[Belnan]

I like the analogy of the fallen heroes in the motorcycle industry. Not entirely accurate, but it makes a good point about complacent management.

Here is the single product that did the most damage to the Brits:



Norton, Triumph, BSA et al just didn't have the capital to bring out new models to match it. The buyers voted for four cylinder bikes with disc brakes and electric starters over twins with kick start and drum brakes that leaked oil by design.

Ironically Triumph still makes a Bonneville and I believe it is fairly popular, I would take it over any motorcycle that Honda currently makes, but thats just my personal preference.

[BigMackCam]

I like the analogy of the fallen heroes in the motorcycle industry. Not entirely accurate, but it makes a good point about complacent management.

Here is the single product that did the most damage to the Brits:

...

Norton, Triumph, BSA et al just didn't have the capital to bring out new models to match it. The buyers voted for four cylinder bikes with disc brakes and electric starters over twins with kick start and drum brakes that leaked oil by design.

Ironically Triumph still makes a Bonneville and I believe it is fairly popular, I would take it over any motorcycle that Honda currently makes, but thats just my personal preference.

In fact, this makes a good point about niche products and brands.

If Norton, Triumph (of old) and BSA could have found a way to exist as niche players, there was still a market for their bikes, no matter if they had drum brakes and leaked oil. Sure, a lot of folks were more interested in the easy ownership of the Japanese bikes... and I completely understand why. But there was, and has always been, a solid following for what I'll term "enthusiast" bikes. And that's the case with many different products, including cameras. If manufacturers can find a way to occupy and operate within a niche efficiently, there's no reason why that can't be profitable and sustainable. The re-born Triumph is a great example (though I do wonder if it has gone too mainstream with some of its models)...

[stihlmania]

My BSA 441 was the most fun motorcycle I haven ever owned, also almost the least most unreliable, other than a CZ, Jawa, or the Italian Harley Davidson........The 441 -when it did start and run, what a beautiful motorcycle.......and I am still looking to buy a vintage example..].....but it does have to compare with my 1973 CB500 with an American Turbo Pack conversion,which I still own and drive. I , I purchased in 1973, now it has a CB 550! I changed the motor after the number 3 rod bearing went south,.odomemeter reads , with the turbo,, valves floating and all!, 256,000 miles on my current speedometer...The BSA 441 is still the most fun motorcycle I have ever owned, the Honda CB550 is the most reliable........ that is in my personal experance , yours maybe different,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,Nothing like a 441 passing in the dirt a Husquavarna 490 when you are spitting rocks and dirt all over that person, it is not personal, just fun!

[Chester UK]

Amateur Photographer a well respected weekly photo news and review publication in the UK has just Predicted end Pentax and K1ii likely to be it's last new Camera. Article written by Andy Westlake who is Technical Editor and a former DPReview reviewer, wrote that the slow down in the release of new lenses, camera bodies and Ricoh's reluctance to enter the mirrorless market will lead to the demise of Pentax due to lack of research and development. He says quote "Pentax isn't even a company in its own right any more" pointing to Pentax just being a brand name used by Ricoh. At the end of the article he says "it will be a real shame to see Pentax disappear, but the Pentax K1 mark ii would be a fitting last hurrah"

Although we've all read the writing is on the wall for Pentax in the past it has been easy to dismiss. But to read an article by a respected publication, by a knowledgeable and respected photojournalist is a bit more concerning than random stories from the mass online media. Anyone else read the article or have any thoughts?

The latest AP has a letter from somebody who has had the SAME problem with aperture control on TWO different Pentax bodies, both about 3-4 years after purchase and after careful use. This problem has been discussed elsewhere on the Pentax Forum, and the refusal of Pentax in the UK to consider fixing the camera bodies free of charge is one more 'nail in the coffin' of the brand. Sometimes the Pentax brand deserves criticism, or more accurately its attitude to its customers does.
I write as a man who has owned 3 Pentax cameras in the last 38 years, all reliable and ideal for my requirements (MX, K-10 and current K-5). But I'm very glad the my K-5 isn't on the list of models that this website has noted as having this fault.

