[Kunzite]

Here we go again, with the never saying Pentax should change the mount... <sigh>

[Anvh]

?????

[geojazz]

But who is saying you can't fit K lenses on a new mount?
just look at what m4/3th, canon M, Nikon 1, Sony nex and the discussing was not about a DSLR but a mirrorless FF system.

Pentax have said that if they would do an 135 format camera that they would do something special, a mirrorless is therefore not so far fetch sadly enough. Sony has now an FF without an optical viewfinder so who knows.

What your discussion is about how you can use a DSLR as a point and shoot... i don't understand how that bears relationship to the new mount discusion.

Oh Please, I am sick and tired of hearing people complain about Pentax .... about this and that technical aspect .... I can take my 30 year old K1000 (K Mount) with Auto nuttin and shoot marvelous pictures! Master the camera and be less engrossed with the the techical widgets!!! Again and I will QUOTE MASTER PHOTOGRAPHERS Frank Despensa and Monte Zucker who routinely said " it is less about the camera than the Photographer" .... you fail to appreciate this simple truth and so does Nikon and Canon!

Also please my 2 posts in their entirety. If your incapable of grasping the larger intent other than the P&S point then you have serious issues!

[the swede]

Oh Please, I am sick and tired of hearing people complain about Pentax .... about this and that technical aspect .... I can take my 30 year old K1000 (K Mount) with Auto nuttin and shoot marvelous pictures! Master the camera and be less engrossed with the the techical widgets!!! Again and I will QUOTE MASTER PHOTOGRAPHERS Frank Despensa and Monte Zucker who routinely said " it is less about the camera than the Photographer" .... you fail to appreciate this simple truth and so does Nikon and Canon!

You talk high and mighty about how "its all about the photographer" and then, in the next sentence you say Nikon and Canon "fail to see the truth" about photography.
That, to me mate, sounds like you didnt listen to anything the master photographers said.

Your not contributing anything to this thread... no one is it seems..

[geojazz]

You talk high and mighty about how "its all about the photographer" and then, in the next sentence you say Nikon and Canon "fail to see the truth" about photography.
That, to me mate, sounds like you didnt listen to anything your "master photographers" told you.

Your not contributing anything to this thread... no one is it seems..

Actually I did ... if you read my earlier Posts Swede you would have read that a Camera is less about a Computer in a Chassis. Once the thought and decision process is taken away from the Photographer then we should all just use a Point and shoot. I Agree that the thread has devolved from what it was intended which is to bring a full Frame camera to Market! The argument back and forth about changing the Mount itself got me a tad twisted because it serves no useful purpose.

I have handled and or shot with everything From Nikon to Sigma , Canon , Maimya, Hasselbad and everything in between. I come back to Pentax because it still feels and has controls like a film camera which IN MY OPINION puts it way ahead of the competition (much less menu diving).

Let me apologize to those that may have been insulted and/or taken aback by my comments . It was not my intent to degrade or humiliate !

[Anvh]

Oh Please, I am sick and tired of hearing people complain about Pentax .... about this and that technical aspect .... I can take my 30 year old K1000 (K Mount) with Auto nuttin and shoot marvelous pictures! Master the camera and be less engrossed with the the techical widgets!!! Again and I will QUOTE MASTER PHOTOGRAPHERS Frank Despensa and Monte Zucker who routinely said " it is less about the camera than the Photographer" .... you fail to appreciate this simple truth and so does Nikon and Canon!

Also please my 2 posts in their entirety. If your incapable of grasping the larger intent other than the P&S point then you have serious issues!

I'm not complain about Pentax and i don't know where you get that idea from to be honest?
I'm only pointing some things out you didn't take into consideration, when you wrote something about the discusion we had.

I get the greater intend but i don't see what that has to do with the discusion about the new mount.

Now it seems to me you're complaining about the technical talk and that you're saying that real photographers or the great masters don't need AF and all those technical aids. However photography is one of the few art forms that isn't only about skill and inspiration but it also has a fairly large amount of technical background. Sure camera is only a tool but i doubt you're saying good photographers use their eyes to meter the light, use a cap for the shutter speed and has a magnesium flash
A good craftsmen is someone who can make the most out of his tools, nothing more and nothing less.
So if someone makes good use of AF then he is not a lesser craftsmen then someone who use manual focus only.
You could actually argue the first is a better craftsmen because he is using every expect of the tool to his benefit, a craftsmen is only as good as his tools you know.
But a good craftsmen also never blames his tool, so a double edge sword there.

So i don't understand why you're against advencements that can make the tool more capable is a bad thing or make the craftsmen that use them, less of an craftsmen?

