[tokyoso]

...Well that is, if you're one of the 80%+ of the dslr buying public who own Canon and/or Nikon gear

if you own both, would that make you a 'Canikonian' ?

[ghillindy1]

if you own both, would that make you a 'Canikonian' ?

Single

[mikemike]

Like kickboxingpenguin, I believe that Pentax has excellent, solid bodies. Although the sensors and in-camera PP might not be up to par with Canikon, the bodies are way, way better. It is a grest pity that many camera stores do not hold Pentax, because most consumers would really love the Pentax hand feeling. I chose my K-7 over the D90 and 500D after trying these bodies: the K-7 was the better fit and the built quality and WR were great assets for people who shoot outdoor.

I recently went shopping for a DSLR and I think distribution is Pentax's major marketing problem. I went to Best Buy, Wal-mart, Target, Sam's Club, Sears, Office Max, and all 3 remaining local photography stores trying to get my hands and eyeballs on a pentax. Every one of these stores carried entry level canon and nikon gear, several of them carried Sony, a couple also carried olympus, but not one of them had a Pentax (or samsung or panasonic) DSLR.

The local guys said that pentax just wasn't as popular these days and thats why they don't carry although they did say they made good gear and if I found it somewhere else come in to buy some lenses. I would have been willing to pay a slight price premium over online to buy it locally and do not like to go into a local store and jerk them around if I am not willing to throw them some business for providing a local source (although I feel no remorse for jerking the kid at best buy around).

As much as I hate to do this I am now debating whether to risk ordering from the lowest priced online store and run the risk of paying a restocking fee, ordering from an online store with a liberal return policy and paying a little more, or drive about an hour away where I found a local store that sells Pentax DSLRs.

The passion of the pentax users online makes me think that they have a very good product but without retail distribution, as a consumer I am extremly reluctant to risk a good deal of my own money to even see it.

What really struck me was why doesn't Target carry a Red K-X? It would fit perfectly with their store image and would be very affordable. I am looking for a K-7 but even looking at a K-X would give me a good impression of the ergonomics of Pentax vs. Canon Vs. Nikon and would confirm whether the things people say here are legit or hyperbole.

[ghillindy1]

What really struck me was why doesn't Target carry a Red K-X? It would fit perfectly with their store image and would be very affordable.

Great idea, I hope someone here knows someone who knows a Target exec.

[kickboxingpenguin]

This might not be the place, but I think Pentax really has to exploit the market for small, tough WR bodies, and make QUALITY WR LENSES TO MATCH! My biggest gripe is that the Limited lenses are not WR.

This is so correct. I have been preaching this ever since i bought into Pentax. They have several incomplete visions in the DSLR line. I feel if they just had a little more follow through, we would see a great market for their cameras. I am expecting to see some great lenses later this year though

What really struck me was why doesn't Target carry a Red K-X? It would fit perfectly with their store image and would be very affordable.

That actually is a big fail on Pentax's end. They need to fully implement their uniqueness and make the most of it from all angles. Even if it means selling out to target with a red camera.

[fredok1]

Pentax needs to take care of some basics. For instance a teleconverter with autofocus for DA lenses would give sports and wildlife photographers more reach with the DA 200mm f/2.8, DA 300mm f/4, and DA 60-250mm f/4. Also, a set of extension tubes that have metering contacts will give macro photographers more shooting options. Those should be easy to produce since there isn't any glass in a tube set. These 2 items alone might just give Pentax a little larger share of the market and keep from losing some of their current customers.

[Nass]

Seems to me that Pentax has played a blinder in the last year or so and is in the somewhat unusual position of having 1 certain bestseller up its sleeves too (K-X sensor with K-7 functionality). I wonder if how much market share it has gained in the last 12 months.

DSLRs are not a growth industry, whatwith cameras instead on phones and games players. I suspect the DSLR will become ever more niche and the preserve of "enthusiastic amateur" types like us. So to appeal to that market Pentax should make features that market wants, it's a nobrainer.

I think a good example of this was trying in-camera HDR and even if you don't like it, surely kudos go to Pentax for trying it on, for being innovative. In-camera HDR has some ways to go but it's a valiant attempt to at least try something vaguely different in a camera. Looks to me that functionality-wise all the major manufacturers actually make cameras that do more or less exactly the same stuff.

Pentax is much smaller than the other 2 which gives it disadvantages in terms of product development lifecycle, purchasing power, alliances and research. On the other hand a smaller company can also be more agile so I'd hope Pentax continues to be brave in its attempts to introduce new functionality that sets it apart from other guys.

[omega leader]

I recently went shopping for a DSLR and I think distribution is Pentax's major marketing problem. I went to Best Buy, Wal-mart, Target, Sam's Club, Sears, Office Max, and all 3 remaining local photography stores trying to get my hands and eyeballs on a pentax. Every one of these stores carried entry level canon and nikon gear, several of them carried Sony, a couple also carried olympus, but not one of them had a Pentax (or samsung or panasonic) DSLR.