---

Last edited by Chester UK; 07-05-2019 at 09:05 AM. Reason: spelling error

[MarkJerling]

The latest AP has a letter from somebody who has had the SAME problem with aperture control on TWO different Pentax bodies, both about 3-4 years after purchase and after careful use. This problem has been discussed elsewhere on the Pentax Forum, and the refusal of Pentax in the UK to consider fixing the camera bodies free of charge is one more 'nail in the coffin' of the brand. Sometimes the Pentax brand deserves criticism, or more accurately its attitude to its customers does.
I write as a man who has owned 3 Pentax cameras in the last 38 years, all reliable and ideal for my requirements (MX, K-10 and current K-5). But I'm very glad the my K-5 isn't on the list of models that this website has noted as having this fault.

The K5, like the K-3, the KP and the K-1, use a different type of aperture control system to the K30 and K50 cameras. As result, the aperture problem only exists with the (cheaper range) products, namely (mostly) K30, K50 and a few K70 cameras.

While I agree that Ricoh could certainly have handled the K30 / K50 / K70 aperture solenoid issue better, it can hardly be described as a "nail in the coffin" of the brand. I doubt any K-3, KP or K-1 owners would decide not to buy a future Pentax purely on the basis of the failures of a (relatively) small selection of mainly K30 and K50 cameras. As has been documented, the aperture control issue in those cameras caught Ricoh offside in that their supplier changed the materials and manufacturing location of the aperture solenoid. Simply replacing the solenoid does not (permanently) fix the issue as the replacement solenoid is likely to fail after a similar amount of use.

I've owned the SFX, and still own several SFXn cameras. My wife has a Z10 and our daughter now uses my K5 for fashion photography. I'm very happy with my K-1ii and I'm sure it will continue to give good service for many years to come.
Modern DSLRs with their large reliance on electronics are unlikely to live quite as long as the old manual Pentax models, but that's no different for any camera manufacturer's products.

I don't see any "nail in the coffin" for Pentax. Ricoh has been a good owner of the Pentax brand and continue to innovate and (slowly) bring good products to market under the Pentax brand. This is not a time in the photography industry to be releasing lots of new models as the market is flat. The (current) obsession with mirrorless technology may benefit those manufacturers who have entered that market or may prove to be those manufacturers undoing. The mirrorless market is fickle and many DSLR shooters have no compulsion to go mirrorless while the technology results in a poor electronic viewfinder. And it's decidedly poor. The Sony A7iii is no pleasure to use and the Canon EOS R is only marginally better. A few minutes looking at the viewfinder of either results in severe eye strain for many users.

There is an interesting Ricoh patent for a combination OVF with and EVF style overlay. Ricoh may, with that, bring DSLR shooters the best of both worlds. Only time will tell if such a thing will come to market or not.
In the mean time, I'm very happy with every Pentax camera I have ever owned. The K-1ii is a superb camera which produces stellar images. That's quite enough for me for now.

I don't see the brand dying anytime soon, nor do I see any reason for it to die. And, in the exceedingly unlikely event of the brand ceasing to produce new products, nothing will prevent my use and enjoyment of all my Pentax gear for many years to come, quite likely until I fall off my bicycle and leave this little blue ball, orbiting a pretty insignificant star on the outskirts of a unremarkable galaxy in a relatively empty corner of the galaxy we call home.

[Dartmoor Dave]

I always assumed the aperture block thing was a deliberate design feature, to encourage people to move up to shooting with fully manual lenses when the camera judges that they're ready to take off the automated training wheels.

I think the ideal camera would only allow users the option to shoot in program mode for the first year, then after that they'd have a year when the camera would only let them use AV, SV or TAV, and then finally in the third year the camera would refuse to operate in anything other than manual mode. Then in the fourth year the autofocus would switch off too.

And I'm only partly joking.


Edit: Oops, I said SV rather than TV. Although I've got to say that I think the old term "shutter priority" makes more sense than the modern "time value" anyway. Why the heck did they change that?

[ThorSanchez]

I always assumed the aperture block thing was a deliberate design feature, to encourage people to move up to shooting with fully manual lenses when the camera judges that they're ready to take off the automated training wheels.

I think the ideal camera would only allow users the option to shoot in program mode for the first year, then after that they'd have a year when the camera would only let them use AV, SV or TAV, and then finally in the third year the camera would refuse to operate in anything other than manual mode. Then in the fourth year the autofocus would switch off too.

And I'm only partly joking.


Edit: Oops, I said SV rather than TV. Although I've got to say that I think the old term "shutter priority" makes more sense than the modern "time value" anyway. Why the heck did they change that?

