[Mistral75]

Compared to mirrorless / mFT Olympus in 2018:

• mFT: (i) PEN-E-PL9

Three times as many.

(...)

Olympus are not an example to follow nor a comparison to rejoice at I'm afraid. Their imaging business is haemorrhaging:

• Sales are dropping: -16% for H1 2019/03 and -18% expected for the whole 2019/03 fiscal year
• Operating loss (excluding one-offs) amounted to 15% of sales during H1 2019/03 and is expected to reach 18% of sales for the whole 2019/03 fiscal year.

---

Last edited by Mistral75; 11-10-2018 at 08:11 AM.

[kevinWE]

Norm thanks for those photo's, it proves what I always have said - Toss the specs out the window and just go shoot. Most everything that gets bashed can produce keepers on a regular basis. Technology will always evolve, things will always get better, so nothing will ever be perfect. For photographers it's all about shooting, just go shoot and save the specs for the engineers. Back in the days of everything film, the auto focus was no where near what we see today, but photographers manged to take some great action pics, actually thousands and thousands of great pics..


Having said that, Pentax need's to compete. If they can't keep up with the auto focus systems of other brands, people will ignore their gear. That's just the reality of the market. When photographers are in the market for quick auto focus, that is what they want. They will compare before making a purchase, and if one camera fall's significantly short compared to other brands, that said camera will sit on the shelf. That's just the way of the market.

[usernametaken]

Most everything that gets bashed can produce keepers on a regular basis.

That's true, but don't forget the ones who could have become keepers but didn't. Those usually aren't shown

Having said that, Pentax need's to compete. If they can't keep up with the auto focus systems of other brands, people will ignore their gear. That's just the reality of the market. When photographers are in the market for quick auto focus, that is what they want. they will compare before making a purchase, and if one camera fall's significantly short compared to other brands the said camera will sit on the shelf. That's just the way of the market.

This.

[monochrome]

Please read the posts above.

Someone suggested, a K-3 successor optimized for sports (competing with the D500) would be less attractive for other types of photographers. I was actually just saying that a better AF (which I think "optimized for sports" means) wouldn't mean that other areas wouldn't benefit from that.

---------- Post added 11-10-18 at 07:46 AM ----------



The AF tends to be a little inconsistent and too hesitating for moving objects towards or away from the camera. Not unusable, but the keeper-rate could be better. See the reviews, as it's obvious I'm not the only one with this experience.

And another thing: if you shoot in continuous-mode and use two memory cards, the buffer takes quite a time to clear. In this time, the camera is unusable. This could also be improved.



Please don't confuse "it could be improved" with "it doesn't work now". Thanks.

I think action shooters here are in agreement that z-axis is not a Pentax AF strength, but everything else is fine. I for one don’t plan to change my gear set just to catch my dog running at me.We all understand the buffer issues - shorter bursts and better technique solves that one.

Pentax could publish white papers explaining how to use their settings for purpose cases - that would (IMO) render the AF complaints moot.

@normhead has taken the time to figure it out. Most users try a few times, aren’t pleased with the result and blame the gear.

The gear is what it is. If it doesn’t meet a need there is other gear that does. Why do we need another brand of gear with identical characteristics? We need brands of gear with different chanracteristics.

[Kunzite]

Olympus are not an example to follow nor to rejoice at I'm afraid.

Olympus was one of the examples of "look how much better than Pentax they're doing! Pentax, take a hint!" not long ago. Earlier, for a brief period it was Samsung.
Let's follow an example to the end, just to see where it could lead

[normhead]

Please read the posts above.

Someone suggested, a K-3 successor optimized for sports (competing with the D500) would be less attractive for other types of photographers. I was actually just saying that a better AF (which I think "optimized for sports" means) wouldn't mean that other areas wouldn't benefit from that.

---------- Post added 11-10-18 at 07:46 AM ----------



The AF tends to be a little inconsistent and too hesitating for moving objects towards or away from the camera. Not unusable, but the keeper-rate could be better. See the reviews, as it's obvious I'm not the only one with this experience.

And another thing: if you shoot in continuous-mode and use two memory cards, the buffer takes quite a time to clear. In this time, the camera is unusable. This could also be improved.



Please don't confuse "it could be improved" with "it doesn't work now". Thanks.

Again, any camera can be improved. As I said. That's pretty much irrelevant. My point is, I shoot beside many other systems and I don't see them doing much better.Sometimes they get the best shot, sometimes I get the best shot, much of the time we all get the same shot. I'm sure all their systems could be improved as well, because its what every one talks about no matter what system they shoot, but I'm not dwelling on it. The proof to me that a person thinks another system would better suit their needs to me, is they went out and bought it.

As for the "could be improved part" every incarnation of the Pentax cameras has improvements over the previous releases. Same with any camera company. The things that can be improved within the Pentax R&D budget will be. Also a given. I'm not sure what the point of saying they should be is. They always are. Pentax thinks that as well.

