[Kunzite]

There don't really seem to be 70 per cent plus more and better features on the new HD DA 70mm Limited lens, for example, although its price has increased by around this amount.

When and where?

[mecrox]

It's a full stop slower than Canon's 14mm. But then Canon's cost 2300$

I don't like to see Pentax's prices go up either, but I haven't seen any price hikes that aren't more or less in line with the market. The DA 21mm costs 600$, okay, fine, but both Nikon's and Canon's offerings are 500 and not even a full stop faster whilst being much heavier lenses that don't benefit from image stabilization. Of course, we can say "but these are FF lenses!" But that only compounds the expense.

I think people got somewhat spoiled paying really rock bottom prices for some very finely constructed limited glass. Anything even comparable in build quality by Ziess, Voigtlander, or Leica is manual focus and even more expensive.

Ah, but there's the rub. APS-C being priced well into FF territory and an increase of around 70 per cent all in one go. It's too soon to know whether this strategy will work especially since Pentax don't have a range of less expensive (albeit perhaps less good) lenses other than the 35mm and 50mm ones. A couple of years ago one of this country's main Pentax dealers cheerfully told me he considered Pentax lenses overpriced. I've never looked at them in quite the same light since, even though some of them are undoubtedly of very fine quality. And Zeiss lenses are now not hugely more expensive than the new Pentax HDs (depending on which ones you choose, of course). Just my view, but I suspect the market doesn't have a problem paying for Zeiss or Leica lenses but probably does have a problem paying so much for Pentax lenses. They just don't have the cachet.

[Col]

When and where?

The largest difference on a DA Ltd at SRS in the UK is the smc DA70 Ltd at £459, and the HD DA70 at £639 39% 21mm is 28% higher & 40mm is 26% higher

[konraDarnok]

Ah, but there's the rub. APS-C being priced well into FF territory and an increase of around 70 per cent all in one go. It's too soon to know whether this strategy will work especially since Pentax don't have a range of less expensive (albeit perhaps less good) lenses other than the 35mm and 50mm ones. A couple of years ago one of this country's main Pentax dealers cheerfully told me he considered Pentax lenses overpriced. I've never looked at them in quite the same light since, even though some of them are undoubtedly of very fine quality. And Zeiss lenses are now not hugely more expensive than the new Pentax HDs (depending on which ones you choose, of course). Just my view, but I suspect the market doesn't have a problem paying for Zeiss or Leica lenses but probably does have a problem paying so much for Pentax lenses. They just don't have the cachet.

Yea people say "will the strategy work" without mentioning the previous one failed. Pentax went out of business trying to be a bargain.

[vonBaloney]

Yea people say "will the strategy work" without mentioning the previous one failed. Pentax went out of business trying to be a bargain.

No, they didn't.

[konraDarnok]

No, they didn't.

Yes they did. The entity once called Asahi Optical Co. was split up into its constituent parts, absorbed into Hoya if it was valuable, or sold off. Pentax is now a brand owned by Ricoh and Hoya -- and presumably anyone else they choose to license it to.

[Kunzite]

That entity was much more than a mere corporation; and its most important part (for us) now survives under Ricoh Imaging.
But you're right, Pentax was hurt a lot by trying the "cheap" route.

[vonBaloney]

Yes they did. The entity once called Asahi Optical Co. was split up into its constituent parts, absorbed into Hoya if it was valuable, or sold off. Pentax is now a brand owned by Ricoh and Hoya -- and presumably anyone else they choose to license it to.

Ok, now how about the important part of your statement, that is was *because* of their supposed "cheap" strategy, and not due to some other factor like the fact that Hoya never ever had any interest in the camera division and gave them no support? (And in fact gutted much of it.) Unless you're talking pre-Hoya...

[ElJamoquio]

In my experience, the design of the K5 SD card slot has always been quite good, and I have a first generation model and have removed the card literally thousands of times with absolutely no issue.. Simply push the card in to eject it, and it pops right out. I have rather large fingers, too.

I imagine this complaint stems from one or two causes:
1. A broken eject spring, in which case it should be sent in for warranty repair (which can be a real, but relatively rare problem)
2. The user not realizing you have to push the card inward to eject and rather simply prying it out with his/her fingernails

I also strongly suspect it's the latter in most cases, since I also recall (anecdotally) that the decided majority of people who claimed to have sensor stain problems with the early runs when asked for example shots provided ones that clearly were mere dust particles yet insisted that their camera was defective, indicating a proclivity among the user base to blame any problem on the machine (especially if there was a "similar" genuine issue they could latch onto) without adequately exploring whether their own activity was to blame.

I also remember many years ago in my IT support days that every single time I got a call for a "stuck" PCMCIA card in a laptop, the user didn't realize that the slot either had a similar push to eject mechanism or a separate release button next to the slot and was simply trying to yank the card out.

I've always pushed to eject. It's still hard to get out. Not impossible, but easily the worst design on any camera I've owned.

[normhead]

Just like the K-5 has nothing to do with the:

-5DII/III
-D800
-D4

Which are all cameras I've seen it compared to. Not to mention, there's someone on youtube that compared a Pentax system with the LTD lenses favorably to Leica's M system.

