[Erictator]

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.

Yes, I agree the thing that people overlook sometimes in these discussions is the 3rd party and even more neglected for discussion is the used market. I love my K1, and there is really no reason I couldn't live happily ever after with the lenses I have and the performance of the K1 in its current state... BUT... and this is a big BUT...

...is that while some CanNikon Pro bodies might seem priced beyond the top of some of our budgets, their enthusiast models are bought and re-sold used in such tremendous numbers by people who just wanted to try or play, that the "Deals" on used gear are seemingly infinite in comparison to Pentax K mount gear and reasonably priced.

I'm not saying I want to base my hobby entirely on used gear, I am just saying that for the same reason we brag about all the available K mount glass out there going back to the begging of time, that CanNikon also has an attractive second hand market that while maybe stops when you hit the Nikon AI vintage and back, it still has sheer quantity of product out there.

The other thing on the used market is supply and demand of 3rd party glass. Ever price a Nikon mount Bigma against the K Mount Bigma in same condition? (if you can find a used one in decent shape in K mount). The Nikon mount will be dang near HALF the price most times I've looked, just because there are so many of them out there, the competition for used product is less. Etc etc etc. Even with in-lens VR, the used market is pretty attractively priced model for model. Not to mention local sales... Your local Craigs list is probably littered with Canikon gear, and you might see a rare DSLR era bit of K mount kit posted once in a blue moon, but not daily like the big 3.

This creates enthusiasm for a brand, and even though the big 3 don't get a dime out of used sales, once that person has been bit by the shutter bug and has a loyalty to the brand, if/when they do buy the odd body or lens, then they will get a sale. That is the slow road to a sale, but you can't travel back in time to start that process.

Pentax enjoyed a certain amount of that type of sale when they released the *ist DS. A lot of folks had SMC P F, SMC P FA gear on the shelf, and people took advantage and got on board. The slow to market new product periods and loss of 3rd party lens support that followed have created a dip in that curve, and loosing 3rd part support more and more tells me that the market share will contract even more down the road.

We are loyal, but Pentax isn't Leica, I don't think there are too many of us that will support $10K bodies that don't match the competition just because we like our brand so much and want to keep them in business... some might, but not enough. And that is what Pentax would have to do to stay in business if they kept losing volume sales because of shrinking landscape.

I guess what I am getting at is that there is a bit of a snow ball effect. Low or non available products on the new market trickle down to the used market, and this effects the mindset of the enthusiast who might spring for a new K1 body, but doesn't want to break the bank on lenses, or might buy a used K1 but can't find the new lens he wants in K mount. The sword cuts both ways. I hear people down play the lack of 3rd party lens support lately, but I think it really does have a negative impact on future markets and is a trend that Ricoh should try to reverse if they are serious about keeping Pentax going.

Pentax isn't Doomed, but, they could shoot them-self in the foot enough times to bring on some doom in the future.
Eric

[mee]

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 don't think the situation is people buying 15 different lenses with a lot of overlap, but instead having X many lenses from which to chose from when purchasing. Instead of just having a sedan and a pickup, they want the option of sedan, pickup, SUV, van, crossover, coupe, hatchback, etc.

But not even that... there is the desire to have 4 sedan choices, 3 pickup choices, 6 SUV choices, etc. Because one size doesn't fit all -- everyone has a different approach and desire to their gear.

Some might want small primes, others fast (and thus larger) primes, yet someone else might want light, travel zooms, f/4 zooms, f/2.8 zooms, etc. That isn't even considering pricing and actual optical performance... it is complicated.

That is what a healthy lens lineup looks like for those familiar (and of the expectation) with the Canikonys.

As for Sigma, when asked directly, they will bluntly tell you there is a lack of sales with K mount to make any more lenses released in K worthwhile to them.

I suspect the same is the reason for Tamron, unless provided financial incentive (as with the 15-30 and 24-70 designs)..

[Winder]

I guess what I am getting at is that there is a bit of a snow ball effect. Low or non available products on the new market trickle down to the used market, and this effects the mindset of the enthusiast who might spring for a new K1 body, but doesn't want to break the bank on lenses, or might buy a used K1 but can't find the new lens he wants in K mount.

The same thing can be said about the 645 platform. If Ricoh wants to grow its market share and sell more lenses then they need to keep the bodies updated and the product cycles going. When a new 645 body is announced it will cause the price of used 645D & 645Z bodies to fall making the platform more accessible to more people. People who don't currently own 645 lenses. This drives demand for more 645 glass. A robust used market is a really good sign of a healthy system.

