[Kunzite]

Also, I am not sure even now, whether the camera will carve out a viable niche in the market.

I'm afraid we can already say that it failed. Yes, that's right, the 645D failed to carve out a niche in the market.
Well, a camera which dominates in such a way the DMF market is hardly "niche", IMO

[zackspeed]

unlikely......the first production run is complete sold out,before it`t available
of course is mf a small niche market,but it´s no problem.
it´s only a little bit smaller than the dslr 35mm niche market
and i bet,this 645 will be not long alone

[mapleneckblues]

good to hear - just that Mac OS X has been delivering that for years...

Ben

Unlike windows 7, only on proprietary, overpriced hardware.

[thibs]

Unlike windows 7, only on proprietary, overpriced hardware.

If you insist on buying a mac to run MacOSX that's your problem

[mattdm]

say what you will but windows 7 delivers the same thing.

Or for that matter, Ubuntu Lucid or Fedora 13.

[nosnoop]

say what you will but windows 7 delivers the same thing.

Or for that matter, Ubuntu Lucid or Fedora 13.

But ubuntu & fedora were not hated by Apple fanboys though...

[nanok]

talk about a can of warms..

hoya have made their way to profitability very simple: just undo the stupid decision to unreasonably raise lens prices, go back to (very) competitive pricing for top glass, people will start buying glass again, and body sales will increase too. pentaxians will no longer hesitate to recommend new entrants into dslr to go for pentax "it's great but.. ahem.. the lenses are some of the best, but expensive as shit, and af is said to not be that good.. yeah, fair enough, you can't go wrong with canon.." as opposed to "great bodies, great lenses, for lower price. that's what photography is about". you KILLED lba, and now you're trying to figure out where the proffit is gone? the k-7 was killed with it, imho, i have a hunch sales would have been doubled on it, if it wasn't for this stupidity.

rant over

[ghelary]

talk about a can of warms..

hoya have made their way to profitability very simple: just undo the stupid decision to unreasonably raise lens prices, go back to (very) competitive pricing for top glass, people will start buying glass again, and body sales will increase too. pentaxians will no longer hesitate to recommend new entrants into dslr to go for pentax "it's great but.. ahem.. the lenses are some of the best, but expensive as shit, and af is said to not be that good.. yeah, fair enough, you can't go wrong with canon.." as opposed to "great bodies, great lenses, for lower price. that's what photography is about". you KILLED lba, and now you're trying to figure out where the proffit is gone? the k-7 was killed with it, imho, i have a hunch sales would have been doubled on it, if it wasn't for this stupidity.

rant over

Hum, hum, have you had a look at Nikon glass prices recently ?

Prices for pentax lenses are in line with the competition, while they used to be a bargain. The big strength of Pentax is retro-compatibiity, meaning that you can get fanstastic or weird glass for cheap.

And FA limited are superb lenses that are worth every cent you put in buying them. Sure the glass lineup is not the biggest around, but Leica's is even more limited and yet, it's still a fantastic system, as long as it fits your needs.

[Rondec]

The problem with talking prices on various lenses is that they vary so widly from country to country. In the US, Nikon commands a premium. Their f2.8 zooms in particular are killer expensive. The 17-55 f2.8 runs 1500 dollars and the 70-200 f2.8 VR II is 2200 dollars. Compared to that Pentax zooms are a decently priced option (at least in the US).

[Ben_Edict]

The problem with talking prices on various lenses is that they vary so widly from country to country. In the US, Nikon commands a premium. Their f2.8 zooms in particular are killer expensive. The 17-55 f2.8 runs 1500 dollars and the 70-200 f2.8 VR II is 2200 dollars. Compared to that Pentax zooms are a decently priced option (at least in the US).

It is basically the same in Germany. The new Nikon and Canon 70-200/2.8 (just as an example) are both very expensive, even compared with the new Sigma 70-200/2.8 HSM, which is much more expensive than the previous version (talk about 1500 Euros instead of the previous' versions 800!). In the light of the generally higher prices for lenses, the Pentax price increase does look more like an adjustment to the general market, though it hurts…

Ben

[traderdrew]

talk about a can of warms..

hoya have made their way to profitability very simple: just undo the stupid decision to unreasonably raise lens prices, go back to (very) competitive pricing for top glass, people will start buying glass again, and body sales will increase too. pentaxians will no longer hesitate to recommend new entrants into dslr to go for pentax "it's great but.. ahem.. the lenses are some of the best, but expensive as shit, and af is said to not be that good.. yeah, fair enough, you can't go wrong with canon.." as opposed to "great bodies, great lenses, for lower price. that's what photography is about". you KILLED lba, and now you're trying to figure out where the proffit is gone? the k-7 was killed with it, imho, i have a hunch sales would have been doubled on it, if it wasn't for this stupidity.

rant over

I can't totally disagree with you. Canon is tough competition. I never owned a Canon but I have spoken to others who do and the Canon pros told me they would not buy anything other than their "L series" lenses. One Canonite told me Pentax has great lenses across the board and I made a good decision.

