[reh321]

Whether or not you think "compete with" and "compete against" mean the same thing they are not.

The term "compete with" can mean either 'on same team' or 'on competing teams'.

Two or more persons can compete with each other as teammates, however compete with is also used to indicate two persons competing against each other.

compete - Wiktionary

If Pentax made the Q with a 4/3 sensor and mount you would have went with Olympus? How can you be so sure since Pentax didn't use industry standards instead made the Q that was a dead end system for users.

When I was purchasing a new small camera {Fall 2014} there were two finalists: an Olympus MFT and the Pentax "Q". I liked the Olympus implementation better {for example, the model I looked at had EVF} but I liked the Pentax sensor size better, so I purchased a Q-7. If Pentax had used MFT, they would have had no reason for me to prefer them.

added: btw - we are talking about 'micro 4/3' here, not '4/3'

[stihlmania]

As I see it, I purchased my A*400 f2.8 new in 1988. Plus the 1.4XL and 2.0XL converters and a 145mm Pentax UV filter [try and find a 145 mm 1.5 thread these days at any price] . Guess what that cost back then, over $ 4.000 buckeroos [US].............., my wife, who was a custom printer a a high quality photo lab in Houston, threatened to divorce me until she used the 400 F 2.8, which I had to carry around and set up for her and for me!! To this day she is a Pentax user, as am I........I sold my SMC A 50mm f1.2 and my LX to help with the purchase of the 400. In less then 8 months 3- 36 exposure rolls of Kodachrome 100 paid for my star lens [more than that, they also purchased 3 AF400T flash and battery packs [which I still use with my K-3II] and an MX and a K2 DMD.] but also all my tripods and gear. All of the old school super telephoto lens are heavy, but they can take incredible images after you learned how to use them! That should be a hint for all that want a super telephoto I have also used the 560, 70-200, 150-450 and the 55-300mm PLM, also most Nikon, Canon, Sony and Leica cameras and lenses, they are all great systems that fall short of the image quality I can get from my A*400 when the photo gods allow.The other cameras/lens can take better images at times, the 400 and the K-3 II can take better images at times. No 1 camera and lens is perfect for everything........in my opinion. The A*400 to me is the best telephoto lens I have used to date. I have not tried the new F2.8 Canon, Nikon, Sony systems, I cannot justify the cost of their system ! Also no one has offered me the chance to use one!......
I will continue to use Pentax as they provide almost everything that I need to make images I can sell! AF-C is my weak point right now but 1 out of 7 images in focus is fine with me, for now. If Pentax does offer a K-3 II replacement with better AF-C [ which I am sure they will] I will be first in line on a preorder....... if not I will move on.
I do not see Pentax making a 400 F2.8 auto focus anytime soon. So I just adapt to what I have and make the best of it. I just purchased the 1.4X converter, it is as sharp as my 1.4XL, 2.0 XL and my 1.7 AF converter on the 400, plus it will be used on my next Pentax F2.8 lens purchased soon! No drama from me, I use Pentax to make the best images I can at a price I can afford.......

[ZombieArmy]

It's amazing how bitter people can be.

---------- Post added 01-07-19 at 11:23 PM ----------

AF-C is my weak point right now but 1 out of 7 images in focus is fine with me, for now. If Pentax does offer a K-3 II replacement with better AF-C [ which I am sure they will] I will be first in line on a preorder....... if not I will move on.

You'll be excited for the future then with a k3-III. AF-C on my KP is 6 out 7 in focus.

[Rico]

The term "compete with" can mean either 'on same team' or 'on competing teams'.compete - Wiktionary

When I was purchasing a new small camera {Fall 2014} there were two finalists: an Olympus MFT and the Pentax "Q". I liked the Olympus implementation better {for example, the model I looked at had EVF} but I liked the Pentax sensor size better, so I purchased a Q-7. If Pentax had used MFT, they would have had no reason for me to prefer them.

added: btw - we are talking about 'micro 4/3' here, not '4/3'

reh321 you are missing the entire point of the formation of the 4/3 consortium to have multiple brands working together around a common lens mount. Pentax created the Q to compete against M4/3 and it failed. If Pentax had joined in the 4/3 consortium with the Q the Q would still be viable. M4/3 flange diameter is 38mm and the distance from the flange to the sensor is ~19mm. The Q had plenty of room to implement the mount and 4/3 sensor.

[reh321]

reh321 you are missing the entire point of the formation of the 4/3 consortium to have multiple brands working together around a common lens mount. Pentax created the Q to compete against M4/3 and it failed. If Pentax had joined in the 4/3 consortium with the Q the Q would still be viable. M4/3 flange diameter is 38mm and the distance from the flange to the sensor is ~19mm. The Q had plenty of room to implement the mount and 4/3 sensor.

