[RonHendriks1966]

I'll give Ricoh/Pentax credit for trying rather hard to bring this younger demographics to use a more serious camera (than that smart phone, action, or compact kind of cameras).

Their K-01, laughed at K-S1, better received K-S2, even Q and Theta can all be seen as attempts to break the vicious circle of the aging SLR demographics.

They may not have earned much success yet, but at least they try harder than does the competition which stops at retro styling. So, it may well be that some day, Pentax lands the next big thing in camera land. Who knows ...

But we do see great things made with and by GoPro, like in Cycling the tour the France, but we don't see much of Theta. To sell it one needs to bring the creativity to the table before people step in and buy it. This is not only marketing, but also about creatief some content and work with people to do that. If you only product hardware, there isn't much future for any Brand.

---

Last edited by RonHendriks1966; 08-15-2015 at 05:35 AM.

[Glorfindelrb]

I suspect that to huge numbers of buyers and anyone under around 30-40, legacy doesn't mean anything. Legacy what?

I'm less than 30 and i'm happy to use old lenses for macro and portraits. I took my first photos with an old Minolta SRT101b and I'll be really happy to get a FF OVF back at the end of the year.

[starbase218]

I just haven't had that much problem.

This is with the DA *55 (one of the slowest lenses I have to auto focus).

You don't need fast autofocus for this picture, let alone tracking. In fact I would probably set it to MF, because my experience with AF against a backlit scene hasn't been good. So set it to MF, turn on peaking, adjust focus the first few times the girl swings back, then go for the shot. Maybe even use continuous high to get 8.3fps (without AF that's really 8.3fps) and select the best one.

(on the second photo, there is some loss of sharpness due to my shutter speed being 1/100 second, but the auto focus has no trouble keeping up with my kids riding bikes)...

I think the subject distance is larger than the photo I took of my niece. With closer subject distance, the AF has to adjust more often. Maybe my niece was just too close for any AF system to cope with, but the fact that my perception is that Nikon may be able to do it whereas Pentax did not, is important. Because in the end, I only have my perception to base decisions upon.

[monochrome]

None of us has any idea what Pentax 'should' do. Ricoh is doing what they think Pentax should do today in order to get to where they think Pentax should be tomorrow.

We really need to stop putting each body and lens in a bucket. Hoya stripped Pentax to the bone, including much of the professional optical engineering staff and real estate holdings throughout Japan. They took all the synergies and left a brand name and a few partially-developed products.

Ricoh brings (mostly) manufacturing expertise and a long-term, discipline-oriented corporate culture to the table. Sure, there's some optical and digital engineering talent within the office machines and machine vision operations that can help lower production costs but they're not Canon in the 80's or Sony over the last 15 years. They aren't making a royalty on every laser printer sold globally the way Canon did - and using the cash flow to build a complete lens, camera, accessory (and manufacturing) system, including manufacturing their own sensors. They aren't making a royalty (and their own internal profit) on every digital camera sold using their sensors the way Sony is - and using the cash flow to attempt to obsolete the entire SLR industry.

In the past Asahi built an entire brand system using royalties from Super-Multi-Coating. EVERY lens maker except Leica licensed at least part of the SMC process. One could mark the beginning of the decline of Pentax at the expiration of the SMC patents and not be too far wrong. But whatever Pentax capital stock and infrastructure existed on which to rebuild was captured by and is used today by Hoya.

I don't think - today - Ricoh really wants to compete on volume and scale with Canon, Nikon and Sony. They could - Ricoh has enough capital - but making the necessary investment would actually have a negative effect on the entire corporate earning stream for several quarters (or so says the research department at my former investment bank). It appears today Ricoh is taking an incrementalist approach, but we have no idea what's already being developed for 2018, 2019, 2020 . . . . . That's a very long runway.

I think Ricoh is building another, credible, alternative camera brand - alternative to the entire CaNikon business and brand model - using cash flow generated by the enterprise itself, with only occasional capital investment from the parent company (such as the new evaporators necessary to apply the patented HD coatings). Realization of their goals is 3, 5, 7 years away. Achieving their vision is decades away.

It took them 30 years to build the Ricoh office machine system into the largest manufacturer globally in that segment. Who is to say they won't do the same with imaging?

---

Last edited by monochrome; 08-15-2015 at 05:41 AM.

[Rondec]

You don't need fast autofocus for this picture, let alone tracking. In fact I would probably set it to MF, because my experience with AF against a backlit scene hasn't been good. So set it to MF, turn on peaking, adjust focus the first few times the girl swings back, then go for the shot. Maybe even use continuous high to get 8.3fps (without AF that's really 8.3fps) and select the best one.