The comparison to the 5D series revealed how much better the K-5 is in shadow recovery without banding and dynamic range.

The comparison to the D800 often goes the path of the pixel density being similar.

The comparison to the D4 goes often the route of image quality.

So when it suits some arguments, it's apparently ok to compare the K-5 to FF cams, but not in some others. When and where is tough to answer.

D800 compared to the 645


Outside of the Pentax realm:

Fuji's x100/X100s compared to the Leica M.

Sony's FF R1X compared to the APS x100.

Various X-series compared to the Leica M and R1x.

u4/3 compared to APSc.

Sony's NEX compared to Leica M.

Have to agree snake... I compare systems all the time. It's the type of image you are shooting and where the camera is to be used that you have to consider, not what size the sensor is.. I'd be the first to admit, if I was to make use of my studio/commercial training and let go of the compromises I've made to shoot on long hikes and canoe trips, I wouldn't be using a K-5. I was looking at a buddies D800 the other day, and the bottom line is, I'd love the IQ, but I'd hate to carry it. But does that mean I stop looking at FF equipment or 4/3 equipment just because it isn't where I need it to be? Absolutely not, I've picked up every type of camera I can get my hands on. Trying to be the best at what you do requires a firm knowledge of what's out there. I've compared FFs, Qs, the 645D, the D600 with a very fast focusing 85.

There are some very impressive pieces of technology out there, and every time I hold one in my hand, I'm saying "how does this compare to my K-5 and what better features of the K-5 do I have to give up to get the stronger features of the other system. If you've stopped comparing, you've stopped caring.

[ElJamoquio]

It's a full stop slower than Canon's 14mm. But then Canon's cost 2300$

I don't like to see Pentax's prices go up either, but I haven't seen any price hikes that aren't more or less in line with the market. The DA 21mm costs 600$, okay, fine, but both Nikon's and Canon's offerings are 500 and not even a full stop faster whilst being much heavier lenses that don't benefit from image stabilization. Of course, we can say "but these are FF lenses!" But that only compounds the expense.

The Canon 20mm F/2.8 is faster, wider, and cheaper than the Pentax. It's heavier, sure.

It is FF, but personally if I'm comparing a ff lens to the Pentax I'd find the closest lens to compare it to - a perfect comparison would be 33mm f/5. Of course no one makes a lens that slow. There's Canon's 35mm f/2, which is about 2.5 stops faster on an equivalent basis, costs less than half as much, resolves ~1.5x better on a printed picture, and only weighs 210 grams, which I think is a bit heavier than the Pentax but is still very light.

[mecrox]

Yea people say "will the strategy work" without mentioning the previous one failed. Pentax went out of business trying to be a bargain.

Sounds unlikely given that Pentax at that stage appeared to have been on the slide for several decades really. More likely is a long series of poor business decisions by those who ran/owned it which, cumulatively, did for the company. Asking top dollar is fine if you've got the chops to persuade customers that the price is worth it. At present, I'd have thought the more likely outcome is that sales of the new red-banded HD Limiteds will be exceedingly small in quite a few countries, mine included. The original green-banded ones aren't exactly given away as it is. I would guess that those with big bucks to put down will go with the usual suspects and quite likely with their FF offerings at this cost level. Putting up prices is easy; the hard part is persuading customers to buy your products. Pentax are a lot better here than they were under Hoya but they are still barely visible compared to the industry leaders.

[konraDarnok]

Ok, now how about the important part of your statement, that is was *because* of their supposed "cheap" strategy, and not due to some other factor like the fact that Hoya never ever had any interest in the camera division and gave them no support? (And in fact gutted much of it.) Unless you're talking pre-Hoya...

There was no "because." I just stated a simple fact. They did not make it as a company while pursuing a certain price strategy in their camera division. How much that contributed to their dissolution is a matter of debate, but I doubt it's a coincidence that's what got sold off for a hundred and twenty four million dollars to Ricoh. Think about that, there are lotto winners that could have bought it. Not that they would have got much with it. The capitalization is in Ricoh.

[Blue]

There was no "because." I just stated a simple fact. They did not make it as a company while pursuing a certain price strategy in their camera division. How much that contributed to their dissolution is a matter of debate, but I doubt it's a coincidence that's what got sold off for a hundred and twenty four million dollars to Ricoh. Think about that, there are lotto winners that could have bought it. Not that they would have got much with it. The capitalization is in Ricoh.

If Ricoh didn't get much, why did they buy it?

[normhead]

The Canon 20mm F/2.8 is faster, wider, and cheaper than the Pentax. It's heavier, sure.

It is FF, but personally if I'm comparing a ff lens to the Pentax I'd find the closest lens to compare it to - a perfect comparison would be 33mm f/5. Of course no one makes a lens that slow. There's Canon's 35mm f/2, which is about 2.5 stops faster on an equivalent basis, costs less than half as much, resolves ~1.5x better on a printed picture, and only weighs 210 grams, which I think is a bit heavier than the Pentax but is still very light.

Is that relevant to something in this conversation?