[Kunzite]

There are no walls.
I'll repeat: there are no walls. If you see any, it's all in your mind. Every Pentax equipment's limitation is not a wall completely preventing you to do a certain task, and then as Pentax improves, fully disappearing. There is no hard limit between Pentax being "successful" and "failing". There is no "they only have to fix this and this, and all would be well". That would imply some sort of a silver bullet, and there's none

I'm Pentaxian since before the digital; I've witnessed their slow start with the *istD, and all the improvements and hiccups. I've seen all sorts of complaints, some of them becoming irrelevant in the years after (e.g. image quality), some much improved.
Every step forward would open new possibilities; the K-1 being their first FF DSLR - that was huge, the 150-450 is a very good "wildlife" lens, the 70-200 as their most ambitious lens in a while. Every such step allows us to do more, better.
So would an improved AF, for example. It doesn't have to be the best; it doesn't have to beat or even equal the competition. Just by being improved, more of us would think it's "adequate" for our needs.

[dafbp]

So would an improved AF, for example. It doesn't have to be the best; it doesn't have to beat or even equal the competition. Just by being improved, more of us would think it's "adequate" for our needs.

Well put.

[Kunzite]

Thank you. I try to make sense... sometimes it works

[bxf]

...It doesn't have to be the best; it doesn't have to beat or even equal the competition. Just by being improved, more of us would think it's "adequate" for our needs.

I'd change that to say "it shouldn't have to be the best", but sadly, unless it is, some will complain, even if it is very good nevertheless.

Thank you. I try to make sense... sometimes it works

You're bound to get lucky some of the time

[Kunzite]

Some would complain even if Pentax had the best and cheapest products; so that's a lost cause
Besides, it's buyers who matters, not complainers.

[larsbars]

I'm one of the Nikon converts. Nikon was really starting to annoy me by disabling features on cameras just to position them in their line up. As an example, look at what they did recently with the D7500 by removing a second card slot (compared to the D7200). This is clearly just to ensure that pro's need to buy the D500 even if they don't need the D500.

Pentax seems very much like the company that is dying to give the customer everything they can for the lowest price possible. I want to be part of an ecosystem where people are scrappy and care deeply about what they're making. Nikon seems like they're pretty damn far from that at this point.

I really do love pentax. I do think though that they really need to focus on two things to continue with the momentum of growth and to keep current converts happy. The first is to somehow convince tamron and sigma to continue making lenses for pentax. What tamron and sigma have been doing with their lenses recently is amazing and it does sort of feel like we're missing out. I'd love to be able to get the sigma 85mm art on my K-1. The second thing I think they need to do is improve autofocus speed so that these cameras can be depended on to shoot action/sports. Do something like what Nikon has some with the D500 and add a dedicated processor for autofocus.

I know the pentax community is very tight-knit and many of us are people who come directly from film or are at least "old school." The response to criticisms of pentax seems to basically be "when I was a kid, I had to walk both ways uphill to school in the snow." It's not helpful and it will fly less and less as more converts come to pentax. I would imagine the only way pentax stays alive is for them to find a strong and compelling reason for people to move over to pentax and to stay. The K-1 went a LONG way towards making this reality. I think they need to continue to push. I don't think their full-frame lens line-up that they've promised is enough.

[f22]

People are loyal to brands, when brands are loyal to them. Nothing alienates customers faster than having a sizeable legacy investment in gear, compatible only with that brand, and feeling that the company has turned those into worthless paperweights. Pentax has been very good about backwards compatibility. Many of their lens are natively compatible with new bodies, although they may not support all the modern functions. But at least they are usable and preserve your investment.

I'm satisfied that Pentax is creating affordable and great performing models like the K-1 and KP that pack a lot of important features into them. They represent great performance when compared to the competitors. When you compare what you get in say the K-1 to the equivalent FF models in Nikon, Canon and Sony, to get that incrementally better or enhanced functionality or performance, you often have to spend 2-3X's more to get that.

---

Last edited by f22; 06-23-2017 at 07:45 AM.

[Winder]

Ricoh is close to putting it all together. I don't know if they actually will or not, but they are very close.

