[elkarrde]

i just hope there will be NO successor to K20 - i won't willingly upgrade for at least 4 years...

[*isteve]

If Pentax release a FF body in the near future, what about all of us who spend money on DA lenses and not on some cheap fleabay lenses from the 70's?
It's easier for all of you who want FF to change to another brand, like Canon, Nikon or Sony.
A lot more Pentax users will jump ship if Hoya/Pentax decide to make FF and starts to neglect the APS-C system and DA lenses.
I would sell my Pentax gear that I have spent over 4000USD's on and use my money on Sigma lenses for my Sigma SD-14 dSLR, if that would happend.

Good point - I tend to agree.

[*isteve]

Yes I acknowledge Pentax meeting the enthusiast or hobbyist segment, but unfortunately so does every other brand. The difference is if one were to go with a brand like Canon, Nikon and now Sony, there is a clear upgrade path in so far as camera bodies/features go should one wish or need pro specs. This has been Pentax's traditional achilles heel as none of the current DSLRs, even the phenomenal K20D can be classified as being a professional grade camera (superlative operability, uncompromising performance and versatility). I recently used the Nikon D3 and it just about walked all over the K20D in all but a few areas.

I can't say about photographers where you are but over here in Singapore, serious hobbyists I know who fall under those occupations you mention have no qualms to move up to the best APS-C or cheapest FF models currently available. Even among many serious Pentax users, the budget conscious included, many have upgraded to the K20D, which is more the norm at our monthly Pentax gatherings. This is obviously unscientific but an anecdotal indication that there is a progressive and ongoing demand for cameras with better features and better performance.

The absence so far of a top end flagship model is a liability for Pentax imo as it stifles the aspirations of those who do want a camera with a pro-grade feature set (fast AF, high fps, larger sensor, etc.). The numerous posts discussing FF is just an indication of this latent desire. In short it makes it hard for Pentax to retain it's serious enthusiast user base much less prevent them from "jumping ship" to another brand.

In my view Pentax will unveil a FF model if not sooner then later as the market dictates. However I think it will not prematurely leak or disclose such info as in the past because previous announcements and disclosures like the Lens Roadmap has backfired negatively for them in the larger scheme of things.

I think Pentax has a better handle on this than we do. "Me too" is a dangerous market to be in for a small company. They will soon diverge more from the mainstream, a lot of people will be upset, and a lot of new customers will come crowding in, but at least we will all know where we stand.

Whether I stay or not depends a lot on where they go. I dont care much about FF because I travel light and value compactness and weather sealing a lot more than high ISO quality which matters very rarely.

I'm also at an age where the reflected glory of some unobtainable pro model has no effect on me at all. The influence of "reflected glory" seems mostly to bother younger males. Upgrade? I have no intention of spending more than $1000 on a body. I have sold plenty of prints and done plenty of studio shoots with a K10D and a K20D and they dont lack for quality. I have been soaked, frozen, dusted and windblown and my camera is unaffected. For $800 thats a real bargain. Shots with a 5D may have been marginally better but chances are the cam would be a wreck and so would my back.

In fact I reckon companies who service a small niche market provide much better solutions for that niche than companies that make general purpose mass market cameras so if you indentify with that niche you should buy the product. If you dont you really should avoid.

[creampuff]

Pentax today is a victim of it's own legacy. In it's heyday it had a foothold in 3 different film formats. Unfortunately it was a company that for too long rested on it's laurels and got complacent, unable and unwilling to cater to the professional 35mm market until very late, perhaps ensconced in the mistaken belief that the 645 and 6x7 formats would be sufficient to meet the demands of the professional market. Pentax was too slow to respond to the new direction of digital photography and continued for a time with forgettable 35mm film cameras that were commercial flops.

The on-off-on-off saga of the digital 645 is a dicey dilemma for Pentax. The lack of early investment and continual development in digital photography plus the economics and availability of such a large sensor for digital MF would equate to a camera with an astronomical price tag had Pentax unveiled a digital 645 much earlier which would have been a non-starter commercially.

More an issue is who will buy a digital MF camera now given that traditional medium format film shooters who are working pros have for the most part already migrated to top end DSLRs from Canon and Nikon early on. Plus the global financial crisis doesn't help.

