang-on.

Focus and re-compose has limitations, such as AF-C shooting and focus shift errors, especially at shallower DOF or long range subjects. Sometimes it is simply a poor technique where selectable focus points, or at least good guesses by the AF system, are what is needed.

[starbase218]

I just used a Nikon D5200 that easily found its focus points bang-on.

Focus and re-compose has limitations, such as AF-C shooting and focus shift errors, especially at shallower DOF or long range subjects. Sometimes it is simply a poor technique where selectable focus points, or at least good guesses by the AF system, are what is needed.

Didn't even think about continuous AF, but now that you mention it, the K-500 also has the expanded area AF mode. This must be a joke though - the whole point of that system is to allow the subject to move from one focus point to the next. But with the K-500, there is no way of telling that it is actually working!

[monochrome]

I just used a Nikon D5200 that easily found its focus points bang-on.

Focus and re-compose has limitations, such as AF-C shooting and focus shift errors, especially at shallower DOF or long range subjects. Sometimes it is simply a poor technique where selectable focus points, or at least good guesses by the AF system, are what is needed.

AF-C? Shallow DOF? Selectable focus points?

We're talking about a base-level camera with an 18-55 kit lens that will never see an exposed rear mount. The kind of person who buys this camera won't even know what DOF is, nor will he use AF-C and probably won't know how to compose either (much less focus and recompose). Any buyer who wants and would use those features would also be willing to buy a K-50.

Someone earlier complained about CF&R not working for a wide angle lens. Who is going to mount a 12-24 on a K-500?

In the real world the little red dot won't matter to the target buyers of this camera, and shouldn't be reviewed negatively either. Green Mode shooting has a focus area the size of a house - I just tried it - and in my little experiment auto focus point selecting NEVER hit what I wanted..

Mental self-abuse.

[Ivan Glisin]

May be we will get a K-5000 as trimmed down entry level camera like Canon and Nikon?

That's possible. In fact, an entry-level DSLR K-5000 and K-mount mirrorles K-05 (styled like a camera, not like a toaster) would complete the "5" lineup. The only problem is, K-5 successor should go down to 3 (traditionally skipping 4), while other models are expected to keep counting up. But even K-3, K-60, K-600, K-6000 and K-06 lineup would not look that bad! (Better than *ist XX(N) naming convention for sure.)

[Tanzer]

Illuminated focus points are an easily demonstrated feature that is beginner friendly.

Every P&S has one. My smartphone tells me where it focused.

On an 11 or 5 point AF the K-500 (and K-x) cannot tell exactly where it locked.

Some bean counter at Pentax decided users did not need that feature. Bad decision.

If the K-500 is anything like the K-01, it will also tell you exactly where it focused. Just like every P&S and your smartphone, with the additional differentiator of focus peaking. If you are trying to say a smartphone is a better camera, it's not because of focus points.

[Tanzer]

I just used a Nikon D5200 that easily found its focus points bang-on.

Maybe true, but that has more to do with Nikon's well-known AF capabilities, not the LED indicators.

Pentax' 11 phase detect AF points do not even line up with a "rule of thirds" grid. So it's not like omitting them is as big a travesty as folks are making it out to be. You will still focus and recompose. Sure, it gets you a little closer.

Has anyone attempted to manually focus on a D5200 or T5i? I don't expect many K-500 users to actually do this. But at least it is possible.

[Aristophanes]

We're talking about a base-level camera with an 18-55 kit lens that will never see an exposed rear mount.

It's being sold in 2 lens kits, and we might also see the kit with primes as well.

Don't assume that people who buy these spend $650 and then stay dumb. This is the era of self-education and.....forums like this.

Bottom line is this is a spec a salesperson and a friend will share as being a downgrade compared to brans C-N.

While there may some bookend sals strategy here trying to upsell to the K-50, most purchases are made at price point and the K-500 has a blemish that likely will tarnish the K-line and the brand somewhat.

If the K-500 is anything like the K-01, it will also tell you exactly where it focused. Just like every P&S and your smartphone, with the additional differentiator of focus peaking. If you are trying to say a smartphone is a better camera, it's not because of focus points.

But it won't in the eye-level optical viewfinder, which is the whole reason to buy a DSLR.

In the "old days" (aka film) most pre-AF cameras, and a quite AF anyways, had matte screens and split-prisms to assist with manual focus. You could actually see where in the VF focus was, especially on a split-prism with an edge.

I say this like these cameras are dead and buried. They are not, which is why there is endless comparisons. I love my ME Super.

[Aristophanes]

Maybe true, but that has more to do with Nikon's well-known AF capabilities, not the LED indicators.

But he VF LED's let you know what decisions the software made. Not just the focus lock indicator. But the where. All the books says "focus on the eyes" for a portrait, candid, in most cases. Are you sure it hit the eyes? Did the light overlapping or closest to the eye illuminate? Hmmmm... not sure. THis camera sucks. Pentax is doomed.

[Tanzer]

But it won't in the eye-level optical viewfinder, which is the whole reason to buy a DSLR.

An OVF is not the whole reason to buy a camera, just as your cellphone doesn't have one. I am sure we share the hope that a prospective user would learn to appreciate the OVF, though.

In the "old days" (aka film) most pre-AF cameras, and a quite AF anyways, had matte screens and split-prisms to assist with manual focus. You could actually see where in the VF focus was, especially on a split-prism with an edge.

I say this like these cameras are dead and buried. They are not, which is why there is endless comparisons. I love my ME Super.

