[Robbod]

Not sure what some people don't understand...... you don't actually have to compete with all the specs, bells, whistles, megapixels, offer RAW, etc etc etc, it's not meant to be a great bridge camera. If you think outside the very small square that pervades these forums, they have provided an OEM product to the market, probably built in Thailand at about $80 cost per unit or less, has the name Pentax on the front, offers point and shoot, takes an image good enough to post on Facebook, Instagram or the likes, never going to be blown up, has some sort of big zoom to show an attempt at keeping pace, probably going to be sold as a cheap bundle with an SD card, mini pod, bag and 10 free coffee's at starbucks to boot !!!
So long as you have an offering in this market, on the shelf alongside your DSLR's and is a brand awareness tool, that if it breaks even at say 5k units, then it's done it's job.
It's not meant to satisfy people here, it looks and possibly feels like a serious camera just like the X5 did. My work colleague bought one, the weight, feel, zoom and tilting LCD made everyone at work go OOOoooh AAaaaaahh, with comments like, oh, do Pentax still make camera's ?? They don't spend time measurebating and arguing over minute differences camera to camera or brand to brand, just want Auto Program mode, a shutter button and think it's going to give them good enough results........ easy and very clever marketing tool. I certainly wouldnt want to pay 1k for one either, but the capability they offer, especially with some of the bigger sensors now is very compelling for many people.
Just remember, that one of these can still, in the hands of a competent photographer take a very creative and excellent photo........ just won't give you the bragging rights with a big trophy of the latest snob gadget around your neck.

[Zygonyx]

Very true, let's wait for reviews to see some of it's potential.

[luftfluss]

The existence of this plasticky pile of steaming mediocrity cheapens the Pentax brand.

The MX-1, with it's great optics and brass plates, felt like a promise. The XG-1 feels like a mockery.

[Zygonyx]

Do you think the Canikon alike "bridge stuffs" have another impact ?
I mean Nikon P600, Canon SX50, Sony HX300, aso...

They are more expensive, and look even less smart and resistant ...

So tell us, who is really faulty ?

---

Last edited by Zygonyx; 07-28-2014 at 02:53 AM.

[RobA_Oz]

Do you think the Canikon alike "bridge stuffs" have another impact ?
I mean Nikon P600, Canon SX50, Sony HX300, aso...

They are more expensive, and look even less smart and resistant ...

So tell us, who is really faulty ?

We all focus on the entry level DSLRs as being the way into "real" photography, but how many of us started there? I started with a 120 film Agfa, at school, for which the equivalent today would be something like the XG-1. One of my school mates got a Leica for his sixteenth birthday, but his dad was a professional photographer and he followed that profession after he left school.

I wouldn't dismiss bridge cameras as being obsolete, just because everyone's got a phone camera in their pocket. My sister-in-law was interested in learning more about photography, so I lent her my *istD and a mid-range zoom so she could try a DSLR. She found it too heavy, and finished up with a bridge Fuji. It's a camera, and she uses it to take photos that are "serious" – ones she'll keep and value. She'll probably never end up with a DSLR, but that's OK, because if the bug ever really bites she'll know where to turn, and it may well be to a Fuji, just because the shop didn't carry a Pentax bridge camera at the time.

[luftfluss]

Do you think the Canikon alike "bridge stuffs" have another impact ?
I mean Nikon P600, Canon SX50, Sony HX300, aso...

They are more expensive, and look even less smart and resistant ...

So tell us, who is really faulty ?

Canon is well-known for having a huge array of cameras for nearly every type of photographer. They have a long history in this and have established a good reputation. The SX superzoom cameras have always been near the top of the list.

Nikon, in this regard, is a mini-Canon... except their P&S cameras have not been so good. But Nikon is good enough and popular enough atop the food chain that it doesn't matter.

Sony is a consumer electronics company, whose DSLR business languished for years, but their P&S cameras have been popular, loaded with innovative features that many people appreciate.

Pentax has none of these attributes in the digital world. They are looking to find their way. They ought to focus on quality products with a unique touch. How about a weather-sealed superzoom with a 1/1.7" sensor, 28-800mm lens and a decent EVF? Instead, Pentax went to some anonymous OEM and grabbed some shelf parts.

"Who is really faulty?" - Think about it.

[timcatn]

A product is only a failure if it fails to accomplish the goal it was meant to reach.


Do we know the goal for the XG-1?

[luftfluss]

We all focus on the entry level DSLRs as being the way into "real" photography, but how many of us started there? I started with a 120 film Agfa, at school, for which the equivalent today would be something like the XG-1. One of my school mates got a Leica for his sixteenth birthday, but his dad was a professional photographer and he followed that profession after he left school.

I wouldn't dismiss bridge cameras as being obsolete, just because everyone's got a phone camera in their pocket. My sister-in-law was interested in learning more about photography, so I lent her my *istD and a mid-range zoom so she could try a DSLR. She found it too heavy, and finished up with a bridge Fuji. It's a camera, and she uses it to take photos that are "serious" – ones she'll keep and value. She'll probably never end up with a DSLR, but that's OK, because if the bug ever really bites she'll know where to turn, and it may well be to a Fuji, just because the shop didn't carry a Pentax bridge camera at the time.