Perhaps with sensor prices coming down and sensor quality issues being ironed out, the viability of a digital 645 is within sight but I worry for Pentax that the camera might still be too pricey for the market in general and cater to too small a market segment. Bottomline it's a sideshow in the general scheme of things because: Pentax is late introducing it, the market has moved on, and the average Pentax user will not be able to pay for it nor have need for it.

Pentax's weak presence in the 35mm pro user market is the heritage Pentax users face today. Yes the Pentax LX made it's mark as a pro 35mm film camera but it was introduced late vis-a-vis the competition (eg. Nikon F3), didn't really sell all that huge numbers, but more significantly, Pentax never followed up with something better until the MZ-S much later (which also never sold in large numbers).

Even with the small market share today, all is not lost if Pentax go beyond half measures and unveil a pro-spec technologically advanced camera that can cater to the needs of different working pros, which today's target benchmark is undoubtably FF. It might not sell many initially but it signals a commitment to match what the market leaders have to offer currently. Serious Pentax enthusiasts and working pros are clamouring for it and I hope Pentax wake up from their slumber, deliver the goods and respond to market realities. Pentax for too long hasn't thought out of the box but is now facing the prospect of that box being squeezed even smaller. Thank God for the K-m to shore up the bottom end of the market.

---

Last edited by creampuff; 03-10-2009 at 05:56 PM. Reason: typo

[StephenG]

Pentax today is a victim of it's own legacy. In it's heyday it had a foothold in 3 different film formats. Unfortunately it was a company that for too long rested on it's laurels and got complacent, unable and unwilling to cater to the professional 35mm market until very late, perhaps ensconced in the mistaken belief that the 645 and 6x7 formats would be sufficient to meet the demands of the professional market. Pentax was too slow to respond to the new direction of digital photography and continued for a time with forgettable 35mm film cameras that were commercial flops.

The on-off-on-off saga of the digital 645 is a dicey dilemma for Pentax. The lack of early investment and continual development in digital photography plus the economics and availability of such a large sensor for digital MF would equate to a camera with an astronomical price tag had Pentax unveiled a digital 645 much earlier which would have been a non-starter commercially.

More an issue is who will buy a digital MF camera now given that traditional medium format film shooters who are working pros have for the most part already migrated to top end DSLRs from Canon and Nikon early on. Plus the global financial crisis doesn't help.

Perhaps with sensor prices coming down and sensor quality issues being ironed out, the viability of a digital 645 is within sight but I worry for Pentax that the camera might still be too pricey for the market in general and cater to too small a market segment. Bottomline it's a sideshow in the general scheme of things because: Pentax is late introducing it, the market has moved on, and the average Pentax user will not be able to pay for it nor have need for it.

Pentax's weak presence in the 35mm pro user market is the heritage Pentax users face today. Yes the Pentax LX made it's mark as a pro 35mm film camera but it was introduced late vis-a-vis the competition (eg. Nikon F3), didn't really sell all that huge numbers, but more significantly, Pentax never followed up with something better until the MZ-S much later (which also never sold in large numbers).

Even with the small market share today, all is not lost if Pentax go beyond half measures and unveil a pro-spec technologically advanced camera that can cater to the needs of different working pros, which today's target benchmark is undoubtably FF. It might not sell many initially but it signals a commitment to match what the market leaders have to offer currently. Serious Pentax enthusiasts and working pros are clamouring for it and I hope Pentax wake up from their slumber, deliver the goods and respond to market realities. Pentax for too long hasn't thought out of the box but is now facing the prospect of that box being squeezed even smaller. Thank God for the K-m to shore up the bottom end of the market.

very well put creampuff.. and like you said previously, without an upgrade path, they will lose more than they gain when it comes to hits at the consumer wallet.

someone starting out could be very attracted to the K-m.. then as they progress and start understanding how upgraded features affects output, they may stop and look ahead , and ask themselves "where too from here?"....

they will see the pentax models ends with the K20d and they could most likely abandon the brand right there.
if they had decided to go all the way with their photography to one day be a full professional, without a pentax upgrade path ahead of them, they will face no option.
with news of the 645D, all thats really missing now is the FF option.. which could entice them into opening their wallets for the k20.. then the FF.. then maybe the 645D.. all the while spending on pentax glass and gear.. giving pentax numerous hits at the same wallet.