I also love my ME Super, but I would never seriously recommend one to a newbie, over a more modern camera. Maybe when someone starts offering a $300 digital camera with a FF-sized pentaprism VF, and with AF, then I will gladly recommend it. In the meantime, on the subject of viewfinders, the Pentax pentaprism is going to be closer to your ME Super experience than anything that C&N offer under $1000. Especially if you like manual focus.

[mee]

I was quite excited about the visible focus points moving from my Km to the Kr but in practice for me I found them unusable. I would try to framing a shot the way I wanted it (you know subject not on center) and the camera would focus on the wrong point over and over again. It made taking my shots take much longer and frustrating process. Now I just use the center point and recompose and get the shot I want. Even my K30 still can't guess my wanted focus point more often than not. I shoot my Q's, and my Canon S100 & SD990 all on center focus point. Coming from film that only makes sense, split image on center then recompose.

Now for the K500 I believe it's made for the big box stores Costco, Sam's, Best Buy, wallyworld etc...to get Pentax into someone's hands. Today in Michigan you can't touch a Pentax before you buy one, If it wasn't for my old film lenses I would have gone for Canon or Nikon but after having shot my Pentax DSLR's I wouldn't change, they feel much better than most of the competition.

And the people here are much friendlier than the folks on the Canon sites, trust me.

Agree with you completely with your thoughts here.

I too thought I'd be super excited to use the focus points in the OVF moving from the K-x to the K-30. However, I ended up disabling the points in the OVF as they got in the way. I don't see how anyone actually uses them.. they're intrusive in the experience.

I guess in crowd shots or really busy shots it might be useful.. but in those situations I might be likely to manual focus if I am particular on the point of focus.

But I see what you are saying.. target (no pun intended) the big box stores.. right now my local walmart has a numerous number of point and shoots (a sea of them), a few bridge, and 0 DSLRS. HOWEVER, they oddly always seem to carry 1 canon and 1 Nikon telephoto each.

During BlackFriday sales they tend to carry the bargain basement Canon rebel and/or Nikon dSLR though. But even then Pentax doesn't exist there. What is a Pentax? Is that a watch?? Actually, why yes it is. You'll have to go to the front of the store to look at those, sir.

[mee]

An OVF is not the whole reason to buy a camera, just as your cellphone doesn't have one. I am sure we share the hope that a prospective user would learn to appreciate the OVF, though.

Actually, It was a huge reason why I bought my first dSLR (Pentax K-x). I wanted an OVF.

[Ash]

Many of us still want OVFs and Pentax offers cameras with these. But now also with the new Q system, there is a whole new concept for those looking for smaller size rather than pure real time view finding. I'm glad they still produce the humble dSLR, but I'm also glad they've diversified, even though I won't necessarily invest in the MILC system (at this stage).

[tclausen]

Precisely! I remembered K100/110D while writing my post on K-50 and K-500, and was about to comment on one more thing, but here it is now: these two cameras should have been called K-50 and K-55, leaving K-500 for obviously different and differentiated entry level body (say, pentamirror, single control wheel, smaller), and then for the purpose of creating a "hook" for consumers, make two of them: K-500 and slightly stripped down K-550. In the end, K-55 would help sell K-50, while K-550 would help sell K-500. Success of K-55 and K-550 from the financial point would be completely irrelevant.

The only confusing thing with current naming is that "huge difference" between 50 and 500, making us believe there should be something much more or less in each, creating unrealistic expectations for us who follow Pentax lineup for years (or decades for some, including myself). Choosing K-50 and K-55 names would have been much better, and closer to K100D and K110D.

So what we are really struggling with here is how to understand how Pentax has managed "waste" K-500 slot for a camera with almost insignificant difference from the production and design perspective when compared to K-50.

Hm, I do not know that I agree with that analysis. First off, I couldn't care one hoot about if the names are 50/500 or 50/55...it's all about what they do with them

On its own, the K-500 is a very attractive camera. It's actually cheap(ish) for what it offers....aligned with entry-level offers from other brands, it seems to offer a good deal more, such as dual control wheels and the "whizz-bang" of a pentaprism vs. a pentamirror.

The step up to K-50 may seem modest in terms of functionality, but it seems to be a rather valuable step up: some ergonomics and functionalities, and then WR. WR is huge. It's also easy to explain that "weather sealing a body costs $$$".

Somebody considered that Pentax didn't plan on selling a lot of K-500, but rather use it as a way to drag people in to then sell K-50. That's likely very true. On the other hand, for those wanting a K-50 but looking to save money, the K-500 gets you "almost as much of a camera, but for less".

It all comes down to pricing them right, I'd wager: the K-500 so as to be competitive with the entry-level offerings from competition. The K-50 so as to be a step up from the K-500 that "a good salesman can make you want to take" (i.e., not too much more expensive), but also that the K-500 should be cheap enough that buying it feels like "getting a deal".

I actually think that Pentax does have a fairly good line-up right now: K500/K50/K5ii.

What they really need, IMO, now is to develop a stable and readable naming strategy that they stick to. That's always been Pentax's weak point: is an LX more or less advanced than a MX or a ME or a K1000 - no logical way for a random consumer to compare, and play "mine is bigger than yours". Digital is worse, still, and I still haven't figured out if K-x is an entry level or high-end camera, compared to K-m (which I would have expected to be entirely manual like the MZ-M - but it wasn't).

A strategy such as "two zeros == entry, one zero == prosumer, no zeros == pro" could work. So could another strategy - just pick one, dammit, communicate coherently, and stick with it.