[reh321]

And there are literal piles of used cameras as well, but that hardly helps Ricoh's bottom line :P

It helps Pentax only in the sense that some are unable/unwilling to purchase a new camera until they are able to sell their current camera.

[PocketPixels]

I believe there will never be another Pentax-branded MILC camera.
They leaned "MILC is not for us" from the 'Q' and K-01, even if that was not the real lesson.

100% agree. I can understand the arguments that "K-01 was too big for APS-C mirrorless" or that "Q was too small for the bokeh that was so fashionable in the 2010s," but I think that Ricoh and Pentax are understandably gunshy about mirrorless projects.

(I know that some us here love our K-01 or our Q offerings, but I don't think either project was a commercial success.)

I could see Pentax trying to join the L-mount alliance if 645-mount products ceased to be profitable. (I'm not saying I want that to happen, only that I could see a business case for it for all parties involved.) But I can't imagine a K-mount product manager walking into a larger Ricoh meeting and asking approval for a third mirrorless foray "No, really, this time it will work!"

[tibbitts]

The K5 (vannila, not II) has really inferior AF compared to K1 IMO.

There are different aspect to K-5 AF. The original K-5 had AF issues with tungsten light that I don't believe were ever completely corrected. The AF in the II was considerably better in low light performance. My II is better with some of my lenses (60-250, notably) but honestly I still don't trust it, and it's not better enough with wide-angle zooms that I trust it with those either. You still can't adjust it for different compensation at different focal lengths, which some zooms (Tamron 17-50 for example) really demand. I don't have enough experience with the K-70 to say for sure yet, but I'd say it works at least as well as the II. I guess I've gotten used to live view AF or manual on a few lenses (some I can MF, some not), and thankfully don't photograph that many moving subjects.

[Jeff]

Two year ago on this trip
A few shots from our 19 Day summer canoe trip, and a link to Tess's trip report. - PentaxForums.com

We did a thorough review of these K-5 images and images taken with my K-1.
It turns out for this type of image and these uses, the K-5 is adequate. I already own it so I don't have to pay for it. (Tess just picked up a K-5ii) And it is small enough to save considerable pack space for trips like this, because it fits into a smaller pelican case.

Sometimes the best thing for the job is what you already own. As far as I can tell there isn't a thing on this type of trip that benefits from a K-1 or a K-3.

Other people definitely have other needs and shoot in more demanding circumstances. But I'd be a fool to buy something because other people need better. I guarantee you if you go through Tess' blog you won't be able to tell which are the K-1 images and which are the K-5 images.

On a 4k screen you can't tell the difference.

For me camera use is a pretty natural thing, even with an SV (no AF, no in camera light meter etc.) My question is not how do I pack in the most features, it's "Can I get the job done." If it's marginally easier, if it's a little bit better, this way or that way, if It has the latest gizmo or buzz word, that's all irrelevant to me. I know with the K-5 I can get the job done. I also know that for what I do, it's not going to be easier or a better result with a better camera.

Looking back over the years, one of the biggest disappointments has been the little real world improvement in quality over my K-5, especially reduced to 3840x2160. Unimportant things have been incrementally improved. For those who complain about AF, for people who do what I do, understanding hyperfocal focussing is more important than what the AF system is like. IN day light, there is no downside to the K-5 AF system. The problem was always tungsten light. The fraction of a second better AF provides is usually meaningless.

I could go on and on... I haven't addressed battery life, DR (which is better than any of the 24 MP sensors to date) and weight, in a situation where every gram matters, because I have to carry 70 pounds, and my camera gear.

For me and cameras, it's all about what's the best set of compromises for the job? Not which is the best camera overall.
IMHO the K-5 is the best camera for this job.

If the K-P was 5mm shorter and free, I'd consider it. But that last 5mm won't let me close the smaller size pelican case. Something as simple as that can trump all the lasted greatest tech.

I hope that clarifies the issue.

It does clarify the issue - you made some good points. I agree - the best camera is the one you have. Thanks for taking the time to respond - much appreciated.

Jeff

[normhead]

The original K-5 had AF issues with tungsten light that I don't believe were ever completely corrected.