[f22]

I don't think the situation is people buying 15 different lenses with a lot of overlap, but instead having X many lenses from which to chose from when purchasing. Instead of just having a sedan and a pickup, they want the option of sedan, pickup, SUV, van, crossover, coupe, hatchback, etc.

But not even that... there is the desire to have 4 sedan choices, 3 pickup choices, 6 SUV choices, etc. Because one size doesn't fit all -- everyone has a different approach and desire to their gear.

Some might want small primes, others fast (and thus larger) primes, yet someone else might want light, travel zooms, f/4 zooms, f/2.8 zooms, etc. That isn't even considering pricing and actual optical performance... it is complicated.

That is what a healthy lens lineup looks like for those familiar (and of the expectation) with the Canikonys.

As for Sigma, when asked directly, they will bluntly tell you there is a lack of sales with K mount to make any more lenses released in K worthwhile to them.

I suspect the same is the reason for Tamron, unless provided financial incentive (as with the 15-30 and 24-70 designs)..

No question that choices are not only nice for consumers, but necessary to be competitive. The Canon/Nikon lines get way more review coverage and Pentax (or other companies) are forced to be producing the same amount of lens choices or face condemnation by the reviewers who are juuuuust a bit biased toward the Canon/Nikon lines. So its like you said about giving people enough choice and also the reality of how the marketplace forces the "15 model's" too.

The only point I was making with my example was, if you have 2 lenses both with constant f/2.8 from 27-70 and 70-200, you have great bokeh, fast, quick focusing lenses for many needs with just 2 lenses. And without spending more money to get lenses inside that focal range that only outperform slightly to those 2. Hey there are plenty of folks that have dozens of lenses, that's their choice. I prefer to carry one walk around lens, so I try to pick something versatile like a 27-70 or even my 18-135.

[Uluru]

juuuuust a bit biased toward the Canon/Nikon lines. So

That bias comes from a mindset that all Japanese camera and lens makers are guilty of — the over production, and doubling, or tripling of the lens lineup. Selling cameras they earn a little, but by selling lenses, they earn money, and over-expansion of the lens lineup that has happened in the last decades have created certain irrational expectations. If the bloggers and digital photography reviewers had some wits, and could use their heads for more than combing, they could perhaps see that it is enough to have ten-sih fine lenses for the entire healthy lineup of any system, that satisfy 90% of users. What remains is the specialty optics for those 10%. But when 90% of lenses are junk, then not even 200 lenses are enough.

My suggestion is to choose a system with less lenses, but a system with uncompromised fewer lenses, those which a user will hardly part with — if ever.

[Mistral75]

(...)
My suggestion is to choose a system with less lenses, but a system with uncompromised fewer lenses, those which a user will hardly part with — if ever.

Choose Leica!

[biz-engineer]

We all commenting based on our needs and also based on what type of photography we approach. - There are photographers who 95% of their time shoots landscape and static subjects. For them Pentax is among the best, if not the best. And the af is their last worry. - There are photographers who have some jobs which require a fast and precise af and they have some difficulties with Pentax cameras to achieve the best results. - There are a lot of people who shoot events and they are satisfied with Pentax's af. Others aren't. - There are also a lot of photographers who have 0 (zero) experience when comes to shoot with other cameras from different systems, or if they have any, it's with entry or middle level cameras and lenses. And for them the Pentax af is good enough. - There are a lot of people who shoot with 2 systems. It's not that much productive in my opinion, but I understand some of their reasons. Pentax is the Ricoh first full frame. Canon and Nikon have a lot more full frames laying around and yet, there are a lot of people complaining about other stuff like video, dynamic range, price, etc. We are voting with our wallets and it's important to try and test a camera or a lens before spending our money on a system. Complaining on internet about af, or about video, etc. after we spend a lot of money is not productive and as I said, a lot of complaints can be avoided by renting in the first place the gear we want. Since I started to rent cameras and lenses I'm not having any complains about my gear. I mean, who knows better than me which are my needs and my claims?

Pentax level of success (or the lack off) is, by many bloggers, almost always related to camera specifications, but it is (mostly) incorrect. The K1 the only full frame camera that does astrotracer, if the GPS/Compass are calibrated (procedure to be done by the user), it works very well. Why most people doing astrophoto are using a Canon camera? How many times did Ricoh advertise this astrotracer feature? To me, it seems that Ricoh imaging have a real organizational problem with regard to how they market their products, no wonder why Pentax isn't as wide spread as Canon. Given that most astro-photographers are using a Canon camera, selling cameras is not about features, it's about how good is the marketing & sales department. So, IMO, Pentax gear mostly sell to existing k mount owners, and even if some Canikon users got a K1, this number is far below what it could/should be. "
For each Pentaxian buying K-1 another Nikon/Canon shooter jumped ship to Pentax" can be interpreted both ways: Pentax K1 is really a success Or, Pentax K1 did not sell much in Pentaxland. Which is a pity.

