[jgnfld]

regrettably, that's the point we always have to come back to when looking at Pentax as a business - without a lot of smoke and mirrors to distract them, reviewers will zero in on the things that received wisdom says are brand weaknesses and criticize them more heavily than they would in another brand. If you can dazzle them with some groundbreaking tech, they will be more likely to forgive other shortcomings.

That said - we are oversensitive about Pentax - we've all spoken to users of other brands who moan about their cameras, and most reviews do pinpoint shortcomings in other brands. To me, the the strongest evidence of this psychological effect is to ask whether Ricoh were a bunch op hapless incompetents when they were a competitor of Pentax. I think we'd find that they did rather more right in those days.

Having said which - I do wish. like many others, that Pentax would deal convincingly with perceived weaknesses - they do so much so well that one wants it to be recognised. Whether they can do that at a price I can afford, I don't know, but there seem to be plenty (in relative terms) of non-Pentaxians out there who have got deep pockets and are will run to where the latest buzz is coming from, and might just discover a great camera in the process.

All that said, why do you think half of all K-1 users come from the formerly non-Pentax community? Oddly, that is the point at issue here in this thread. My theory? The K-1 offers a whole lot of value at a bearable price in performing tasks a lot of photographers including at least half who are former non-Pentaxians like to do.

---

Last edited by jgnfld; 04-21-2017 at 04:06 AM.

[monochrome]

All that said, why do you think half of all K-1 users come from the formerly non-Pentax community? Oddly, that is the point at issue here in this thread. My theory? The K-1 offers a whole lot of value at a bearable price in performing tasks a lot of photographers including at least half who are former non-Pentaxians like to do.

Perhaps some portion of those 'new' Pentax K-1 users are former Pentax K-? users who had moved to some other brand.

[ffking]

All that said, why do you think half of all K-1 users come from the formerly non-Pentax community?

I really hope that that is actually the case - it would be really great for the brand and a serious inducement for Ricoh to keep pressing forward. In the end, though, the reason that Canon and Nikon have so long dominated the DSLR market come down simply to their single digit flagships: - those are what the press use, and (with the lenses to go with them) they provide an upgrade path right to the top of imaging excellence wherever you buy into the system. That's the the point. Pentax flagships have never been there - neither were Olympus's or Minolta's - which makes Pentax's survival as a name on APS-C and even FF DSLRs an achievement in its own right - they somehow survived Nikon and Canon's aggressive race to the top while always being off the pace since the beginning of body incorporated AF - but back in the days when Pentax were not just groundbreaking but COOOOOOOOOOOOOL, cameras were very simple affairs by today's standards.

[Mistral75]

(...) half of the customers buying the camera aren’t Pentax loyalists but new customers, Eguchi notes.

How do they know? What kind of survey? Done in what territory?

I would take such bold statement with a pinch of salt.

[clackers]

How do they know? What kind of survey? Done in what territory?

I would take such bold statement with a pinch of salt.

Yes, it's an interesting claim, but I don't see how Eguchi can prove that.

[BrianR]

The K-1 has WiFi. An undocumented 'feature' is that it will connect to your network and report back to Ricoh headquarters. Just leaving the camera in the corner of any room can give them all sorts of data to log- they keep track of other brands of cameras visible, lunch preferences (based on tiny crumbs visible on your floor), and whether your socks match (based on trace flecks of lint). Pixel shift is a double edged sword.

Keep that lens cap on when the camera is not in use, it's not just lens protection.

[clackers]

The K-1 has WiFi. An undocumented 'feature' is that it will connect to your network and report back to Ricoh headquarters. Just leaving the camera in the corner of any room can give them all sorts of data to log- they keep track of other brands of cameras visible, lunch preferences (based on tiny crumbs visible on your floor), and whether your socks match (based on trace flecks of lint). Pixel shift is a double edged sword.

Keep that lens cap on when the camera is not in use, it's not just lens protection.

(Laughs).

Yes, this, or telepathy, would be required.

[Rondec]

This thread is far afield, but honestly, where are the professional videos shot with the D750, D810, etc? It seems like Sony and to a lesser extent Canon have that corner pretty tightly sewn up.

And to get high quality videos from an ILC, you need a lot more than the right camera. You need a whole professional rig with some sort of stabilization, etc. I don't think you are really just going to hand hold an A7s and get footage for the next Saving Private Ryan. Maybe Blair Witch Project, but not anything better...

[normhead]

Norm, you think video is a gimmick. I don't. We disagree. That happens.

Well then we disagree on the purpose of a camera.

I just find it interesting how the video guys have spent all their time dodging the question this thread raises.

How is it possible that Pentax had doubled their sales of the K-1 at the expense of other brands, with such inadequate video? Clearly a lot of other people don't agree? Clearly a lot of people don't value it.

That is what is interesting to those of us for whom video is an un-used extra. There are clearly lots of us, in fact given that almost all the new users probably came from brand with better video, they were willing to give up whatever advantage their may have been to get what Pentax offers. So, their are a lot of folks who won't pay for state of the art video in a still camera who are speaking with their wallets.

The continued assertion that Pentax would have better sales if they added better video, is not supported by the evidence. The evidence suggest people will ditch better video to get what they want in a still. Maybe not everyone, but enough to keep Pentax afloat.