Here in Canada I've noticed the opposite trend. Now every single big box store has a K-x to play with and some even have lenses (the best buy near me). When I got the K10d noone but the dedicated photo shops had any.

[jct us101]

Seems to me that Pentax has played a blinder in the last year or so and is in the somewhat unusual position of having 1 certain bestseller up its sleeves too (K-X sensor with K-7 functionality). I wonder if how much market share it has gained in the last 12 months.

DSLRs are not a growth industry, whatwith cameras instead on phones and games players. I suspect the DSLR will become ever more niche and the preserve of "enthusiastic amateur" types like us. So to appeal to that market Pentax should make features that market wants, it's a nobrainer.

I think a good example of this was trying in-camera HDR and even if you don't like it, surely kudos go to Pentax for trying it on, for being innovative. In-camera HDR has some ways to go but it's a valiant attempt to at least try something vaguely different in a camera. Looks to me that functionality-wise all the major manufacturers actually make cameras that do more or less exactly the same stuff.

Pentax is much smaller than the other 2 which gives it disadvantages in terms of product development lifecycle, purchasing power, alliances and research. On the other hand a smaller company can also be more agile so I'd hope Pentax continues to be brave in its attempts to introduce new functionality that sets it apart from other guys.

The only problem with Pentax now is that they've probably put out the best that they have, and now they don't have anything left for next year. Let's hope that I'm wrong and they have a K-5 and a K-9 (well maybe it won't be named something so silly) up their sleeves to go with maybe a new series of cameras. Speculation again!

[omega leader]

As the new president of Nikon said I think there will be a slowing of new releases of products.

Not to the level we saw with film, but slower than 5 years ago. Maturing technologies and a saturated market cause this.

[falconeye]

Not to the level we saw with film, but slower than 5 years ago. Maturing technologies and a saturated market cause this.

I do agree.

Many people didn't want to realize that there are hard limits set by physics which can't be overcome.

Now, that we are approaching these limits, progress must slow down as technology becomes more mature. A couple more years (maybe 10) and progress will be as slow as it was with film. It is then that jumping to the next size sensor will make a significant difference, just like it was with film.

[mikemike]

I do agree.

Many people didn't want to realize that there are hard limits set by physics which can't be overcome.

Now, that we are approaching these limits, progress must slow down as technology becomes more mature. A couple more years (maybe 10) and progress will be as slow as it was with film. It is then that jumping to the next size sensor will make a significant difference, just like it was with film.

I think one opportunity for growth could be a transition to foveon sensors instead bayer sensors. Foveons are still very immature and cannot approach the high resolutions produced by Bayers and the data processing is still immature but the IQ of a foveon matches a bayer of twice the resolution.

As we foveons mature and if they were built and used in different settings I think we could see 5 years from now a cellphone camera that matched current P&S, a P&S that matches current DSLRs, an ASP-C DSLR/EVIL that matches current FF, etc...

[gazonk]

I do agree.

Many people didn't want to realize that there are hard limits set by physics which can't be overcome.

Now, that we are approaching these limits, progress must slow down as technology becomes more mature. A couple more years (maybe 10) and progress will be as slow as it was with film. It is then that jumping to the next size sensor will make a significant difference, just like it was with film.

And by then much of the electronics will be integrated and miniaturized, which means that you can have e.g. full-size MF cameras that are smaller and lighter than the Pentax 645 film cameras (or MF cameras with EVFs and much shorter registration distance - let's say a real 6x4.5 MF camera with normal lens that's not much bigger or heavier than a K10D with the DA70).

Also: My wife just bought the Panasonic ZX1, which has a 1/2.33" 12mp sensor, and I must say I'm very impressed by the IQ. When I see what they're able to squeeze out of those tiny sensors these days, I think that there's still some "headroom" for the APS-C format.

[falconeye]

I think one opportunity for growth could be a transition to foveon sensors instead bayer sensors.

I have less sympathy for foveon than many. There are physical reasons why foveon sensors don't deliver on their promise. While many think the reasons are market forces.

I do agree that getting rid of the bayer filters and enable a sensor to "see" all photons would be a great improvement. But foveon doesn't do that. IMHO, a recent patent to have trichroic beam splitting in every micro lens points into a more promising direction.

[mikemike]

I have less sympathy for foveon than many. There are physical reasons why foveon sensors don't deliver on their promise. While many think the reasons are market forces.

I do agree that getting rid of the bayer filters and enable a sensor to "see" all photons would be a great improvement. But foveon doesn't do that. IMHO, a recent patent to have trichroic beam splitting in every micro lens points into a more promising direction.

I think the principle of foveon is sound and I will not write-it off based only on the 2 generations of cameras released by Sigma. I think it might be premature for them to be trying to commercialize it. I would be utterly amazed if Canon, Nikon, Sony, Olympus, and/or Pentax do not have prototypes and lab samples of similar sensors.

The technique foveon tries to use is very similar to multi-junction solar cells and some of the breakthroughs in solar power may be transferable to image sensors. I am optimistic for the future of the technology.

The underlying idea of a Bayer sensors is almost 35 years old while foveon is only 13 years old.