Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
05-21-2009, 12:01 PM   #121
Pentaxian
Ratmagiclady's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: GA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 13,468
QuoteOriginally posted by Class A Quote
But to Pentax, the lenses that they are the least interested in receiving new magic features are "FA and 3-rd party lenses" and old, classic glass.

Same question: Why did they not include an aperture coupler?

Answer to both questions: Pentax needs to give people an incentive to buy their new glass.
Actually it's cause precision mechanicals are more expensive than electronics these days.

And I suspect that they needed the space, not that I'd mind the camera being a bit bigger or sans video to have full M-lens coupling.

05-21-2009, 01:13 PM   #122
Moderator
Site Supporter
Blue's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Florida Hill Country
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 17,210
QuoteOriginally posted by JHfwp Quote
I can't trash a camera I've never held or seen specs for. But I can wonder about its size, button placement, and whether or not I want to pay for certain features, can't I?
Good! RH doesn't need the competition.
05-21-2009, 04:17 PM   #123
Pentaxian
Class A's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 9,160
QuoteOriginally posted by rparmar Quote
That sort of short-sighted thinking is typical of the competition but I was hoping not of Pentax.
Oh, well if that's true, "short-sighted thinking" payed off really well for Canon, Nikon, and Sony.

Anyhow, I have a feeling you know little about the business model of camera/lens manufacturers. I'm assuming that losing a few camera buyers is worth winning a number of lens buyers. Is there another reason why shooting old lenses isn't better supported? I could be wrong, but I credit myself for not calling other's thinking "short-sighted".
05-21-2009, 04:24 PM   #124
Pentaxian
Class A's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 9,160
QuoteOriginally posted by Ratmagiclady Quote
Actually it's cause precision mechanicals are more expensive than electronics these days.
So you charge the extra cost from the customer. There could be two models, one with and one without aperture coupling. You could even overcharge for the latter model; if someone really wants it they'll buy it.

As Pentax aims at the budget-minded market, you may be right, there might not be enough buyers for an aperture coupler equipped model to justify the development costs.

However, there seems to be no good reasons (except stipulating lens buying) as to why shooting with manual lenses is limited. See mysteries #2 and #3 of the "The Three Great Lens Mysteries.

05-21-2009, 05:06 PM   #125
Veteran Member
*isteve's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: London, England
Posts: 1,187
QuoteOriginally posted by junyo Quote
My only real gripe is the change to the AF point selection setup. It's going to be a PITA to have to hit okay every time before I can select a point. Or maybe auto point selection will actually work worth a damn now.

That is all.
Actually on the body I tried, you can enable it once, and it stays enabled until you press OK again. On the bright side, it does stop you from accidentally moving it....
05-21-2009, 05:08 PM   #126
Pentaxian
Ratmagiclady's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: GA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 13,468
I think I'm wanting the laser beams, again.
05-22-2009, 08:22 AM   #127
Veteran Member
rparmar's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,783
QuoteOriginally posted by Class A Quote
Oh, well if that's true, "short-sighted thinking" payed off really well for Canon, Nikon, and Sony.

Anyhow, I have a feeling you know little about the business model of camera/lens manufacturers. I'm assuming that losing a few camera buyers is worth winning a number of lens buyers. Is there another reason why shooting old lenses isn't better supported? I could be wrong, but I credit myself for not calling other's thinking "short-sighted".
Actually I know enough about business models to disagree with your more limited view. Because if I had wanted to join a company with a "screw the customer" business model I would have bought a Canon. But instead I bought Pentax, largely because of their different attitude. So did many others. Not enough to catapult Pentax to number one but enough to give them a niche. The alternative would be the complete disappearance of Pentax.

The full backwards compatibility of Pentax bodies is part of their appeal. I have sold people on their first ever DSLR for one reason -- because they could use their old k-mount lenses with the new body. Those sales then might drive more lens sales. But if the body and backwards compatibility was not there, they may as well have bought a Canon -- and likely would have, statistically speaking.

The K-7 was supposed to be a concept camera that appealed to true Pentax fans. Certainly it makes sense, then, that Pentax would give us increased lens compatibility. People sitting with older model DSLR bodies would then have a new reason to upgrade. No, that's not a big market, but it is a niche. And it might be worth even more in goodwill and marketing than it would in sales. That's also quite important.