I think the subject distance is larger than the photo I took of my niece. With closer subject distance, the AF has to adjust more often. Maybe my niece was just too close for any AF system to cope with, but the fact that my perception is that Nikon may be able to do it whereas Pentax did not, is important. Because in the end, I only have my perception to base decisions upon.

All well and good. My point isn't that the photos that I took are hard, but that the auto focus system for every day family photography in both the K5 II and K3 is adequate. I don't feel like taking photos of my kids pushes the extremes of what is capable and I don't know that I would get a lot of improvement with Nikon gear for similar funds.

I expect the full frame and 70-200 combo to be killer when it comes to auto focus, but it will cost a lot too. Eventually improvements will trickle down to upper end APS-C -- we've seen improvements already between the K5 II, the K3 and the K3 II when it comes to tracking focus. The issue at this point is often not the camera bodies at all, but the lenses that aren't up to the effort. Plenty of folks have posted tracking photos of cars/bicycles coming right at them demonstrating that the K3 can keep up as long as it locks focus at the beginning of a photo series.

There is better gear out there from a focus standpoint than what Pentax offers, but I will leave it that it doesn't come cheap and it will require skill to use. Just buying a Ti5 and putting a 70-300 variable aperture zoom on it will not give you awesome tracking shots even the the body and lens both say "Canon" on them.

[IchabodCrane]

We had this discussion in the local facebook group. A wedding photographer hired a second shooter who lied about the gear they were using. They ended up showing up with a D3200 and a 50mm prime, thats it... for a wedding. Now they didn't take very good images apparently, so that is a moot point. But the point that was brought up was that not all that long ago people shot on film with primes, medium format with primes, and even wet plate. Granted back then quality over quantity as it seems to be today... Brides seem to want 500 images, when really... won't 40 stellar ones do? Why do we need 10 different frames of the best man's speak? So anyways, the point is, there are many people out there (here on this forum even) who are using "entry level kit" to create magical images. It's all about who's behind the camera.

The professional photos taken at my wedding were done in MF. As you might guess, they mostly are all posed shots which is largely all you could do with that very expensive equipment (Hasselblad, I think). It's not AF that changed wedding photography, but C-AF.

[monochrome]

The professional photos taken at my wedding were done in MF. As you might guess, they mostly are all posed shots which is largely all you could do with that very expensive equipment (Hasselblad, I think). It's not AF that changed wedding photography, but C-AF.

My wife's wedding portraits were B&W in a studio. The dress had to be finished six weeks before the wedding. I'd guess they were Hassy.

The professional photos at our wedding (in 1980) were taken with a Pentax 6x7 with Stroboframe-mounted flash, except in the church proper where flash wasn't and still isn't permitted. There weren't any professional reception candids at all. Even the speech and first-dance photos were more or less 'posed'. My wife and her mother were delighted with the photos.

Some guests brought SLR's but they knew better than to use flash when her photographer was shooting. More than just wedding photography has changed. The tools, times, people and their assumptive behaviors have changed as well.

[starbase218]

All well and good. My point isn't that the photos that I took are hard, but that the auto focus system for every day family photography in both the K5 II and K3 is adequate. I don't feel like taking photos of my kids pushes the extremes of what is capable and I don't know that I would get a lot of improvement with Nikon gear for similar funds.

I expect the full frame and 70-200 combo to be killer when it comes to auto focus, but it will cost a lot too. Eventually improvements will trickle down to upper end APS-C -- we've seen improvements already between the K5 II, the K3 and the K3 II when it comes to tracking focus. The issue at this point is often not the camera bodies at all, but the lenses that aren't up to the effort. Plenty of folks have posted tracking photos of cars/bicycles coming right at them demonstrating that the K3 can keep up as long as it locks focus at the beginning of a photo series.

There is better gear out there from a focus standpoint than what Pentax offers, but I will leave it that it doesn't come cheap and it will require skill to use. Just buying a Ti5 and putting a 70-300 variable aperture zoom on it will not give you awesome tracking shots even the the body and lens both say "Canon" on them.

Sure it requires skill. Anything will require you to learn it. That's not a reason not to do it. Anyway, the T5i would not really be a fair comparison, would it? Take a 70D, with the AF of the 7D, and attach a

You Tube

You Tube

, I think you might be in for a surprise.

We had discussions like this before, you and I, and we never seem to agree, but that's fine. If you are happy with the AF of your Pentax, if it does the job for you, that's all that really matters.