Certainly would be a way to both increase camera sales and ensure you had a consistently angry user base. You'd also have a massive secondhand market full of cheap and crippled cameras. Probably a dedicated hacker community re-enabling features.


Some types of photography lend themselves to slow, deliberate, all-manual shooting. But for wildlife, sports, kids, etc you'd just be dramatically lowering the keeper rate for no good reason.


I started off using my K-30 in only manual mode for years. But I get better results in many cases using TAv or Av. And manual focus is fine in some cases, pretty silly in others.

[Dartmoor Dave]

But for wildlife, sports, kids, etc you'd just be dramatically lowering the keeper rate for no good reason.

Although when I think about the deluge of wildlife, sports and kids shots flooding my friends' and family's social media posts every day, I'm inclined to think that a lower keeper rate would be a good thing.

[ThorSanchez]

Although when I think about the deluge of wildlife, sports and kids shots flooding my friends' and family's social media posts every day, I'm inclined to think that a lower keeper rate would be a good thing.

I'm gonna guess most of those were taken with cell phones, using 300% digital zoom and a 1/20th shutter speed.

[Zygonyx]

Hummm.... 62 pages for a false prediction based thread.

Is someone able to remind me if Amateur Photographers is still in business yet ?

[Chester UK]

The K5, like the K-3, the KP and the K-1, use a different type of aperture control system to the K30 and K50 cameras. As result, the aperture problem only exists with the (cheaper range) products, namely (mostly) K30, K50 and a few K70 cameras.

While I agree that Ricoh could certainly have handled the K30 / K50 / K70 aperture solenoid issue better, it can hardly be described as a "nail in the coffin" of the brand. I doubt any K-3, KP or K-1 owners would decide not to buy a future Pentax purely on the basis of the failures of a (relatively) small selection of mainly K30 and K50 cameras. As has been documented, the aperture control issue in those cameras caught Ricoh offside in that their supplier changed the materials and manufacturing location of the aperture solenoid. Simply replacing the solenoid does not (permanently) fix the issue as the replacement solenoid is likely to fail after a similar amount of use.

I've owned the SFX, and still own several SFXn cameras. My wife has a Z10 and our daughter now uses my K5 for fashion photography. I'm very happy with my K-1ii and I'm sure it will continue to give good service for many years to come.
Modern DSLRs with their large reliance on electronics are unlikely to live quite as long as the old manual Pentax models, but that's no different for any camera manufacturer's products.

I don't see any "nail in the coffin" for Pentax. Ricoh has been a good owner of the Pentax brand and continue to innovate and (slowly) bring good products to market under the Pentax brand. This is not a time in the photography industry to be releasing lots of new models as the market is flat. The (current) obsession with mirrorless technology may benefit those manufacturers who have entered that market or may prove to be those manufacturers undoing. The mirrorless market is fickle and many DSLR shooters have no compulsion to go mirrorless while the technology results in a poor electronic viewfinder. And it's decidedly poor. The Sony A7iii is no pleasure to use and the Canon EOS R is only marginally better. A few minutes looking at the viewfinder of either results in severe eye strain for many users.

There is an interesting Ricoh patent for a combination OVF with and EVF style overlay. Ricoh may, with that, bring DSLR shooters the best of both worlds. Only time will tell if such a thing will come to market or not.
In the mean time, I'm very happy with every Pentax camera I have ever owned. The K-1ii is a superb camera which produces stellar images. That's quite enough for me for now.

I don't see the brand dying anytime soon, nor do I see any reason for it to die. And, in the exceedingly unlikely event of the brand ceasing to produce new products, nothing will prevent my use and enjoyment of all my Pentax gear for many years to come, quite likely until I fall off my bicycle and leave this little blue ball, orbiting a pretty insignificant star on the outskirts of a unremarkable galaxy in a relatively empty corner of the galaxy we call home.

My 'nail in the coffin' comment refers to the letter in AP which must be unwelcome publicity for the brand's failure to deal responsibility with the problems suffered by customers who believed they were buying something that would live up to the brand's reputation for reliability. Surely the supply of the faulty or poorly built parts is something that Ricoh/Pentax should be discussing with the supplier of those parts? (to perhaps supply a better part free of charge as a replacement so that Ricoh/Pentax only have to bear the cost of fitting it in the camera bodies?).

The problems should not be dumped on the customers who purchased the camera bodies.