Now, you're suggesting it's best if Pentax abandon their niche, disappoint their current customer base and try to compete with companies that have vastly larger market share and resources. I think not.

Furthermore, it is short-sighted to go for short-term sales over longer-term sales or even goodwill. I have no idea why you think that such an offensive term. I credit myself with using a term that best fits the facts.

Meanwhile I am looking at what Fuji might do next with interest. They were able to release a camera with full backwards compatibility with Nikon lenses without requiring a two-stage stop-down process, a camera that some time ago had many of the features of the K-7 now. If they add shake reduction it would start to look very nice indeed. At least one photographer I know bought into Fuji precisely for this lens compatibility. The camera looked better to them than the equivalent Nikon.

These things do matter to potential buyers.
05-22-2009, 08:25 AM   #128
Veteran Member
rparmar's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,783
QuoteOriginally posted by *isteve Quote
Actually on the body I tried, you can enable it once, and it stays enabled until you press OK again. On the bright side, it does stop you from accidentally moving it....
Excellent news. Can you disable the buttons to prevent also accidentally pressing WB etc.? otherwise it merely becomes a choice of which functions get accidentally pressed.

05-22-2009, 08:33 AM   #129
Veteran Member




Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Netherlands
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 908
will this thread go 3000+?

Just wondering, K-7 can't be that perfect...
05-22-2009, 09:11 AM   #130
Veteran Member




Join Date: Oct 2007
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 418
QuoteOriginally posted by dave sz Quote
Really? I hope you're joking............
Why would I be joking? I use big aperture, shallow depth lenses a decent amount, and compose dynamically with off center subject placement. Picking my focusing point is essential, and I'm constantly changing the selected point. When I'm shooting informal portraits, once the camera is setup and the lighting is dialed in, the 4 way might be my most used control after the shutter, making sure the focus point is at or near the subject's eyes. On my K10 it works fine, as a 1-3 click process involving one control. My understanding was that on the K7 a step and an extra control have to be involved. If I misunderstood how the control is setup then fine, but I really don't understand the need to critique someone else's preferences.

QuoteOriginally posted by *isteve Quote
Actually on the body I tried, you can enable it once, and it stays enabled until you press OK again. On the bright side, it does stop you from accidentally moving it....
So by "stays enabled" do you mean the ability to select stays enabled (which would be great), or just the last point selected (my understanding)?
05-22-2009, 09:20 PM   #131
Pentaxian
Class A's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 9,160
QuoteOriginally posted by rparmar Quote
Actually I know enough about business models to disagree with your more limited view.
Here we are again. My views are "shorted sighted" and "more limited". But these are not "offensive terms"? I guess we should just state our opinion without qualifying that of others. I apologise if I haven't stuck to that myself.

QuoteOriginally posted by rparmar Quote
Not enough to catapult Pentax to number one but enough to give them a niche.
I doubt that Pentax maintains its niche just because people like their different business model. I guess the majority likes their products (including their backward compatibility). But we both can only speculate about this.

QuoteOriginally posted by rparmar Quote
The full backwards compatibility of Pentax bodies is part of their appeal.
Of course. I bought a Pentax partly because of that. But why doesn't Pentax support their old manual lenses even better (see mysteries #2 and #3 of the "The Three Great Lens Mysteries")? I'd be interested to know how this is compatible with your "The Pentax business model is entirely different" conjecture.

It appears to me that the engineers actually had to put in some code to prevent some features to work with manual lenses (e.g., multi-metering). I may overlook some technical reason, but so far no one was able to tell me why these limitations need to be there (to this extent).

I never said I applaud Pentax's decision to not include an aperture couple or introducing apparently artificial limitations with manual lenses. I'd love to see a model that has an aperture coupler. I only said I can understand it from a business point of view that while Pentax gives you access to a vast range of excellent older lenses, they give you also an incentive to buy their modern offerings.

QuoteOriginally posted by rparmar Quote
People sitting with older model DSLR bodies would then have a new reason to upgrade.
Judging by the forum response to the K-7, there seem to be a lot of people who are eager to upgrade even from their certainly not outdated K20D's.