For me, it does the job most of the time. I feel the AF is part of the compromise that is involved when choosing a camera brand. I don't think Pentax has the best AF, but I like the brand for other reasons. But I regularly wish they had better AF.

[virusn3t]

I still don't quite follow how we got on the subject of marketing, but ok.

Sooner or later all topics end on FF, marketing, someone leaving the brand, someone bashing against how Pentax sucks and better go to another brand or Pentax is doooomed!

I think is normal on all forums

[Rondec]

Sure it requires skill. Anything will require you to learn it. That's not a reason not to do it. Anyway, the T5i would not really be a fair comparison, would it? Take a 70D, with the AF of the 7D, and attach a variable aperture 70-300, I think you might be in for a surprise.

We had discussions like this before, you and I, and we never seem to agree, but that's fine. If you are happy with the AF of your Pentax, if it does the job for you, that's all that really matters.

For me, it does the job most of the time. I feel the AF is part of the compromise that is involved when choosing a camera brand. I don't think Pentax has the best AF, but I like the brand for other reasons. But I regularly wish they had better AF.

70-300L is a 1400 dollar lens. It had better perform well.

[starbase218]

70-300L is a 1400 dollar lens. It had better perform well.

I almost feel like I could throw another argument at you, like saying the 60-250 is similarly priced, but you'd probably reply that it's a constant f/4, whereas the 70-300 L is not. I'd say the 70-300 has IS, you'd say maybe it's not weathersealed. Which is exactly what I meant when I said that choosing a camera brand involves making compromises. If you are happy with the compromises that Pentax offers, that's good. I don't know how much you spent on your system, but I do feel that for the money I spent on mine, I could easily get another system that would outperform the Pentax when it comes to AF. (Good thing I like other things about Pentax.)

I am curious though: have you shot a Canon or Nikon system then? E.g. With a photo club, have you occasionally asked if you could pick up someone else's camera to just see what it's about?

Edit: changed the wording a bit. I mean no offence.

[monochrome]

So let me ask you this: have you shot a Canon or Nikon system then? E.g. With a photo club, have you occasionally asked if you could pick up someone else's camera to just see what it's about?

Uh oh. Do you really want to poke that?

[starbase218]

Uh oh. Do you really want to poke that?

I'm actually curious if him saying Canon/Nikon only offers better AF if you pay more is more than an assumption. I think I'd like to know.

[Rondec]

I almost feel like I could throw another argument at you, like saying the 60-250 is similarly priced, but you'd probably reply that it's a constant f/4, whereas the 70-300 L is not. I'd say the 70-300 has IS, you'd say maybe it's not weathersealed. Which is exactly what I meant when I said that choosing a camera brand involves making compromises. If you are happy with the compromises that Pentax offers, that's good. I don't know how much you spent on your system, but I do feel that for the money I spent on mine, I could easily get another system that would outperform the Pentax when it comes to AF. (Good thing I like other things about Pentax.)

I am curious though: have you shot a Canon or Nikon system then? E.g. With a photo club, have you occasionally asked if you could pick up someone else's camera to just see what it's about?

Edit: changed the wording a bit. I mean no offence.

My brother owns a D7100 and several lenses. I have used that. It is very lens dependent as to if it locks faster than my K3 and similar focal length lens.

I live in a town with a population of 2000 and there aren't exactly a lot of photo clubs around here (I think the actual number is zero).

I have no problem saying that Nikon and Canon probably do better than Pentax at auto focus. I just hate (a) blanket statements that Nikon/Canon are better and (b) the constant running down of Pentax auto focus (it is adequate for most situations). Most of the problems I see with auto focus are user error and not camera/lens faults. I will say again that there aren't any bad cameras out there and if you can't take good photos with your current gear, it is not super-likely switching brands will make a big difference unless you are willing to spend more money.

[starbase218]

My brother owns a D7100 and several lenses. I have used that. It is very lens dependent as to if it locks faster than my K3 and similar focal length lens.

I live in a town with a population of 2000 and there aren't exactly a lot of photo clubs around here (I think the actual number is zero).

I have no problem saying that Nikon and Canon probably do better than Pentax at auto focus. I just hate (a) blanket statements that Nikon/Canon are better and (b) the constant running down of Pentax auto focus (it is adequate for most situations). Most of the problems I see with auto focus are user error and not camera/lens faults. I will say again that there aren't any bad cameras out there and if you can't take good photos with your current gear, it is not super-likely switching brands will make a big difference unless you are willing to spend more money.

Thanks, I appreciate it.