The K-X with the two package lens deal looks like the best entry level deal in the market to me. (The 55-300 zoom looks like a good lens for the money) based on what I have seen from other people's photos.

I don't like the Nikon 70-300 VR because it is to soft for me at 300mm.

By the way, if anyone who is looking to buy a K-7 is worried about the in body stablilization is not as good as Nikon's VR lenses, you can take it from me, Pentax seems to perform just as well. I don't like to but I have shot at 1/100 of a second without a tripod and it didn't give me a problem.

[Pål Jensen]

I think lens prices reflecs what the product cost to develop, build market and sell. Like most products. To insist for a Ferrari for Toyota money is a misunderstanding.

[nanok]

it seems some people haven't quite read my post through (not that it was such a work of art or anything.. ). i know the prices for nikon (and i know other things too, and i don't shoot nikon). this is business, the pentax system does not compete directly with either nikon or canon, it simply doesn't have all the "bells" (i couldn't care less, but when somebody gets into dslr, you can't honestly ignore that, when it's overall cheaper to go for canon for some uses, _and_ you get their famed af and so on). i'm sorry, but it's just business, and though i love pentax glass myself, it needs to be considerably cheaper, not priceyer. i have stopped in my tracks buying top pentax glass, and i know now that, if i decide i want new top glass (af and so on), it will make more sense to switch to canon. and i hate that.

i agree, the k-x is a very nice deal for entry level dslr, and i hear the sensor and in camera image processing is also excellent. i still miss the k200d though, the lineup seems so scarce now, with both the k200d and the k20d gone, there's basically just the k-x and k-7 on the market now.

don't get me wrong, i'd love pentax to be "up there", but just doubling the price without offering anything extra is plain silly. selling a very good, well speced toyota for ferrari money is also a misunderstanding.

finally, if you think i'm off, think of it this way (i have said this before, but oh well): if i want the 12-24+16-50+50-135, for instance, it is cheaper to go for the canon 50d and the tokinas (i might even be able to go for the 7d, actually), rather than building on my current k20d. that's plain wrong.

[ghelary]

it seems some people haven't quite read my post through (not that it was such a work of art or anything.. ). i know the prices for nikon (and i know other things too, and i don't shoot nikon). this is business, the pentax system does not compete directly with either nikon or canon, it simply doesn't have all the "bells" (i couldn't care less, but when somebody gets into dslr, you can't honestly ignore that, when it's overall cheaper to go for canon for some uses, _and_ you get their famed af and so on). i'm sorry, but it's just business, and though i love pentax glass myself, it needs to be considerably cheaper, not priceyer. i have stopped in my tracks buying top pentax glass, and i know now that, if i decide i want new top glass (af and so on), it will make more sense to switch to canon. and i hate that.

i agree, the k-x is a very nice deal for entry level dslr, and i hear the sensor and in camera image processing is also excellent. i still miss the k200d though, the lineup seems so scarce now, with both the k200d and the k20d gone, there's basically just the k-x and k-7 on the market now.

don't get me wrong, i'd love pentax to be "up there", but just doubling the price without offering anything extra is plain silly. selling a very good, well speced toyota for ferrari money is also a misunderstanding.

finally, if you think i'm off, think of it this way (i have said this before, but oh well): if i want the 12-24+16-50+50-135, for instance, it is cheaper to go for the canon 50d and the tokinas (i might even be able to go for the 7d, actually), rather than building on my current k20d. that's plain wrong.

Saying that Pentax lenses are worse than their Canon or Nikon conterparts is plain silly. The DA and FA ltd are suberb and compare well to the best all systems mixed.

The strength of Pentax system is not price, it's compactness. It's the only brand to sell such a lineup of such compact lenses like : DA15/4, DA21/3.2, DA35/2.8, DA40/2.8, FA43/1.9, DA70/2.4 and FA77/1.9. I bought in the system because of the K10D, but I definitively stays in because of those lenses (and the FA31/1.8)

BTW, Tokina have a very poor reputation about its performance with flare, which on contrary a strength of Pentax. So even if the optical design is the same, a Tokina is not the same and not as good as its Pentax brother.

Now if you feel more confortable with Canon, feel free to go there, you just may regret Pentax spirit of compactness.

[traderdrew]

if i decide i want new top glass (af and so on), it will make more sense to switch to canon. and i hate that.

Just to clear something up, I would never buy Canon's commercial lenses that come with starter kits and so on. I would only consider Canon's "series L" lenses. I like shooting close-up and telephoto and so sharp lenses make a big difference.