---

Last edited by biz-engineer; 06-25-2017 at 11:14 PM.

[RonHendriks1966]

Pentax level of success (or the lack off) is, by many bloggers, almost always related to camera specifications, but it is (mostly) incorrect. The K1 the only full frame camera that does astrotracer, if the GPS/Compass are calibrated (procedure to be done by the user), it works very well. Why most people doing astrophoto are using a Canon camera? How many times did Ricoh advertise this astrotracer feature? To me, it seems that Ricoh imaging have a real organizational problem with regard to how they market their products, no wonder why Pentax isn't as wide spread as Canon. Given that most astro-photographers are using a Canon camera, selling cameras is not about features, it's about how good is the marketing & sales department. So, IMO, Pentax gear mostly sell to existing k mount owners, and even if some Canikon users got a K1, this number is far below what it could/should be. "
For each Pentaxian buying K-1 another Nikon/Canon shooter jumped ship to Pentax" can be interpreted both ways: Pentax K1 is really a success Or, Pentax K1 did not sell much in Pentaxland. Which is a pity.

Well is there any online explanation coming from Ricoh-Imaging how to do that work proper? I don't think many owners of K-1 or K-3ii know how to do this.

[Uluru]

Choose Leica!

Or this; Contax G — best little system ever imagined. I always secretly wanted this to be repeated by someone in the digital world. Closest that comes to this, is the Leica TL. Not many lenses, but all are superb stuff.
[COLOR="Silver"]

[mecrox]

Or this; Contax G — best little system ever imagined. I always secretly wanted this to be repeated by someone in the digital world. Closest that comes to this, is the Leica TL. Not many lenses, but all are superb stuff.
[COLOR="Silver"]

My dream system back in the day though at the time I could never afford it. If a camera company produced this today, on digital, I'd probably be set up for life. I suppose the nearest equivalents apart from Leica are the Fuji X-Pro or the Olympus Pen-F plus primes, but taken together as a system neither has quite the style of the Contax system. The problem with the Leica TL, for me, apart from the sheer expense is no integrated viewfinder = no sale. I know they do an external one but this is no solution, imho. It would fall off or I'd lose it in a matter of weeks.

[RonHendriks1966]

Or this; Contax G — best little system ever imagined. I always secretly wanted this to be repeated by someone in the digital world. Closest that comes to this, is the Leica TL. Not many lenses, but all are superb stuff.
[COLOR="Silver"]

Those are not the fast lenses somehow everyone want today. I see F2 and F2.8 where now everyone wants F1.4 and you can't have it all. Looks nice to me.

[Mistral75]

Those are not the fast lenses somehow everyone want today. I see F2 and F2.8 where now everyone wants F1.4 and you can't have it all. Looks nice to me.

On the left, the superlative Leica Summilux-SL 50mm f/1.4 Asph. - $5,295
On the right, the even more superlative Leica Apo-Summicron-M 50mm f/2 Asph. - $7,795.

Which one would you prefer to use?



Source of the pictures above: LEICA SUMMILUX-SL 50 mm f/1.4 ASPH ? Jan Brunæs Photography

[mecrox]

Those are not the fast lenses somehow everyone want today. I see F2 and F2.8 where now everyone wants F1.4 and you can't have it all. Looks nice to me.

The essence of enjoying yourself with a camera is not wanting it all but settling for what's just right for you, imho. I'd prefer a quality lens which was eminently usable at f2 or f2.8 to one which was wonky at f1.4 and had to be stopped down to be fully usable anyway. The internet is a lot to blame for this, encouraging a culture of measurebating and extreme performance which is quite unnecessary in practice and may actually detract from a rounded performance across the aperture and/or focal range (because of how a lens design is tweaked to please the marketing department which wants absurd results for sharpness, e.g.). The rendering is all, as they say.

[RonHendriks1966]

I preferred the smaller sets.

[pathdoc]

On the left, the superlative Leica Summilux-SL 50mm f/1.4 Asph. - $5,295
On the right, the even more superlative Leica Apo-Summicron-M 50mm f/1.4 Asph. - $7,795.

Which one would you prefer to use?

I'll take the little one, thanks (even though it does appear from the aperture ring to only be an f/2). It even makes the camera it's being mounted on look smaller.

All this presumes that either someone else - preferably someone very rich and generous - is paying for it, or that I have won a lottery so huge that when I bank the winnings, the price of camera and lens together is not even as much as the monthly interest yield.