As for the above prognostications, the cost of adding better video is unknown, the effect on Pentax purchasers is unknown. except that in economics the idea that higher price leads to lower sales is pretty much established. There is absolutely no reason to suggest better video would lead to more market share. It would be a win some, lose some situation. The losses could easily overtake the gains. There are so many companies out there who do video, I'm pretty sure its a near consensus on the forum that Pentax investing in video would be against our interests. We like what Pentax has done. And so do the half of K-1 users that came from other brands.

To us, saying a camera should do great video is kind of like saying we should put a backhoe on the back end of our cars. Some people would really like it. Most of us would prefer it was gone. None of us who wanted it gone would be less than outraged if the car only came in one model with the backhoe and would buy something else. The same will happen with Pentax and video. They can add world class video if they want. The rest of us will find something else to shoot with. We're not paying for that. What's odd is so many with so much terms in terms of great video, like religious fanatics come here and advocate for better video, as if every brand has to be the same. Accept what you bought, if you don't like it, buy something else. But don't come in here complaining about what pentax has and hasn't done. That's pointless.

People who want better video should buy it. It's available. Expecting a camera that's a thousand dollars cheaper than it's competition to match it in every regard is naive, especially when it exceeds it's competition in it's core it's function. Taking stills.

Given a choice, Pixel Shift or Video capability, I'd take Pixel shift in a heart beat. Video adds nothing to what i bought the camera for. Pixels shift adds a whole ne dimension. Canon and Nikon should really add Pixel Shift to their cameras, it would increase their market share. It's hard to understand how in this day and age, the promote such primitive equipment.

Th point being, you pays your money and you takes your pick. Whining about Pentax video gets you a rep as a whiner.

Not every camera has to be the same.

[jgnfld]

How do they know? What kind of survey? Done in what territory?

I would take such bold statement with a pinch of salt.

Yes, it's an interesting claim, but I don't see how Eguchi can prove that.

(Laughs).

Yes, this, or telepathy, would be required.

So not only does Pentax do incompetent video, it also does incompetent market research too!!! :-o

Some people just won't give up!

[Mistral75]

So not only does Pentax do incompetent video, it also does incompetent market research!!! :-o

Some people just won't give up!

We never said that, only that the claim is undocumented and difficult to substantiate.

[mohb]

Expecting a camera that's a thousand dollars cheaper than it's competition to match it in every regard is naive, especially when it exceeds it's competition in it's core function. Taking stills.

For some on here the cost seems to be irrelevant - for those like me it's why Pentax wins everytime.

[jgnfld]

For some on here the cost seems to be irrelevant - for those like me it's why Pentax wins everytime.

And outdoors capability at that low cost/high quality point. It's always wet and cold in Newfoundland. Pentax ought to be a top seller here!

[filmamigo]

I am not sure I understand all the anguish about Pentax video. They do not brag about their video, they admit it is not the best and state publicly (odd for a public company) that it is not a priority. Why do we insist that Pentax be everything to everyone? They are a small company focusing primarily on good still cameras that provide some higher end features at mid-range pricing. They do not do video well and never said they did.

Would you buy a Cooper Mini and then spend hours online complaining it cannot tow your giant travel trailer like a 1 ton pickup? Of course not. Everyone should buy the tools they need to do the job that they personally need or want to do. Personally I do no video so Pentax is perfect for my style of shooting. If video was a priority I would purchase another brand that excels in that area.

Not trying to argue this issue as it certainly comes up often, I genuinely would like to understand the logic behind insisting Pentax must do better video. Why? Cooper Minis can try all they want but they are never going to be good at pulling travel trailers.

It's a false analogy. The reason we get passionate about video is because Pentax is SO CLOSE. We love shooting stills with Pentax, we want to spend our money on Pentax, and we would have no reason to look elsewhere if Pentax paid enough attention to video to make some minor tweaks.

A more accurate analogy would be two pickup trucks:

• the Panasonic pickup truck can carry one-tonne payloads, has good off-road capability, and can drive on the highway at 100 km/h.
• the Pentax pickup truck can carry one-tonne payloads, has good off-road capability, but can only drive on local roads at 50 km/h. Why? Probably it needs a new/different transmission. But some problems could be solved by making smaller changes to the gas pedal and the steering wheel.

If you think you EVER need to drive on the highway, you will be less likely to buy that Pentax pickup truck. It doesn't have to be the fastest/best highway truck ever, but if you do the minimum required to allow the Pentax truck onto the highway, you won't lose those sales.

From my previous post: Recipe for Success - Pentax and video - PentaxForums.com

For video, these are the realistic minimum requirements:

• Frame rates: 24 fps, 25 fps, 30 fps and 60 fps
• Resolutions: 1080P and/or 4k
• High quality codec that supports video editing, i.e. ProRes
• Real image stabilization (optical or moving the sensor)
• Manual exposure controls (shutter speed, aperture, ISO)
• Zebra stripes for over/underexposure
• Focus peaking
• Audio input jack
• Headphone / audio output jack
• Clean HDMI video output - FULL RESOLUTION, with no overlays of info (so you can record on a different recorder if you want)

None of these things are difficult to implement.

[Lurch]

I think P needs to consolidate and make more sense of their product line.
Assumedly the K-50 is due for renewal soon, but even so; with K-50 -> K-70 -> K3 II (also due soon?) -> K1 -> 645Z - thats a really, really good, high quality range and good prices.
For my mind the KS2 and KP, although good cameras just dont "fit" in the line up.
Fix/improve AF, consolidate the line up, and get some *bleep* advertising out there.
As for video, perhaps P can actually make a sales point from the fact that they're concentrating on photographers?

Although if they want to go after the retro market, I mirrorless K1000D - yes please.