QuoteOriginally posted by rparmar Quote
Now, you're suggesting it's best if Pentax abandon their niche, disappoint their current customer base and try to compete with companies that have vastly larger market share and resources. I think not.
I, quite obviously, never did that.

QuoteOriginally posted by rparmar Quote
Furthermore, it is short-sighted to go for short-term sales over longer-term sales or even goodwill.
As I see it, selling a camera with better backward compatibility would have a short-term benefit (camera sales) but would probably cause a long-term loss (in lens sales).
05-23-2009, 06:19 AM   #132
Veteran Member
rparmar's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,783
QuoteOriginally posted by Class A Quote
Here we are again. My views are "shorted sighted" and "more limited". But these are not "offensive terms"?
I come from an environment where arguments are put forth and debated with some vigour. If these terms I used are offensive then so was your implication that I knew nothing of business models. Besides this sort of bickering, I gave some pertinent examples to back up my point of view and none have been negated.

In simplistic terms, some wish Pentax to gain all the features of Canon and Nikon etc., adopt their business models and, in fact, be indistinguishable from the other firms. I do not. I want a better camera for a photographer, not a gimmick device for gadget freaks. The K-7 has elements of both design goals, but far more of the latter.

Pentax should bring back whoever designer the 645 in order to revolutionise the APS-C market. Smaller, cheaper, faster, better... and even a couple whiz-bang features thrown in.
05-23-2009, 05:00 PM   #133
Pentaxian
Class A's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 9,160
QuoteOriginally posted by rparmar Quote
If these terms I used are offensive then so was your implication that I knew nothing of business models.
I didn't say "nothing" (I talked about having a personal feeling that you don't know much about camera manufacturer business models; nothing what you said since then, btw, suggests that I should reconsider) and I apologised for anything that may have come across as being offensive.

QuoteOriginally posted by rparmar Quote
Besides this sort of bickering, I gave some pertinent examples to back up my point of view and none have been negated.
?
In case you didn't notice: You have the onus to explain why the support for manual lenses isn't better than it is (if you want to maintain the notion that Pentax is operating on a vastly different business model).

QuoteOriginally posted by rparmar Quote
In simplistic terms, some wish Pentax to gain all the features of Canon and Nikon etc., adopt their business models and, in fact, be indistinguishable from the other firms.
Again, you seem to want to put words into my mouth.

Not sure our debate is helping anyone. I won't engage anymore, unless you either criticise something I actually said or provide an explanation as to why the support for manual lenses isn't better.
05-23-2009, 05:48 PM   #134
Veteran Member
rparmar's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,783
QuoteOriginally posted by Class A Quote
I won't engage anymore, unless you either criticise something I actually said or provide an explanation as to why the support for manual lenses isn't better.
Why should I be explaining Pentax's actions? You lost me there. And I already criticised your reasoning, which you dismissed as badmouthing you or something, without replying to the substance of my post.

Apparently you think Pentax should not support photographers using manual lenses, right? Because I was wondering why they didn't uncripple the mount and you said it made good business sense not to. Then I said that made no sense.

Not putting words into your mouth, just trying to understand.
05-23-2009, 05:57 PM   #135
Veteran Member
*isteve's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: London, England
Posts: 1,187
QuoteOriginally posted by rparmar Quote
Excellent news. Can you disable the buttons to prevent also accidentally pressing WB etc.? otherwise it merely becomes a choice of which functions get accidentally pressed.
No, and it was a fiddle if you pressed the wrong one. I actually quite liked the function button implementation because it made focus point switching foolproof, but there you go. I never missed having direct access to WB and shooting mode and never changed image parameters.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
pentax news, pentax rumors
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Official Pentax K-5 bashing thread. ilya80 Pentax K-5 191 11-06-2010 09:13 AM
Official K-5 Praising Thread Adam Pentax K-5 129 10-07-2010 09:04 AM
The official SDM AF Failure Thread Donkeypunch Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 43 07-16-2010 04:48 PM
Official Inception Hype Thread deadwolfbones General Talk 11 07-11-2010 07:07 AM
The Official Canon Thread! jct us101 Non-Pentax Cameras: Canon, Nikon, etc. 75 09-22-2009 08:04 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:46 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top