[Jonson PL]

Anyways Yellowstone is easy to get closer to critters so heavy glass is not necessary. My favorite shots are ones anticipating the dumb tourist within feet of a buffalo or some pointy antler creature. I still haven't gotten the tossed tourist shot, but I will ;^)

It is weird how people simply cannot comprehend that a wild animal will not play by their rules. This is not the zoo folks, the warning signs are no joke !

Good to see that the 250-600mm found a new happy owner.

Yes I acknowledge Pentax meeting the enthusiast or hobbyist segment, but unfortunately so does every other brand. The difference is if one were to go with a brand like Canon, Nikon and now Sony, there is a clear upgrade path in so far as camera bodies/features go should one wish or need pro specs. This has been Pentax's traditional achilles heel as none of the current DSLRs, even the phenomenal K20D can be classified as being a professional grade camera (superlative operability, uncompromising performance and versatility). I recently used the Nikon D3 and it just about walked all over the K20D in all but a few areas.

I can't say about photographers where you are but over here in Singapore, serious hobbyists I know who fall under those occupations you mention have no qualms to move up to the best APS-C or cheapest FF models currently available. Even among many serious Pentax users, the budget conscious included, many have upgraded to the K20D, which is more the norm at our monthly Pentax gatherings. This is obviously unscientific but an anecdotal indication that there is a progressive and ongoing demand for cameras with better features and better performance.

The absence so far of a top end flagship model is a liability for Pentax imo as it stifles the aspirations of those who do want a camera with a pro-grade feature set (fast AF, high fps, larger sensor, etc.). The numerous posts discussing FF is just an indication of this latent desire. In short it makes it hard for Pentax to retain it's serious enthusiast user base much less prevent them from "jumping ship" to another brand.

In my view Pentax will unveil a FF model if not sooner then later as the market dictates. However I think it will not prematurely leak or disclose such info as in the past because previous announcements and disclosures like the Lens Roadmap has backfired negatively for them in the larger scheme of things.

There are people that take Pentax, for bangs for bucks. These may later complain that it is not Canon, and not every lens can be had right away.

Then there are those that deliberately like having a brand that most people don’t know about.

Then there are the careful ones, who via many comparisons have wound up with Pentax.

And then the picture takers that don’t care for all the high tech focus that Canon has emphasis on, but like a camera with nice output that can be used for a long time.


Of cause there are Canon users who also care much for IQ, and knows a lot about photography, and spend hours in forums. But the majority of everyday users (from most brands), treat a DSLR like a P&S. Like using pop up flash for buildings far away, etc.


I think maybe in Asia, you’re quicker at upgrading and going for latest gadgets. You’re very high tech, generally. I was at a big snowboarding competition in Canada, one who looked like a Pro shooter, had a great white L grade Canon lens, but was shooting with Eos 20D. I would like my K10 to last at least 5 years, and I would never sell it to upgrade.


Of cause this is a very general somewhat superficial statement; but Canon is very tech focussed, selling to people that go by the tech sheet. Pentax is more for people with a general interest in photography. Hence why *Ist models were perfectly fine for most. Though they didn’t score high on specs stats.



I’m not a legacy user, nor cheap in my choices of gear; (I’m the kind that generally buys from the top end range, to an extend that I can’t afford the vacation the items were meant for /-: Buying an Everest pack, for a run in smaller mountains, etc.)

But I like using a brand that is acquired taste, somewhat quirky but fun. Where you need to be in the know, to have an idea of what it is about. Buying Nikon or Canon is simply too boring for me.

I do agree that Pentax needs a top tier model, for upgrade path. And it needn’t be replaced often, just something that people can aspire to get.

A FF cam for me though, would only be a supplement for my crop one. I need light weight for hiking, mountaineering and less bulk.

Pentax and Oly can easily pick up the users that doesn’t quite fit into the big boxes of C&N. Canon will not make fully sealed cams under their 1D series, no need to cut at the branch. (At least not until Nikon is bigger than they are). And in other areas you need their high end stuff, to get all the features one could want. I would hate to carry around such a big camera.

