[24X36NOW]

By tradition - and Pentax are still very proud of their long heritage and tradition - "pro" for Pentax means medium format.

Sorry, but that's nonsense. The LX was certainly a pro body, and Pentax made plenty of lenses that were hardly "amateur" lenses - think the 135-600 f 6.7 was built to cater to casual shooters? The 2000 f 11 Mirror lens? The 250-600 f 5.6? Pentax may be a classic case of poor marketing, but let's not pretend that's because they never made professional grade products in 35mm.

[24X36NOW]

As to the title question of this thread - This personifies why I snicker at the ridiculous notion that Pentax "shouldn't compete with Nikon/Canon" by bringing out a FF dSLR - as if they aren't competing with them with every camera they make! LOL

[dafiryde]

comparison is good for the heart, it gives us something to think about. it reminds us of what we have and would we would like to get.
In a nut shell
Its like a fart, the more it smells, the more we can compare how bad it was to the last one and when we can 't take it no more, we go to the crapper.

Dave

[Samsungian]

and sold it right afterwards. it was so unbalanced on a tripod due to super off centered tripod mount. A weird design.

Innovative? Sure. But I have zero regrets letting my mint sample go.

You're right LX was probody and pentax thought so according to my dealer catalogues.


As far as comparisions. With all the great press K-7 is getting lets see how this plays out:

Oh I want one, then perspective buyer goes to local shop and asks about Pentax.

How does this turn out? Buyer buys what store carries in 2009 not 2005 or 1999 so another canon and nikon system owner is born.

Sorry, but that's nonsense. The LX was certainly a pro body, and Pentax made plenty of lenses that were hardly "amateur" lenses - think the 135-600 f 6.7 was built to cater to casual shooters? The 2000 f 11 Mirror lens? The 250-600 f 5.6? Pentax may be a classic case of poor marketing, but let's not pretend that's because they never made professional grade products in 35mm.

[janneman]

Truthfully, with all the hype surrounding the K-7 I expected it to be seen as a DSLR that was above D300/50D caliber, but most sites seem to put in between D5000/T1i and D300/50D or on par with D300/50D . This to me is kind of a let down. Do you agree with these sites or do you feel K-7 will be better all around to D300/50D?

When you compare the K-7 against "same class"cameras, there are many people who consider the features on those other cameras a deciding factor.
Compare the K-7 to lower class models will only enhance the fact that is dwarves those. Some people will, justifiably, prefer to go for a cheaper less packed camera but even though it is a crisis there are still a lot of people out there who WILL get the more expensive one if the reviews say it is better "oh , I will grow into it". That market segment is probably larger than the "yet undecided"buyres at the "K7 level"

[Vinfer]

In my opinion the real problem recently is that we (in general) tend to associate dslr size with the dslr class. This, in my opinion, is wrong and misleading. We forget too quickly the era of 35mm film camera and fantastic professional slr where compactness and portability often was synonymous with professionalism.

For me the class of the K-7 is the same of Nikon D300/50d.

Comparing a dslr as K7 with D5000/T1i or with Olympus E-620 (!!!) has absolutely no sense.

[Pentaxtic]

Well, assuming that there is more of a market share for the lower priced cameras, it wouldn't be a bad strategy. If you you had to pick among them, I am sure the K7 would be on top. Anyone that would comparison shop would choose the K7. I think this would be a boon to Pentax and its bottom line. People who bought the K7 would just say "Wow, I just got an awesome deal!".

[GoldenWreckedAngle]

Well, assuming that there is more of a market share for the lower priced cameras, it wouldn't be a bad strategy. If you you had to pick among them, I am sure the K7 would be on top. Anyone that would comparison shop would choose the K7. I think this would be a boon to Pentax and its bottom line. People who bought the K7 would just say "Wow, I just got an awesome deal!".

Every time I consider the specs vs. price point on my Pentax cameras that's pretty much the conclusion I come away with. I could change my price point and get into a much higher set of specs than anything Pentax currently produces but it wouldn't be at the same value unless the higher cost body yielded exponentially higher profit images.

[lesmore49]

Truthfully, with all the hype surrounding the K-7 I expected it to be seen as a DSLR that was above D300/50D caliber, but most sites seem to put in between D5000/T1i and D300/50D or on par with D300/50D . This to me is kind of a let down. Do you agree with these sites or do you feel K-7 will be better all around to D300/50D?

I've noticed a bit of defensiveness on the part of some others on another website...particularly those that shoot with Canon. They have little rationale...yet they can just tell it doesn't measure up to their fave...a Canon.

Don't get me wrong...Canon has good cameras...but some of these guys remind me of the brand war stuff you used to see in the musclecar era...ie; Ford vs Chevy.

[24X36NOW]

and sold it right afterwards. it was so unbalanced on a tripod due to super off centered tripod mount. A weird design.

Innovative? Sure. But I have zero regrets letting my mint sample go.

I understand how frustrating it must have been trying to use the 135-600 mounted on its standard tripod mount; it's REALLY poorly balanced, and front heavy at that, which makes it quite the struggle. I have, however, come up with a solution for that, which, while admittedly pricey, gives you the ability to use that beast with fingertip control. You can read the details here if you haven't seen it in your travels:

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-slr-lens-discussion/14946-new-old-...tml#post369229

Back in those days, the common "one touch" zoom controls made it difficult to strategically place the tripod mount for best balance. Now that autofocus mechanisms have basically dictated the use of "twist" zooms exclusively, it's easier to pick and choose tripod mount location, and thereby provide better balance (not that it's necessarily always well done, but it's easier than it was in "one touch" days).