They were corrected in the K-30, by adding a new corrective lens. Obviously that was not possible for the K-5.

---------- Post added 02-19-21 at 03:41 PM ----------

You still can't adjust it for different compensation at different focal lengths, which some zooms (Tamron 17-50 for example) really demand.

I wonder I that's why we have trouble with Tess's 17-50 sometimes. I had one test where zero out o 10 images of an established subject 6 feet away produced no useful images, and she's had problems with that lens for landscapes. I'm solving the problem y getting her a DA 16-85,

[PocketPixels]

Unfortunately, Ricoh is still paying for the bad decisions Pentax made when Pentax was still their own boss. It doesn't matter what the price is, some people will complain because Pentax is supposed to be the cheap and cheerful company that happily loses money on everything they sell.

Bingo. That word "supposed" there is doing a lot of work.

Many of us suppose (believe/trust/expect) that Pentax is a value-oriented brand. IBIS on all cameras so we don't have to buy IS on all of our lenses. Colorful choices of bodies and lenses so we can buy cameras with personality. Screw-driven lenses (either as primary or secondary focusing mechanisms) so we can use the same lenses for a decade or more. I've always seen the 645 cameras and FA★ lens lineups as the "premium, money-no-object" cash cows for the brand. I've seen the K-mount offerings, even including the DA★ lenses, as solid, fun, dependable products that cost only about 75% of what Canon/Nikon/Sony offer.

I suppose that my gear does most of what "prestige" camera gear does, but at a lower cost. And it can get rained on. Not that it often does.

But many of us take our suppositions and come out to a very understandable, if shaky, conclusion: Pentax is supposed (required, driven, destined) to be a value-oriented brand.

A lot of my joy in using Pentax gear has been my belief that I'm getting away with something. I have a zoom fisheye lens…and I can handhold it at 1/10s because I have Shake Reduction! And so on. Even though I can now afford a more expensive camera than the twenty-something me could have, I'd feel a little bitter about having to pay a premium to stay with Pentax.

[biz-engineer]

If I bought a Chevy car for $17,000, then eight years later want a new model and find they don't make anything under $30,000 I'd have a similar response. I'd be a little incredulous, then move on to another company. Even if that decision made sense for Chevy's beancounters.

In USA you couldn't easily refer to prices in the currency that was before the US$, but in Europe I could refer to prices in Deutsche Mark or Schilling and complain that prices in Euros are way too high. My grand father was always complaining about prices being so high in the 70s, every time reminding us how things were a lot cheaper after WWII in old currency.

[tibbitts]

They were corrected in the K-30, by adding a new corrective lens. Obviously that was not possible for the K-5.

---------- Post added 02-19-21 at 03:41 PM ----------



I wonder I that's why we have trouble with Tess's 17-50 sometimes. I had one test where zero out o 10 images of an established subject 6 feet away produced no useful images, and she's had problems with that lens for landscapes. I'm solving the problem y getting her a DA 16-85,

I have not been able to tame AF on that 17-50. I can correct it (though it needs all of the K-5's 10 adjustment range) for one focal length, but even then I'm not sure it works at all subject distances. And it definitely doesn't work for other focal lengths. Tamron took two tries at adjusting mine as well so I think viewfinder AF might just not be possible. I purchased a Sigma 17-50 from the PF marketplace, and it does better with AF, although I still have some difficulty with it at the shorter focal lengths and longer subject distances. The Sigma seems to have a flatter focus field, and I can manually focus it fairly well, so I'm very happy with it. The focus ring does have a little of the Pentax 16-85 jumpy image effect, just enough to be annoying, but much tamer than on the 16-85.

My 16-85 has very good image quality and for my uses it's an excellent lens. I had trouble finding a relatively good copy, and even the best one that I kept still has some annoying quirks, but overall I've been very pleased with it.

[ThorSanchez]

Bingo. That word "supposed" there is doing a lot of work.