No, I understand why that consortium exists - but it is the wrong format for me. I wanted a sensor that concentrates more pixels on a subject, and the so-called 1/1.7" sensor has a crop factor which is more conducive with that goal, which is why I purchased the "Q". Later on I discovered that the leaf-shutter inside each Q-mount lens is virtually silent, which is another advantage the Q-7 has over my K-30 and most other cameras of its time.

The MFT products compete as well as cooperate; a person going to a camera store is presented with a choice - purchase Olympus or purchase Panasonic; there is no reason to believe that anyone would have chosen "Q" if given the choice Olympus or Panasonic or "Q" .... under that condition they might never have even gotten to Q-10.

The physical dimensions are irrelevant; they would have built everything to MFT standards if they had started off with the Q as being an MFT camera; starting off Q-mount, then switching later to MFT would have been a waste because it would have meant starting all over again, because the image circle cast by the 01 and 02 and 06 lenses is too small for the MFT sensor.

How do you know for certain that the "Q" was designed to compete with MFT? I have heard that it was designed to address a particular market, looking only at that market, independent of any other products on the overall market.


added: Too bad all these folk who know what decisions Pentax should have made don't happen to be employed in Ricoh management.

[Trickortreat]

So you came to Pentax for APS-C but the DA LTD's were not a factor. I highly doubt that.

What's to doubt? I only have DA lenses, not a single DA ltd (or DA*). Even if some of LTDs seem like nice lenses, they are a bit on a slow side for me.

[BigMackCam]

Folks, just a general and cordial reminder that brand-bashing is not allowed, per our forum rules. This is a Pentax community, and whilst we frown on bashing of any brand, we particularly dislike when it's aimed at the very brand most of our members enjoy shooting and discussing in a constructive, balanced way.

Thank you

[clackers]

Folks, just a general and cordial reminder that brand-bashing is not allowed, per our forum rules. This is a Pentax community, and whilst we frown on bashing of any brand, we particularly dislike when it's aimed at the very brand most of our members enjoy shooting and discussing constructively, in a balanced way.



Thank you

Thanks, Mike. You've said it, so others don't have to.

[BigMackCam]

99% religion 1% reality here..

With respect, I'd say 99% of folks here disagree with your views on Ricoh and Pentax, while 1% may agree. That's not religion, but simply a difference of opinion where the balance isn't in your favour - but you'd have to reasonably expect that, given that this is a Pentax-specific community...

[Mountain Vision]

Pentax has for a long time stated they are dedicated to APS-C users. It would make a lot of their customers mad if they ceased the R&D for crop cameras. There are a lot of us who dont want K1, nor any FF stuff... wouldnt use one even if they payed me to do it :/
Besides, they will introduce that 11-18 da, why wouldnt be there another crop lens?

The size, weight and price difference of the K-1 and lenses vs a KP (or K-3II) and lenses is a significant gap.

People that think pentax APS-C shooters should just toss the towel in and accept full frame is the future are delusional. Until Pentax has a full line of FA f/4 lenses to go head to head with the DA f/2.8s and until it's FA catalog is as complete as its DA catalog, I think maintaining two systems makes a lot of sense. And I think a lot of people will continue to shoot the APS-C system which we can see from the KP is not all that inferior to the FF K-1.

Canon and Nikon never really considered their crop sensor systems seriously. They always had a full frame upgrade path. Pentax, on the other hand, built a very robust APS-C system over a decade.

[Trickortreat]

Canon and Nikon never really considered their crop sensor systems seriously.

Nikon did. I was a long time Nikon user and they were telling their customers that APS-C is the future. Then they moved into FF and forgot about APS-C users. And that was the time I ditched my Nikon gear and went to Pentax.

[BigMackCam]

Q system starting with 1/1.6" CMOS could have attracted many buyers, but somebody very "inteligent" decided to rush it into production with 1/2.3" sensor like worst low-end compact cameras have. That combined with price and "toy lenses" killed the project right away from start.

Instead the right way was to introduce camera later introduced as Q7 is and combine it with just three solid performer lenses. Some 24-60/2.8-4 + 50-200/4-5.6 and some 35/1.8 35mm equivallent lenses. Thats all for start. No toy stuff. Just proper glass+metal lenses with perfect image quality straight wide open. Zero care about initial price, just provide solid camera that many people want. Later add some faster telephoto like 75/1.8 and maybe some wide lens like 12/4 equiv.. That might have been superb tiny travell kit for people who want to travell light and still have option to play with camera on higher level with good image output. Something like film A110 used to be.


No.. instead they introduced horrible noisy and somewhat ugly camera with underdog outdated lowend sensor and with plastic crappy lenses called toys. Marketing suicide 1st level.

Whilst I wouldn't choose your terminology, I'd generally agree that the so-called Toy lenses weren't a particularly good idea - although they can have their uses, producing nice images if used appropriately; but they certainly don't give a toy camera effect, which is what a lot of people (quite reasonably) expected.