And honestly, if I read the reviews and took them seriously, I wouldn't shoot Pentax. We've seen some terrible reviews of Pentax equipment that were as far from the truth as one can get. I work the opposite way fro you. Because I spend a lot of time with my camera in my hands, I evaluate the reviews. Most of them just don't understand Pentax shooters or the meaninglessness fo their nitpicking. If the reviews are backing you up, that's as likely to mean your flat out wrong, as lit is you're on to something.

Some dude, puts the camera through test he hasn't put any other camera through and then say "Pentax isn't good at this." With no regard to how likely that feature is to be important to anyone. Then everyone goes all band wagon and pretends that feature is really important to them. It gets old real quick.

The you have videos where the camera store guys compare the Pentax with the 24-70 to two other camera systems and when it does well with a subject running towards the camera, and they are surprised. Because they like everyone else have bought into the nonsense.

That's why I usually don't pay much attention to this crap. I just go shoot.

If you read the reviews from some sites, bad mouthing Pentax is just an auto-response. And people who repeat and believe what they say without question are just as bad.

Tripoper running straight at the camera, is that what Pentax can't do? How did I get this image then?


No camera is the best at everything. But it's nice if it's best at what you do most of the time, and good enough at what you do a smaller portion of the time, Given it's price point, I think Pentax's have a good balance. Theoretical discussion about "could they be better and how" are not particularly helpful. If you really need better AF, go for a camera that has it. That would be productive.The Pentax price point trade offs don't suit you. But don't expect those of us who are happy just going out every day and shooting to agree that these things are absolutely necessary. They would be nice to have things, the basic camera is what it is and it suits many people the way it is. And for them, whatever comes in the next flagship will be an improvement over what they have and will cheer them up for a while. But if what you have isn't good enough for what you do, try something else. It might be better. And the odds of Pentax making huge strides on AF.c tracking are not very good if what they have now isn't good enough.

Sometimes it's better to admit, you're not the type of shooter Pentax was designed to appeal to. It's not about the camera, it's about you.

Man I get annoyed when people complain Pentax doesn't do what I do with it on a regular basis. Especially when I see people using other cameras having the same issues. For some reason, everyone else gets a free pass.

[usernametaken]

I think action shooters here are in agreement that z-axis is not a Pentax AF strength, but everything else is fine. I for one don’t plan to change my gear set just to catch my dog running at me.We all understand the buffer issues - shorter bursts and better technique solves that one.

Pentax could publish white papers explaining how to use their settings for purpose cases - that would (IMO) render the AF complaints moot.

@normhead has taken the time to figure it out. Most users try a few times, aren’t pleased with the result and blame the gear.

The gear is what it is. If it doesn’t meet a need there is other gear that does. Why do we need another brand of gear with identical characteristics? We need brands of gear with different chanracteristics.

Please (again) bear in mind the premise of the whole argument:

Someone suggested, a K-3 successor optimized for sports (competing with the D500) would be less attractive for other types of photographers. I was actually just saying that a better AF (which I think "optimized for sports" means) wouldn't mean that other areas wouldn't benefit from that.

Thank you.

[reh321]

Three products in two lines actually:

• FF: (i) Pentax K-1 II and (ii) HD Pentax-D FA★ 50mm f/1.4 SDM AW
• WG: (iii) Ricoh WG-60

But I agree: this is a meagre harvest.

I am hoping that they are holding back product(s) to make a bigger "splash" in the "Centennial Year" 2019.

[usernametaken]

Tripoper running straight at the camera, is that what Pentax can't do? How did I get this image then?

Exactly when did I say that? Quote please.

Just go back to the beginning of the argument. Then you will see that there were specific premises made and you're wasting your energy fighting a straw man.

[reh321]

Please (again) bear in mind the premise of the whole argument:

Someone suggested, a K-3 successor optimized for sports (competing with the D500) would be less attractive for other types of photographers. I was actually just saying that a better AF (which I think "optimized for sports" means) wouldn't mean that other areas wouldn't benefit from that.

Thank you.

I believe Pentaxians spend way too much time coveting the D500. If you look at Nikon camera bodies, listed in order of sales at B&H, the D750 is 2nd and the D500 is 4th. Pentax is trying to improve AF performance, modifying both lenses and bodies, but the place they shine is in high ISO performance.

[normhead]

The AF tends to be a little inconsistent and too hesitating for moving objects towards or away from the camera. Not unusable, but the keeper-rate could be better. See the reviews, as it's obvious I'm not the only one with this experience.

And what about the Camera Store review where everyone is surprised at how good Pentax tracking AF is? You pick your reviews, I'll pick mine. The difference being, the reviews I like are actual people doing real comparisons with different cameras, not some guy sitting behind desk nit-picking after spending morning trying to figure out the camera and whining because it isn't the same as some other camera he uses . And if you say "the keeper rate could be better" one more time.... everyone's keeper rate could be better. What are you really saying?