[tjk911]

I haven't posted here (in PF in general) for awhile, but here goes.

On the topic of Pentax's technical aspects, here are my 2cents even though no one is really asking for it.

I think a lot of the disagreements here stem from approaching Pentax's FF from two different aspects:

1. What will be good enough for us Pentaxians
2. What will help Pentax gain a stronger following/marketshare

For the past few years I've shot mostly manual (including focus, shot with a Tamron Adaptall-2 300mm a lot) - even sports - for newspapers and publications and did fine, good even.

It's one of the reasons why I love Pentax so much, because when I bought my first Pentax DSLR for college, and got some cheap lenses here, the IQ was spectacular and I had to learn the harder way to focus and anticipate, to time and compose, all my shots to compete with my peers that were lugging around Nikons and Canons shooting the same games/events.

But yes, like Anvh says and I strongly agree with him, Pentax has to incorporate technological advancements. Be it AF or whatnot. And we're seeing improvements on that front from Pentax. An AA-free version of K5ii, starting to implement articulating screens to their P&Ses, better AF sensitivity and LCD displays and such.

Because to achieve #2, they have to do that, even though for many Pentaxians a simple FF would be good enough. In fact, there are many Pentaxians who do not care about FF at all either, APS-C is good enough. For me, I've moved to Nikon for my more serious work, and if Pentax can give me a simple 5dmk2 version of the Pentax I'd be happy as hell, but to win people over?

But hey, unless it's priced at $2,000 or less, a Pentax 5dmk2 is unlikely to help it gain much following. The underdog has to be very tantalizing to win people over.

Joe McNally, while doing a tour with Bill Frakes about the D800 and D4, said this:

Nothing else out there, in terms of being a photographer, is getting easier. The jobs, the clients, the timing, the budget and all that stuff gets harder. Technology is a way for us to even out the field.

[Anvh]

To go on a bit on this subject.

I think a great part of this is, because alot of pentaxian are to be frank not the youngest of people.
Many shoot with Pentax today because they have had a Pentax film camera and have loads of lenses from that time.
Their wishes would be different then from for example a fashion photographer who is making a living out of it.

As for the younger generation, they are not commited at all or as much to Pentax when they decide to go FF.
I for example only have 1 lens that works officially on a FF camera. So almost nothing is holding me back to look at the other brands.

Like you say they need to win me over rather then please me.

[the swede]

They need to win me back I would be happy to surrender.

[Clavius]

To go on a bit on this subject.

I think a great part of this is, because alot of pentaxian are to be frank not the youngest of people. Many shoot with Pentax today because they have had a Pentax film camera and have loads of lenses from that time.
Their wishes would be different then from for example a fashion photographer who is making a living out of it.

As for the younger generation, they are not commited at all or as much to Pentax when they decide to go FF.
I for example only have 1 lens that works officially on a FF camera. So almost nothing is holding me back to look at the other brands.

Like you say they need to win me over rather then please me.

This is VERY recognizable. To take myself as an example: I consider myself to be of the "younger" generation that you mentioned. I only got interested in photography when digital became available. (In the meantime I did film too, just for learning purposes.)

In years ago, I was upgrading from a bridgecamera. As I always do, I was looking around for a unique product that sells itself. (In my mind: heavy marketing = products that would fail without the marketing.) The brand with the nicest features for the best money always wins. And Pentax was just that.

Pentax bodies were slightly more expensive then it's comparable counterparts from the other brands. But that was because they were better, and you got more for the money too. Not only relatively more quality, but also quantity. Especially when planning on getting multiple lenses. No matter to which store I went for information, I always ended up with Pentax, and the store clerks were really enthusiastic about the brand as well.

But where is the advantage in shooting Pentax now? Only in the ergonomics? Build quality? People who say that, should really pick up the A99 from Sony. It Feels very comfortable and even more solid then a K5. Not needing stabilised lenses isn't an advantage with these prices anymore. And backwards compatibility with legacy glass was a lot of fun while it lasted. I got my copy of the Pentax 50mm f1.2 for 100 euros back then. Now you pay 700, if you're lucky enough to find one with heavy cosmetic damage. You can almost buy a new Pentax lens for that!

And I think many people felt that way, because then suddenly Pentax also started disappearing very rapidly. Back in 2007 all serious camera stores in my country carried Pentax. I could find them in every city. But almost everything is gone now. Just one major store left in the country really, and they are currently having "last-bits-sales" of their left over Pentax gear. Oh yeah, they can order Pentax stuff, if you insist, but they can't guarantee that their supplier has any stock.