But your description of the original Q, suggested lenses and the prices therein shows how personal and subjective "the right way" can be. I have both the Q and Q7, and I always preferred the look and feel of the earlier camera. I also think the sensor in it is very capable... nothing like the "worst low-end" compact cameras you mention, though I'll concede that the Q7's is better still.

As for the lenses, the fast 01 8.5mm f/1.9 offers the great IQ you describe. Same with the excellent 06 15-45mm f/2.8. The 02 5-15mm f/2.8-4.5 is fast enough even with that variable aperture, but doesn't produce the same crisp output as the 01 or 06 - yet there's plenty of detail recorded, and minor sharpening brings that out. As such, whilst what you describe might have been a superb travel kit for you, the Q / Q7 plus available lenses offer a superb travel kit for me. With very good image output... especially if you shoot raw and have even basic post-processing skills, since the files respond well to gentle processing.

And lest you think this is more brand religion or lack of reality, I can assure you it isn't. I shoot over a dozen different cameras from time to time, including both older and quite recent gear - compacts, bridge, mirrorless and DSLR. The Q cameras punch well above their weight.

[Mountain Vision]

Yes, and Pentax must still have one of the strongest APS-C lens lineups, plus the upcoming DA* 11-18 is an APS-C lens as you mentioned.

I hope that they are going to offer a new APS-C camera more in the tradition of the K-3, but I also believe that times have changed since Pentax stated their commitment to APS-C. The photography market has been shrinking considerably (in particular regarding DSLRs which still outsell MILCs but have been on a continuous decline) and Pentax is not well-suited to fight out price wars at the entry- and mid-level with companies like Canon and Nikon. I believe it could be a financial necessity for Pentax to focus on products where the margins can be higher, such as upper class full-frame cameras. I understand the market simply isn't large enough anymore to justify Pentax investing into maintaining a sustainable piece of the APC-C cake.

I essentially want to express that it isn't negligence or flakiness on behalf of Ricoh when they may decide to no longer be committed to APS-C as much as before but that it is very likely an economical necessity for them to focus on FF and MF instead.

Then cancel the 11-18. Don't release a DA* lens without a suitable camera to mount it on. I think releasing the 11-18 says, here's a professional wide angle, we are committed to the DA ecosystem. Not releasing a professional body to go with it says, something entirely different.

[Kunzite]

Folks, just a general and cordial reminder that brand-bashing is not allowed, per our forum rules. This is a Pentax community, and whilst we frown on bashing of any brand, we particularly dislike when it's aimed at the very brand most of our members enjoy shooting and discussing in a constructive, balanced way.

Thank you

What is worse is when they're insulting our community when we don't approve of, or even join the bashing. "Religion" fits here.
I even had lies spread about me (on the other forum) - particularly, that I'm the employee of an imaginary Ricoh Imaging Romania. From someone with an account here. How could I trust anything he says, after that?

[Mountain Vision]

I'm not convinced this is the situation for my own circumstance.

Assuming that Fujifilm is a serious competitor in the APS-C domain, I was interested in a comparable Fuji kit and its cost to replace my main Pentax kit.

My baseline Pentax kit:

K-3 II
DA 15mm Ltd f/4
DA 21mm Ltd f/3.2
DA 35 Ltd Macro f/2.8
DA * 300mm f/4
DA * 50-135 f/2.8
DA 18-135 WR f/3.5-5.6

Total mass: 3,480 g (7.7 pounds)


Currently, I think that the appropriate Fuji kit would be:

X-T3
XF 14mm f/2.8 R
XF 23mm f/2 R WR
XF 35mm f/2 R WR
XF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 R LM OIS WR
XF 50-140mm f/2.8 R LM OIS WR
XF 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 R LM OIS WR

Total mass: 3,980 g (8.8 pounds). The main weight drivers are the 50-140mm and 100-400mm lenses, and the X-T3 with either of these lenses is heavier than my Pentax equivalent. Fuji does not have a comparable 300mm telephoto prime lens at present.

Furthermore, the current price for this Fuji kit in Canada is CAD $9,150. (I didn't look up the current prices for the Pentax gear, but I believe it is considerably less than the Fuji). I might be able to sell my Pentax gear in the used market and get about $3,000 total. So, it would cost me about $6,000 to move to Fuji APS-C. I don't think my pictures would be much better than what I get now with my 'old' K-3 II, if at all.

So, in my circumstance, I don't think that Fuji offers a competitive value-for-money proposition, but I am already secure with my Pentax gear. Of course, a newcomer to APS-C probably could not buy a new K-3 II easily, so they might consider a KP, which probably prompts a different equivalent Fuji kit in the above comparison.

- Craig

Same exact conclusion I came to in April 2016. The Fuji system looks good until you do the math and realize the cost of switching. Once I turned the page on that and doubled down on Pentax I haven't looked back on my decision. I realized my FA lineup was actually pretty robust, so I ended up buying a K-1, but I'm still very much committed to APS-C as a system.