[Wasp]

Ironically Triumph still makes a Bonneville and I believe it is fairly popular, I would take it over any motorcycle that Honda currently makes, but thats just my personal preference.

There, I fixed your post. Triumph went under in 1983. The name was bought out by an entrepreneurs, who restarted production at a trickle and kept the name alive. The first modern, reinvented Triumph appeared in 1991. They are fine machines but only the name links them to the oil leaking vibrating clunkers of the sixties and seventies.

[reh321]

I always assumed the aperture block thing was a deliberate design feature, to encourage people to move up to shooting with fully manual lenses when the camera judges that they're ready to take off the automated training wheels.

I think the ideal camera would only allow users the option to shoot in program mode for the first year, then after that they'd have a year when the camera would only let them use AV, SV or TAV, and then finally in the third year the camera would refuse to operate in anything other than manual mode. Then in the fourth year the autofocus would switch off too.

And I'm only partly joking.

Edit: Oops, I said SV rather than TV. Although I've got to say that I think the old term "shutter priority" makes more sense than the modern "time value" anyway. Why the heck did they change that?

The evidence is very very strong that a supplier changed their implementation. If Pentax even knew about this change, neither they nor the supplier realized the issues this would cause over time.

[reh321]

The latest AP has a letter from somebody who has had the SAME problem with aperture control on TWO different Pentax bodies, both about 3-4 years after purchase and after careful use. This problem has been discussed elsewhere on the Pentax Forum, and the refusal of Pentax in the UK to consider fixing the camera bodies free of charge is one more 'nail in the coffin' of the brand. Sometimes the Pentax brand deserves criticism, or more accurately its attitude to its customers does.
I write as a man who has owned 3 Pentax cameras in the last 38 years, all reliable and ideal for my requirements (MX, K-10 and current K-5). But I'm very glad the my K-5 isn't on the list of models that this website has noted as having this fault.

My K-30 still gives me good service - all I had to do was to switch to aperture-riing-equipped lenses - unlike my two Canon Rebels, each of which had processor issues which turned out to be really really fatal. The simple fact is that no consumer-level camera has rugged build quality {as I learned a week before college graduation when my Kodak Instamatic's shutter just plain died}.

[MarkJerling]

My 'nail in the coffin' comment refers to the letter in AP which must be unwelcome publicity for the brand's failure to deal responsibility with the problems suffered by customers who believed they were buying something that would live up to the brand's reputation for reliability. Surely the supply of the faulty or poorly built parts is something that Ricoh/Pentax should be discussing with the supplier of those parts? (to perhaps supply a better part free of charge as a replacement so that Ricoh/Pentax only have to bear the cost of fitting it in the camera bodies?).

The problems should not be dumped on the customers who purchased the camera bodies.

Have a read of this very interesting post by photogem: A LITTLE BIT OF HISTORY: Development of the solenoid in Pentax cameras - PentaxForums.com

The aperture solenoid issue has been an interesting dilemma in that relatively few of these failed in the warranty period. And, as soon as Ricoh became aware of the problem, they changed the design of the product.

While many of us feel they could have handled the issue better, the reality is that, in most jurisdictions, there is no incentive for a supplier of any product to continue to fix faults after a warranty period has ended. Any buyer of a K30, K50 or K70 camera would have done well to have purchased an extended warranty in those jurisdictions where one year warranty was all that was offered. Or, they could have elected to buy a product in another jurisdiction with a 2-year warranty or in a jurisdiction with strong consumer protections such as ours where the law holds that a product must continue to function for its intended purpose "for a reasonable amount of time". That is, of course, one reason why many consumer electronics and other products sell for more money in New Zealand than elsewhere, as suppliers here need to take more risk than suppliers in jurisdictions where a strict 1-year warranty applies to such products.

So, the question would be: Would those people who's K30/K50/K70 cameras have failed have been happy to have spent an extra $150-300 to buy those products, if that extra cost would have given them better warranty service, for, say, 2-3 years warranty? As example: A KP in NZ will cost you a cool US$330 more than in the USA.

I would say that, in any country where 1 year is the usual warranty period, buyers would be good to remember "caveat emptor". There's a reason they paid less for that product. Of course, most of us (myself included) would like manufacturers to offer better warranties. And, as I have already stated - Ricoh could have done better. But, from Ricoh's point of view, they have satisfied the requirements of the warranty attached to the product.