All this considered, it seems as if Pentax is dying. I know about the double takeover and how the future might be very bright if everything works out. But I live in the now, and right now I can't buy Pentax in any store anymore. And just another FF DSLR me-too is not going to get them back in the stores. Thinking that is just silly. They're a tiny company and need big advantages over the others just to get back what they lost.

That's why, not being slowed down by a huge load of Pentax glass, I just added another system. Two actually. And stopped buying anything Pentax. Hoping Pentax would one day get their act together again. I'll be right over when they do.

[Ash]

But where is the advantage in shooting Pentax now? Only in the ergonomics? Build quality? People who say that, should really pick up the A99 from Sony. It Feels very comfortable and even more solid then a K5

I picked one of those up. Not bad in many aspects, but it's more a new fab electronic gizmo than a legendary photography tool. I'd rather shoot with the K-5 than have that A99 with its less intuitive UI and less interesting lens array. Translucent mirror just to be able to have EVF is unnecessary IMO.

[gazonk]

I picked one of those up. Not bad in many aspects, but it's more a new fab electronic gizmo than a legendary photography tool. I'd rather shoot with the K-5 than have that A99 with its less intuitive UI and less interesting lens array. Translucent mirror just to be able to have EVF is unnecessary IMO.

IMHO the A99 looks like a K10D on too much steroids, not a pretty camera. And all that bulk and no OVF? I hope and am pretty certain that the future Pentax FF will look better than that.

[Clavius]

I picked one of those up. Not bad in many aspects, but it's more a new fab electronic gizmo than a legendary photography tool. I'd rather shoot with the K-5 than have that A99 with its less intuitive UI and less interesting lens array. Translucent mirror just to be able to have EVF is unnecessary IMO.

I agree fully with you on the mirror. The A99 without a mirror at all, would have been a spectacular worlds first though. Nevertheless, Sony has been very succesfull in replacing Pentax in almost each and every store around here. The market shows exactly what it wants.

IMHO the A99 looks like a K10D on too much steroids, not a pretty camera. And all that bulk and no OVF? I hope and am pretty certain that the future Pentax FF will look better than that.

So, you want a pretty camera?! Well the way things are going with Pentax now you are certainly right. You could buy a yellow Q10 with pinhole lens and a bright yellow flash with smiley face from Holga. Maybe Pentax and Holga will be joining forces soon?

The K10D was an excellent camera, with excellent ergonomics. "K10D on steroids" is a compliment. As FF + IBIS is something Pentax should have done, a few years ago, instead of / prior to Sony. Then things would have been very different I think.

[Kunzite]

Sony is known to adopt kludge-like ideas, for example the older LV system which used a secondary sensor, in the prism housing. It didn't had 100% coverage, it was as affected by alignment issues as much (probably more) as the optical viewfinder and the optical viewfinder was heavily compromised as well. The SLT is just a better working attempt

Extreme muscle building result is hideous... the A99 doesn't go as far, but still that wasn't a compliment. I only care about looks a little, yet designing a nice looking camera should not be expensive, and Pentax definitely knows how to do it.

I think a great part of this is, because alot of pentaxian are to be frank not the youngest of people..

The people targeted would have to be those with money, which to be frank are not the youngest of people I'm not that old myself, more or less same age as the ME Super; I think I would manage.
For the youngest of people looking to buy into a system, IMO they need to make Pentax a more attractive and "safer" system ("safer" here is mostly about perception, i.e. Pentax K offering a FF option, Pentax K visibly being used by professionals etc. would be considered "safer" even by people looking at the entry level). I saw many cases in which such people would chose the "safer" Canikon, even if that meant worse products (than e.g. the equivalent Pentax).
I'd say the customers for a Pentax K would be mostly Pentaxians (current, returning and future).

[gazonk]

For the youngest of people looking to buy into a system, IMO they need to make Pentax a more attractive and "safer" system ("safer" here is mostly about perception, i.e. Pentax K offering a FF option, Pentax K visibly being used by professionals etc. would be considered "safer" even by people looking at the entry level). I saw many cases in which such people would chose the "safer" Canikon, even if that meant worse products (than e.g. the equivalent Pentax).
I'd say the customers for a Pentax K would be mostly Pentaxians (current, returning and future).

You make too much sense . For these reasons, Pentax needs both the FF and a camera well below the K-30. But salespeople may still argue (they do!) that caNikon is the better choice because of the number of lenses. On one hand, this is quite silly, because nobody without severe LBA is going to buy all Pentax lenses anyway. On the other hand, it's not entirely wrong. But if Pentax adds a few FF lenses and a fast wa prime or two, I think that argument will start to look stupid.