Originally posted by Ash It's also won many other awards, like:
1. a TIPA Award 2007 for Best Expert D-SLR Expert,
2. an EISA Camera of the Year 2007-2008, the CJPC Camera Grand Prix 2007 award, Japan's Camera journal press club's highest award,
3. a Camera magazine 2007-8 award,
4. a MacLife editor's choice award,
5. the Gold Award from the "What Digital Camera 03/2007" magazine, and on and on it goes...
...all of which probably meant nothing to the average punter, as the camera lacked a Canon or Nikon logo.
The funny thing I keep seeing about Pentax SLR reviews is the standard rave in the body of the article - "Fourteen megapixels really captures a lot more detail than the competition! The RAWS great, DNG or PEF is convenient, batteries last a long time, ergonomics sound, &c, &c," - which seems to translate into only, oh, about an 8. Maybe 8.5. Outta ten. Meanwhile, the lightweight Canon EOS 700D or whatever gets a 9.5, despite the fact it's got lower res, a dodgier kit lens, and is bulkier (but much more lightweight than the Pentax...)
And also costs about seven hundred US more. Apparently, this is not a factor for the average buyer. Yes, because we're all meant to slap down the Platinum Visa and say, price is no object, my good man/woman.
Judging from the sales techniques I've seen employed, I'm often wondering if the Pentax, Olympus and Sony cameras are merely there to contrast against the Big Two. In all my hours of staring vacantly at the film shelf, hoping some Tri-X will magically appear, I've yet to hear the reps recommend a Pentax or an Oly or Sony.
Maybe it's Pentax's backwards compatibility. You flog 'em a K-mount, maybe they won't buy their next lens from you. Or from any dealer. (And there's precious little commission to be had on the inexpensive, none-SMD Pentax lenses.)