With all the new P&S upgraders, I think more and more will like cams max being the size of Nikon D90. Or the small but great zooms that Oly has, or pancake size lenses.

Why did people even buy from the *Ist series ? I guess they just needed a photographic tool, and not be stifled in creativity by a lot of gadgetry.

As James/(Roentarre) so fine stated :
"Funnily, all the canon FF guys called bokeh as unsharp elements or out of focus areas that either the camera or the lenses must be crap. Most of the FF users carry on that 24-105L as the "kit" lens and I hardly see great work from this type of people.

The great work is usually done by people who own a canon 300d or 350d with a kit lens. So go figure."

[kenyee]

I do agree that Pentax needs a top tier model, for upgrade path. And it needn’t be replaced often, just something that people can aspire to get.

Unfortunately, that's the catch-22 w/ "top tier". If it's not replaced often, it quickly no longer is top.
Just step back and think how the K20D would be selling now if it had the same K10D sensor but Pentax improved the AF module instead. 10MP is bottom of the market now and no CMOS means less iso performance. It would have been ugly. Pentax at the time said they could upgrade the sensor or the AF but not both at the same time...I'm glad they chose the sensor...

[Jonson PL]

Unfortunately, that's the catch-22 w/ "top tier". If it's not replaced often, it quickly no longer is top.
Just step back and think how the K20D would be selling now if it had the same K10D sensor but Pentax improved the AF module instead. 10MP is bottom of the market now and no CMOS means less iso performance. It would have been ugly. Pentax at the time said they could upgrade the sensor or the AF but not both at the same time...I'm glad they chose the sensor...

Very good point; I remember the discussion and how some people said that they had wanted fps etc.
Time has for sure proven that the sensor was the right choice. I’m very tempted by the 14.6 MP sensor, would like it in a future cam.

I have no solution in regard to top end or not. It is a difficult choice

[pingflood]

Unfortunately, that's the catch-22 w/ "top tier". If it's not replaced often, it quickly no longer is top.
Just step back and think how the K20D would be selling now if it had the same K10D sensor but Pentax improved the AF module instead. 10MP is bottom of the market now and no CMOS means less iso performance.

Well, Canon isn't having too much trouble selling those 10MP 1D Mark III bodies. It's not ALL about megapixels.

[kenyee]

Well, Canon isn't having too much trouble selling those 10MP 1D Mark III bodies. It's not ALL about megapixels.

The 1D has the best AF system currently and it's extremely fast for sports shooters.
That said, they have lost some sales to the D300/D700 and no doubt part of it is extra pixels...

[Jonson PL]

The 1D has the best AF system currently and it's extremely fast for sports shooters.
That said, they have lost some sales to the D300/D700 and no doubt part of it is extra pixels...

Yup, here is from the Michael Reichmann trip to Okavango :

"I also chose the Nikon D3 instead of my Canon 1Ds MKIII, even though this meant 12MP files rather than the Canon's 21MP files. The reasons are twofold. One is the D3's 9 FPS capability. Shooting wildlife requires high frame rates, and with large 9FPS bursts I was able to capture moments and expressions which might otherwise have been missed. Yes, the 1D MKIII would have provided similar high speeds, but with still lower resolution and without the D3's remarkable high ISO capability.
Much has been made of the D3's high ISO files, by me and other observers, and rightly so. With a safari's frequent low light shooting conditions I often found myself shooting at ISO 3000 and above, and with the Nikon's available auto-ISO capability I was able to let the camera select the minimum shutter speed to handle action and helicopter vibration, while I chose aperture for depth of field, with the camera riding the ISO as needed within a prescribed range.
The bottom line is that I anticipated that the combination of the D3 and the 200-400mm would be an ideal safari combination for this shoot, and in the final analysis it indeed was. I don't know that this dusk elephant shot would have been possible with as high image quality using almost any other gear."

Okavango



Also, since he prefers the Nikon 200-400/4, instead of the Canon 100-400/5.6 :

"The lens that I love to hate is the Canon 100-400 f/5.6L IS. While I appreciate its range and versatility, unless stopped down to f/8 and preferably f/11 I'm rarely really happy with its resolution capabilities. And at 400mm, which is where I use it most of the time for wildlife, it's good but not first rate. The Canon 400mm f/5.6L is a far superior lens, but I chose to use the 100-400mm zoom this trip for the sake of versatility and because it features stabilization, which the 400mm f/5.6 sadly lacks.