I agree, some of the bridge cameras are very good. I had several photos taken superzooms selected for publication in a coffee-table book, but couldn't reach an equitable agreement with the publisher. The point, though, is that superzooms are capable.

---------- Post added 07-28-14 at 11:57 AM ----------

A product is only a failure if it fails to accomplish the goal it was meant to reach.


Do we know the goal for the XG-1?

What if the goal itself is a mistake?

[timcatn]

As i said. Do we know the goal?

[D1N0]

The xg-1 is a gap filler. Every camera maker needs a high zoom bridge. Pentax doesn't develop these themselves. Just a few plastic parts that are different and firmware maybe.

[lytrytyr]

Pentax doesn't develop these themselves. Just a few plastic parts that are different and firmware maybe.

And sensor-shift shake reduction, and . . .

[ChristianRock]

I don't get the negativity towards this camera. If you don't like it, just don't buy it. Why would you want others not to be able to buy it if it fits their needs, even if it doesn't fit yours?

The X-5 was the only Pentax camera I've seen in a lot of American stores including Target, Wal-Mart, Frys, etc. Every once in a while I would also see one of the waterproof point and shoots, but mostly it was just the X-5. It might be helping keep the name alive here.

[luftfluss]

I don't get the negativity towards this camera. If you don't like it, just don't buy it. Why would you want others not to be able to buy it if it fits their needs, even if it doesn't fit yours?

The X-5 was the only Pentax camera I've seen in a lot of American stores including Target, Wal-Mart, Frys, etc. Every once in a while I would also see one of the waterproof point and shoots, but mostly it was just the X-5. It might be helping keep the name alive here.

Because we care about the long-term prospects and well-being of the company that's providing us with our gear.

Some of us also care that Pentax may have passed up the opportunity to do something pretty cool, to differentiate itself from the herd.

Do you really want people's initial experience with Pentax to be with a mediocre, cheap plasticky anonymous camera? And do you want their more serious enthusiast friends - who likely shoot either Canon or Nikon - to have the opportunity to poison their minds against Pentax?

Brands like Apple and Subaru have made good names for themselves by refusing to deal with the absolutely bottom of the market. Pentax - a very small company - would be wise to follow suit. Develop a great brand, one that is well-respected by consumers, and then let the goodness trickle down into lower-cost offerings.

[ChristianRock]

Because we care about the long-term prospects and well-being of the company that's providing us with our gear.

Some of us also care that Pentax may have passed up the opportunity to do something pretty cool, to differentiate itself from the herd.

Do you really want people's initial experience with Pentax to be with a mediocre, cheap plasticky anonymous camera? And do you want their more serious enthusiast friends - who likely shoot either Canon or Nikon - to have the opportunity to poison their minds against Pentax?

Brands like Apple and Subaru have made good names for themselves by refusing to deal with the absolutely bottom of the market. Pentax - a very small company - would be wise to follow suit. Develop a great brand, one that is well-respected by consumers, and then let the goodness trickle down into lower-cost offerings.

Well, you are trying to change Pentax into something they are not. Pentax, since the film days, has been a company that has very low end, plasticky products for its entry level base.

For every Apple there's a ton of failed brands like Saab and Contax, that tried to be fancy not have cheap entry level products. Even Canon and Nikon have under 100-dollars entry level cameras. Compared to that, Pentax is pretty high end now...

[luftfluss]

Well, you are trying to change Pentax into something they are not. Pentax, since the film days, has been a company that has very low end, plasticky products for its entry level base.

For every Apple there's a ton of failed brands like Saab and Contax, that tried to be fancy not have cheap entry level products. Even Canon and Nikon have under 100-dollars entry level cameras. Compared to that, Pentax is pretty high end now...

Those were the film days, over a decade ago. Pentax's low-end DSLR's have been sturdily built, compared with Canikon offerings. And more recently, the lower-end DSLR's have included weather-sealing, a larger brighter OVF, and IBIS. Pentax has moved away from the budget-DSLR status of a few years ago, raising lens prices (or enforcing official MSRP, however you wish to spin it) and introducing a couple premium-priced lenses.

As I stated previously, Canikon has the brand cachet to have el cheapo cameras. And Canon has a *great* history with P&S - the best history, by far.

Saab was a good car company for 60 years - 60! - with niche products. They went into bankruptcy largely due to GM's indifference, but they re-ramped production last year.

Contax died due to lack of interest from the founding/owning companies. Their story was nearly Pentax's.

Pentax is starting nearly from the ground up in the P&S world, they need to do better. They need to provide Millennials with a reason to buy, to be pulled into the Pentax orbit. This has the potential to be a good time for Pentax, because Canikon are the established brands, and Millennials are looking for something new, something to make their own. Pentax has the opportunity to be old & new at the same time, it's own unique character.