[offertonhatter]

I think I will use an analogy I have used before, by comparing cameras to cars, in pricing. marketing terms.

The Nikon is the Mercedes Benz. Well made a tad conservative, had problems with quality in recent years, but now back to what it was.
The Canon is the BMW . The go getter, full of innovations and features, but not to everyones taste.
The Pentax is the Jaguar. A past of problems, but now the leader in many ways, Does not have the range of the others, but what it does, it does superbly. And, so much cheaper than either BMW or Merc.

Would anyone say a Jag XF is a rival to the BMW 3series or Merc C class due to its price? of course not! So why should they compare the K-7 to the D90 or 500D?

Shame the press have not cottoned on to this......

[Samsungian]

Yeah, its a crazy unbalanced beast. Wimberley sent me a 60 day loaner to try and maybe buy on that trip with their P50 plate. After (((much))) frustration the first day I left the lens in its trunk. Sold a week after I returned. I got the lens a day before I left. I've previously owned a 400mm 2.8 and theres really something to be said about well balanced glass.

Since then I bought a 300mm 2.8 in adaptall2 mount that works real nice with Pentax dslr and really nice with 1.7x manual focus to autofocus teleconveter pentax used to make. A joy to use. I need to buy a wimberley for my next upcoming Yellowstone trip, now that i have long glass again. Well, long glass for that critter friendly national park. Since I bought my first 300mm 2.8 I then bought a second one since last fall. The Nikon AiS for my D700. Should be alot of fun fighting with the wife on who gets to use wimberley and their 300mm 2.8 in Hayden Valley.

As time has passed I found Kirk makes 8" arca quick release lens plates. It came with a studio ball I bought used. I bet it would be long enough to toss the weight on a 135-600mm SMC-K to achieve perfect balance. P50 plate was way too short.

I've got a solution to the "wild imbalance" of this lens (just got my Really Right Stuff package today).

I used an L84 lens plate (3.6" long, no-twist flange), two B2-Pro/L clamps (drill out the threads of the two 1/4" X 20 screw holes in one clamp, then mount them back to back with two 1/4" X 20 X 3/4" screws), and an 18" camera support bar. The back to back clamps mount to the lens plate and the support bar, and the support bar gets clamped onto your tripod head (a Wimberley Gimbal head is ideal). With this setup, you can use the generous length of the support bar to get the lens/camera combination into fingertip balance on a Gimbal head, which will make it a joy to use. The space resulting from the back to back clamps gives you good room for your hand to operate the zoom/focusing ring as well. The stuff is pricey, but without it the lens would be unpleasant to use and would probably end up collecting dust, which would be a sin. Of course, if you're a metal fabricator, you can probably custom build something.

I understand how frustrating it must have been trying to use the 135-600 mounted on its standard tripod mount; it's REALLY poorly balanced, and front heavy at that, which makes it quite the struggle. I have, however, come up with a solution for that, which, while admittedly pricey, gives you the ability to use that beast with fingertip control. You can read the details here if you haven't seen it in your travels:

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-slr-lens-discussion/14946-new-old-...tml#post369229

Back in those days, the common "one touch" zoom controls made it difficult to strategically place the tripod mount for best balance. Now that autofocus mechanisms have basically dictated the use of "twist" zooms exclusively, it's easier to pick and choose tripod mount location, and thereby provide better balance (not that it's necessarily always well done, but it's easier than it was in "one touch" days).

[redpigeons]

In my opinion the real problem recently is that we (in general) tend to associate dslr size with the dslr class. This, in my opinion, is wrong and misleading. We forget too quickly the era of 35mm film camera and fantastic professional slr where compactness and portability often was synonymous with professionalism.

For me the class of the K-7 is the same of Nikon D300/50d.

Comparing a dslr as K7 with D5000/T1i or with Olympus E-620 (!!!) has absolutely no sense.

I dont think that is the case... many many of us wants / need small cameras and small lense... this is why we choose pentax to begin with.

some newbies thinks that the bigger the lens they have the more professional people think they are.
and at the end they get stuck with a clumsy huge camera that they leave at home most of the time


SENSOR size on the other hand is a different issue

[24X36NOW]

As time has passed I found Kirk makes 8" arca quick release lens plates. It came with a studio ball I bought used. I bet it would be long enough to toss the weight on a 135-600mm SMC-K to achieve perfect balance. P50 plate was way too short.

Based on what I've done to balance mine, that length would certainly be adequate, but honestly I'd be concerned about a lens plate being able to cantilever that (poorly balanced) weight - I think it might break! I use an 18" RRS "Camera Support" bar, which is about 7/8" thick. They make a 10" bar that I probably could have squeaked by with for balancing the 135-600, but I didn't really know how much length I needed when I bought it and figured the 18" version would guarantee adequate length (and strength) to do it. Plus, it doubles as a great macro focusing rail, and thereby kills 2 birds with one stone

Actually, now that I've thought about it a bit more I don't think an 8" lens plate could balance it anyway; I was thinking 8" of offset being available, but typically the screw mounting location wouldn't be all the way at the end of the plate, which means you probably couldn't as a practical matter get more than about 4-5" of offset. It actually takes about 7 inches of offset to balance "the Beast."

[GoldenWreckedAngle]

...some newbies thinks that the bigger the lens they have the more professional people think they are.

I think I can actually supply quite a bit of anecdotal evidence to back that perception up. I hate to say it, but it's not entirely a myth... Adding a battery grip to my camera did wonders for my impromptu client referrals. Best advertising dollars I ever spent.