I also really dislike the push-pull design. It pumps dust around, and for this reason while in Namibia I used the 70-200mm with a 1.4x extender when I needed more reach, only using the 100-400mm when shooting wildlife in South Africa, where dust wasn't as big an issue. Because I find the 100-400mm to not be up to my expectations until stopped down to about f/11, except in bright daylight this means shooting at high ISOs much of the time – at least ISO 800, early and late in the day. While cameras like the 1Ds MKII and specially the 5D produce quite good results at these speeds, I find myself always wishing that the 100-400mm was a better (and faster) lens.

I could have brought my 300mm f/2.8L IS and used it with a 1.4x, and gotten better results. But the added weight and bulk were not acceptable on this trip. The 500mm f/4L IS was similarly not on this time. The 400mm f/5.6L was my only real alternative, but this would have been more limiting in terms of focal length choices.

The net of this is that I believe that it's time for Canon to update the 100-400mm to better meet the needs of wildlife and sports photographers. It was a versatile but marginal lens six years ago when it was introduced, but today's high resolution sensors mean that it's now past its best-before date."

Namibia Photo Equipment

[Confused]

Hi Creampuff

Re your supposition:

The fact that there still remains a hesitancy for many to upgrade to the excellent K20D at current prices is indicative of the lack of propensity to spend on Pentax as a system.

I'd like to offer a slightly different slant regarding the apparent hesitancy that you allude to. In my case, I've spent a few decades specialising in the field of photographing architectural exteriors/interiors and landscapes, for which I mainly use perspective correction/shift lenses in conjunction with both 35mm & Medium Format film bodies. Thus it is only fairly recently with the arrival of Nikon's D700 and Canon's 5D Mk ll that a relatively affordable digital solution has presented itself to me. I am particularly drawn to Canon's very latest 17mm and 24mm shift lenses, although ironically l actually prefer the overall feel and handling of Nikon's DSLR's, which places me in a somewhat unexpected quandary after so many years of waiting patiently !

Before all of the above-mentioned equipment became available however, my decision to buy a K10D a while ago naturally came after a great deal of thoughtful research. Although I had been familiar with the brand name for many years, this was my first actual Pentax purchase. Fortunately I had no legacy issues to consider at the time that I bought this camera. Thus what eventually swung the deal in my case was simply an unbeatable combination of wonderful things including excellent handling, ergonomics, vital in-body SR, reassuringly solid build quality and lastly marvellous value for money. However, despite some of the undoubted improvements that have been made to the K20D, in my opinion these benefits are still insufficient to warrant an upgrade. Therefore I shall categorically not do so until the probable arrival of a Full-Frame Pentax DSLR. However, unless Pentax decide to pull their finger out in the foreseeable future, I'm afraid I will be left with little alternative but to plump for something along the lines of a D700 or 5D Mk I/II……….as a Pentax MF DSLR is likely to be prohibitively expensive, should such a beast ever materialise. As the saying goes: "Time waits for no man"

Best regards
Richard

[asdf]

Most other Pentaxians are, how to put it mildly, errr...frugal

That definitely applies to many forum members...including me. It seems few pay attention to the prices of similar (in application) Canikon lenses and many seem to wait until Pentax goes bankrupt and gives away their remaining stock for free.

[asdf]

However, unless Pentax decide to pull their finger out in the foreseeable future, I'm afraid I will be left with little alternative but to plump for something along the lines of a D700 or 5D Mk I/II……….a

Looking at your sig, a meaningful upgrade for you would be a better set of lenses.

Two variable aperture zooms?...one of them a super zoom? Sheesh.

EDIT: Oh yeah, btw, that thing in your sig isn't HSM, despite your claim to the contrary.

[Confused]

Hi asdf

Looking at your sig, a meaningful upgrade for you would be a better set of lenses

Fair point, but the present set-up ideally suits my personal needs at the moment, without investing vast sums of money in better lenses until/if a FF Pentax DSLR ever becomes available.

Best regards
Richard