Many of us suppose (believe/trust/expect) that Pentax is a value-oriented brand. IBIS on all cameras so we don't have to buy IS on all of our lenses. Colorful choices of bodies and lenses so we can buy cameras with personality. Screw-driven lenses (either as primary or secondary focusing mechanisms) so we can use the same lenses for a decade or more. I've always seen the 645 cameras and FA★ lens lineups as the "premium, money-no-object" cash cows for the brand. I've seen the K-mount offerings, even including the DA★ lenses, as solid, fun, dependable products that cost only about 75% of what Canon/Nikon/Sony offer.

I suppose that my gear does most of what "prestige" camera gear does, but at a lower cost. And it can get rained on. Not that it often does.

But many of us take our suppositions and come out to a very understandable, if shaky, conclusion: Pentax is supposed (required, driven, destined) to be a value-oriented brand.

A lot of my joy in using Pentax gear has been my belief that I'm getting away with something. I have a zoom fisheye lens…and I can handhold it at 1/10s because I have Shake Reduction! And so on. Even though I can now afford a more expensive camera than the twenty-something me could have, I'd feel a little bitter about having to pay a premium to stay with Pentax.

I have a drawer full of lenses that are mostly screw-drive autofocus, all but a couple are not WR, they're not super-corrected for edge-to-edge sharpness... but most of them were less than $300 used. My K-3ii doesn't have usable AF-C, it doesn't have a flippy screen, and it's barely competent at regular old HD video. But, it was less than $800 brand new not too long after release. It's a heck of an $800 camera. One of the very best at that price point.


The calculation is a little different if the cameras and lenses start costing every bit as much as the competition. There can't be too many weak spots in a nearly $2000 APS-C camera.

[MMVIII]

On the value topic just one post from me:
Pentax was for me always a company that did not do something that could be noticed in other brands - they did not feature down their products. Including IBIS and weather sealing even in their entry level cameras is an example of that. Technically top notch products always cost their price also for Pentax. There was no difference in the price of FA* 2.8 zooms in the old days to offers from other SLR manufacturers. A FA* 1.4 was never cheap, neither a FA* 400 or DA 560...
Still, one could buy into the system on a budget by utilising the thousands of K-mount lenses around, which made it such a great system to start with.
New DFA* lenses are neither cheaper nor more expensive than similar quality lenses in other systems and new cameras reflect today's price for optomechanical instruments quite reasonably. Companies advancing the electronic side of photography benefit from progress in SOC design powered by a lot of other branches of the consumer market. In reality mirrorless cameras should be even cheaper with every generation. But these companies probably have other goals.

[gaweidert]

Hilarious comment. Two quick questions: How old is humanity? How old is consumerism?

Hint: humanity has lived without money, products etc for an incredibly long time. Money (for buying things not arranging marriages) is a recent thing and consumerism is not even a blip on the timeline.

Well there was King Midas. The Greeks understood it. Jesus told parables about it. Any sort of jewelry found in stone age sites etc. The desire for more than we already have seems ingrained into our nature. In places where you have to stock up food and provisions it is necessary but easily gets out of hand.


One could say it really started when farming was developed in the middle and late stone age. For the first time, people could do other things than constantly look for food and make more "toys". The lust for gold goes back thousands and thousands of years. No logical explanation for it other than it is shiny and does not corrode.


Money was developed because barter was so inconvenient. If barter had not been so widespread and on such a large scale we would have never developed money to make it easier.

[Larrymc]

Unless you couldn't find a really good 2021 model car for $17K from anyone else either.

If that was the case he would probably buy a couple of years old used Chevy for $17,000 sort of like folks do now with used cameras.

[ThorSanchez]

If that was the case he would probably buy a couple of years old used Chevy for $17,000 sort of like folks do now with used cameras.

Entry level cameras will be like Cuba, with everyone driving 1957 Fords held together with duct tape and bailing wire.

[reh321]

Entry level cameras will be like Cuba, with everyone driving 1957 Fords held together with duct tape and bailing wire.

It may depend on what you mean by "entry level camera" - the word may come to mean cameras more like the KP ..... or even better - instead of like the K-70.

[dbs]

Should I buy some duct tape and bailing wire for my K100D Super whilst waiting for the K3 iii ..... ?