What's everyone else's keeper rate on Pixel Shifted or Astro-tracer images? 0% Pentax may not be good at everything, but it does some things no one else does. There is absolutely no sense in musing about what it could do better. Especially with all the things it does that no one else does. What you think they could do better, is stuff most of us don't care about because of what it does well. And because it is stuff that isn't relevant to most of our shooting.

I'm just looking for a little balance here. People shouldn't have a free pass to replay what's in the reviews, when most of us have spent so much time in detail debunking them . It's bad enough the review sites are so incompetent, relying on the anecdotal evidence of a few biased individuals. We don't need Pentax shooters doing the same old thing and thinking they get a free pass with it. We debunked the original reviews. We don't want to do it for the rest of our lives. Give us a break here.

Sites like Imaging Resources and DxO that do actual comparative testing, are much more positive towards Pentax. And they just don't say that kind of nonsense.

[lytrytyr]

Why do we need another brand of gear with identical characteristics? We need brands of gear with different chanracteristics.

That is what Pentax used to be, like when they maintained the Q and 645 lines.
Equipment that really expands the photographic space,
let's you do things you can't do with mainstream stuff.

Unfortunately, they now seem to be subject to brutal ROI calculations,
which don't allow for a gentle, low-cost sustenance of what really differentiated the brand.

[reh321]

I think action shooters here are in agreement that z-axis is not a Pentax AF strength, but everything else is fine. I for one don’t plan to change my gear set just to catch my dog running at me.We all understand the buffer issues - shorter bursts and better technique solves that one.

Pentax could publish white papers explaining how to use their settings for purpose cases - that would (IMO) render the AF complaints moot.

@normhead has taken the time to figure it out. Most users try a few times, aren’t pleased with the result and blame the gear.

The gear is what it is. If it doesn’t meet a need there is other gear that does. Why do we need another brand of gear with identical characteristics? We need brands of gear with different chanracteristics.

That is what Pentax used to be, like when they maintained the Q and 645 lines.
Equipment that really expands the photographic space,
let's you do things you can't do with mainstream stuff.

Unfortunately, they now seem to be subject to brutal ROI calculations,
which don't allow for a gentle, low-cost sustenance of what really differentiated the brand.

If you read @monochrome's comments in context, Pentax is doing exactly what he says, but doing it within the context of DSLR (*). Nikon has developed a great AF module for their DSLRs, and put it in the D5, D7500, D500, and D850 bodies, Pentax has majored more in high ISO, astrotracer, and pixel shift. Under DxO testing, the 645Z is 1st and the K-1 is 8th in high ISO; the highest Nikon is the 9th-place 16mp FF Df and the highest Canon is the 11th-place 20mp FF 1DXii. These comparisons are one of the reasons I believe Pentax should develop a 24mp FF camera - it should do even better than the K-1 at high ISO, even if the 'accelerator' would disqualify it from DxOMark reports.


(*) where the customers seem to be - there is no point in manufacturing something that sells poorly even if you are the only one doing it. I would love to see another "Q" but with an EVF - I make great use of my Q-7 - but apparently I am not a large enough market.

[RGlasel]

Olympus are not an example to follow nor a comparison to rejoice at I'm afraid. Their imaging business is haemorrhaging:

• Sales are dropping: -16% for H1 2019/03 and -18% expected for the whole 2019/03 fiscal year
• Operating loss (excluding one-offs) amounted to 15% of sales during H1 2019/03 and is expected to reach 18% of sales for the whole 2019/03 fiscal year.

Hemorrhaging is perhaps a bit strong, as long as major capital expenditures aren't required to remain in operation or the corporation isn't in a debt crisis, "right-sizing" will take care of operating losses. But this should be a lesson to anyone clamouring for their favourite brand to keep up with the new product parade. The camera industry is settling down in a shrinking lake of opportunity and everyone will need to make do with what is already in place. New FF mirrorless cameras from Nikon, Canon and eventually Panasonic are just fences to protect adequate feeding grounds for some of the bigger companies, everyone else will have to figure out how to make a living with what is left (or move to a different lake).

[reh321]

Olympus are not an example to follow nor a comparison to rejoice at I'm afraid. Their imaging business is haemorrhaging:

• Sales are dropping: -16% for H1 2019/03 and -18% expected for the whole 2019/03 fiscal year
• Operating loss (excluding one-offs) amounted to 15% of sales during H1 2019/03 and is expected to reach 18% of sales for the whole 2019/03 fiscal year.

We need to be careful of what lesson we learn from a given situation. In the case of Olympus, are their sales flagging because
(1) they introduced only one new model last year?
(2) they produce only MILC?
(3) as cost of sensors drops, smaller sensors are becoming less popular?

The people of Pentax are studying all the market trends, looking across multiple companies. That may be why they have have been more reticent than usual - their understanding may be shifting as the market seems to shift.