Originally posted by dcpropilot After reading the DPR narrative, I am happy to say that it was very good. "Pentax is one of those brands that its fans just love - passionately and loyally. Now owned by Ricoh, Pentax has had a rocky few years but it's still hanging in there, thanks in no small part to a small army of repeat customers that can't imagine ever buying from another brand."Is this true?
I also read the DPR piece, and came away generally neutral. Although the author doesn't explain their definition of "important" or "significant," the article does include a number of noteworthy cameras. I don't have any 'dog in the fight' and simply treated the piece as entertainment.
On a casual read of the K-1 section, one might fairly think that it's a positive account. However, I was somewhat disappointed by the part that you've quoted here. Parsing the statement, here is my interpretation.
"Pentax is one of those brands that its fans just love - passionately and loyally."
I think this could apply to any brand -- the web is full of passionate stories about them. This characteristic is not unique to Pentax, so why has the writer singled out Pentax as "one of those brands..."?
"Now owned by Ricoh,"
Seems to be an odd statement to include, as Ricoh acquired the Pentax imaging business in 2011. I think we're well into the Ricoh era.
"Pentax has had a rocky few years..."
Seems a bit pejorative to me -- are the readers supposed to nod wisely and agree, or should the author have explained their claim?
"...but it's still hanging in there,..."
Not sure what the writer intended here, but I think it's a negative connotation.
"...thanks in no small part to a small army of repeat customers that can't imagine ever buying from another brand."
To me, it seems that the writer is suggesting that the Pentax products are not really worthy of purchase; it's just the diehard users who keep the business alive regardless of the quality. I don't think 'Pentaxians' are blindly loyal as the writer might be implying.
- Craig