[monochrome]

This. And, with so many obvious "shortcomings" in the rest of the Pentax lineup, one has to wonder how photographers ever managed to shoot weddings in the last century.

I've written before that my wedding was shot in a very dark sanctuary without flash, a courtyard on an overcast day and a large, walnut paneled interior Hall.

With a 6x7. I can't imagine how he did it.

[pathdoc]

I can't imagine how he did it.

Fixed it in post, I'd imagine. The good thing is, with roll film you can at least "push the exposure slider" for all the shots at once. The catch is that you don't get to see the results until you've done it, and if you've overcooked it there's no taking it back. After that, a whole lot of different compromises is required. I have prepared wet prints precisely once, at the tender age of eleven, and then not very well - but my understanding is that there are ways to work miracles with film and paper that would make even the slickest Photoshopper express their admiration.

[monochrome]

^^ Masking is a lost art.

[cali92rs]

Fixed it in post, I'd imagine. The good thing is, with roll film you can at least "push the exposure slider" for all the shots at once. The catch is that you don't get to see the results until you've done it, and if you've overcooked it there's no taking it back. After that, a whole lot of different compromises is required. I have prepared wet prints precisely once, at the tender age of eleven, and then not very well - but my understanding is that there are ways to work miracles with film and paper that would make even the slickest Photoshopper express their admiration.

One of the best folks on this board is Tuco.
What he can do with a B&W negative is amazing.

[thibs]

^^ Masking is a lost art.

I'm really not good at all but I'll admit I love playing with that although it takes time and is often difficult.
Reward is worth it though

[mee]

People are loyal to brands, when brands are loyal to them. Nothing alienates customers faster than having a sizeable legacy investment in gear, compatible only with that brand, and feeling that the company has turned those into worthless paperweights. Pentax has been very good about backwards compatibility. Many of their lens are natively compatible with new bodies, although they may not support all the modern functions. But at least they are usable and preserve your investment.

I'm satisfied that Pentax is creating affordable and great performing models like the K-1 and KP that pack a lot of important features into them. They represent great performance when compared to the competitors. When you compare what you get in say the K-1 to the equivalent FF models in Nikon, Canon and Sony, to get that incrementally better or enhanced functionality or performance, you often have to spend 2-3X's more to get that.

Agreed. There is a ton of value in Pentax cameras.

Yet, on the other hand, there is a wealth of more support by third parties for the Canikonys, so I think people are willing to pay more to get that.

For them the thought is probably, What good is the camera body without a robust selection of lenses to use with it? Modern lenses, that is. It is the Achilles heel for Pentax that I hope they sort out soon.

[f22]

Agreed. There is a ton of value in Pentax cameras.

Yet, on the other hand, there is a wealth of more support by third parties for the Canikonys, so I think people are willing to pay more to get that.

For them the thought is probably, What good is the camera body without a robust selection of lenses to use with it? Modern lenses, that is. It is the Achilles heel for Pentax that I hope they sort out soon.

That's true what you say about the lenses, and also true for all companies like Sony especially, Looking at the newer D FA lenses for the K-1, I could be quite happy with just the 24-70 mm f/2.8 and the 70-200 mm f/2.8. The IQ, fast aperture, performance, etc seem to address a great many shooting situations and styles. It's not like I need 15 different lenses with a lot of overlap to be satisfied. I didn't have that with film cameras, and it helped me learn to take better photographs with fewer lenses around my neck. Digital format made allows me even more creative capability (higher ISO, high noise reduction, CA correction, etc) than what the film camera's could address. Add PP software to the mix and it removed even more obstacles.

I'm not saying it wouldn't be nice to have more choices from Sigma or Tamron though that helped bring down the price. They actually make some of the lenses for Pentax, so there must be some non-compete clause in there?

I agree that there will always be a group of consumers that are proud of how much more they paid for something than whether they got the best value. I prefer to be the latter, and that is the appeal Pentax has for me. It has the features I need most for a reasonable price that get the job done. A lot of what I read on the forum is folks wanting the camera to automate something for the user instead of learning how to use existing functionality to achieve the result. Pentax is great at prioritizing the functions that will give you creative improvements without driving the cost of the product into the Nikon-Canon-Sony league, where they know they can't win sales.