Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
12-27-2012, 05:33 AM   #886
Ash
Community Manager
Loyal Site Supporter
Ash's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Toowoomba, Queensland
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 22,695
QuoteOriginally posted by the swede Quote
well... i would've kept my FA Ltd's and other accessories if Pentax would have done a "half-hearted" attempt to challange the D600. Me and others.
I might even have chosen the "half-hearted" Pentax fullframe, even if what i really wanted was the Nikon AF system and flash system.
I would have chosen the "half-hearted" Pentax fullframe because, it would have been a darn great looking and feeling body with more features, better button placement, a tad smaller than the D600 for about the same price (not today though...)
They could even have left out SR imho...

I've said it before and say it again.. Pentax does not need to compete with Canikon FF's....
Could you imagine how difficult a FF camera by Pentax would be to market (and sell) if it did not have in body SR, if it sported a 24Mp sensor with high ISO capabilities that doesn't meet that of the K-5 and not comparable to the D600/6D in price (being realistic, Pentax wouldn't be releasing a FF camera significantly sub $2,000)?

It's not about competing with the big two, but the product still has to have a selling point (why buy this Pentax FF camera that is no better in performance to the D600/6Dif it is the same price or more expensive and doesn't have the sophisticated TTL flash system the other two have over Pentax currently?)

More features mean more R&D and cost. WR means more cost. A good AF system like that of the K-5 II in a FF camera means more cost. SR in a FF camera is another cost. These features are important selling costs, as well as being practical advantages Pentaxians would be keen to see in a FF camera. Skimp on them and there'd be little to entice both those in the FF market external to Pentax as well as those with K-5s, K-7s or K20Ds who are looking to go FF.

12-27-2012, 06:11 AM   #887
Ash
Community Manager
Loyal Site Supporter
Ash's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Toowoomba, Queensland
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 22,695
QuoteOriginally posted by the swede Quote
But im still here, as im interested in Pentax and i like the brand.
Bear in mind as mentioned that photographers may like the brand, but may be unimpressed by one of their products, which doesn't help the brand or the photographer.

QuoteOriginally posted by Kunzite Quote

I don't believe it would be difficult for them to make an excellent FF camera; since they're doing great with their APS-C ones. Electronics&stuff shared with the next high end DSLR, a proper viewfinder, the larger sensor+shutter+SR and an adapted AF system; they can definitely make an amazing camera. I think the main issue is the low market share, even the APS-C models are made at ~20.000 units/month - this is also limiting their ability to launch lenses.
The formula for creating such a great FF debut is there, I also believe it isn't insurmountable for Pentax to bring it out soon.

QuoteOriginally posted by Clavius Quote
I think the bigger part of the Pentaxians would have instabought any Pentax FF, even if it was just the K5 body with a larger sensor, lacking any other upgrades.

And the smaller part would have been dissapointed maybe, but happy with the confirmation that Pentax is serious about FF. Who knows how many jumpers would have been preserved if Pentax had release a half hearted FF body?
Firstly, the product has to be good enough to be desirable by this bigger part of Pentaxians, and just any ol' FF camera with a K-mount wouldn't do. I can't see Pentax doing that. There is enough interest and pride in the brand to ensure that whatever product they do release, it will be of good performance, sturdy design, useful for the majority of enthusiast and professional photographers (a must for a high end product IMO) and a well thought out UI. That's not going to be a simple or quick task to undertake.

Any Pentax defectors to other companies offering FF now are not going to be permanently sold out on their current invested brand. People are dynamic - those who switched systems are more likely to switch back to Pentax if their FF camera is at least comparable to what they currently use than those who have been Canikonians for decades.
12-27-2012, 07:36 AM   #888
Pentaxian
Clavius's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: De Klundert
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 4,122
QuoteOriginally posted by Ash Quote
Any Pentax defectors to other companies offering FF now are not going to be permanently sold out on their current invested brand. People are dynamic - those who switched systems are more likely to switch back to Pentax if their FF camera is at least comparable to what they currently use than those who have been Canikonians for decades.
Are you kidding me? Not only going through the hassle of switching systems TWICE, including all lenses, but also going back to the extreme lens prices and uncertainty that's included with the Pentax system is to much to ask from people that have switched. I can't imagine anybody being THAT much of a fanboy.

The new Pentax FF is going to have to have one hell of a bang-for-buck-ratio for me to switch from my 5D back to Pentax.
12-27-2012, 08:48 AM   #889
Ash
Community Manager
Loyal Site Supporter
Ash's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Toowoomba, Queensland
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 22,695
Well Clavius, I don't suggest everyone who has already switched systems will want to return to Pentax even if it turns out to have a very formidable FF camera, but I do think with those who have liked the brand and perhaps have kept a few of the legacy K-mount lenses to avoid the exorbitant prices of them now might rekindle their interest to want to return again.

In the end, the product should (and will) speak for itself.

12-27-2012, 08:58 AM   #890
Pentaxian
Clavius's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: De Klundert
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 4,122
QuoteOriginally posted by Ash Quote
...and perhaps have kept a few of the legacy K-mount lenses to avoid the exorbitant prices of them now might rekindle their interest to want to return again.
Those exorbitant prices would be a reason for me to avoid any Pentax body, even when still owning the limiteds. Because why would anybody assume the prices will ever be competitive again?

QuoteOriginally posted by Ash Quote
In the end, the product should (and will) speak for itself.
That's always true!
12-27-2012, 09:25 AM   #891
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Romania
Posts: 9,318
I'm sorry, but what extreme prices are you talking about?
12-27-2012, 09:31 AM   #892
Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 16,216
QuoteOriginally posted by Clavius Quote
Those exorbitant prices would be a reason for me to avoid any Pentax body, even when still owning the limiteds. Because why would anybody assume the prices will ever be competitive again?


That's always true!
Have you priced top end Nikon lenses or Canon L lenses? Pentax really is decent with regard to value when it comes to glass and body prices have been amazing lately.
12-27-2012, 09:46 AM   #893
Veteran Member




Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,893
QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
Have you priced top end Nikon lenses or Canon L lenses? Pentax really is decent with regard to value when it comes to glass and body prices have been amazing lately.
Top end Nikon and Canon primes are F/1.2 - F/1.4, by and large. Pentax top end stuff is half a stop slower.

Top end Nikon/Canon zooms are all full-frame.

I love some of my lenses but I don't think they're cheaper (now) than similar-spec'd Nikon or Canon.

12-27-2012, 09:56 AM   #894
Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 16,216
QuoteOriginally posted by ElJamoquio Quote
Top end Nikon and Canon primes are F/1.2 - F/1.4, by and large. Pentax top end stuff is half a stop slower.

Top end Nikon/Canon zooms are all full-frame.

I love some of my lenses but I don't think they're cheaper (now) than similar-spec'd Nikon or Canon.
It is all in what you compare it to. Really tough, frankly, since a lens like the DA*55 to me, compares more to the Canon 50mm f1.2, than the Canon 50mm f1.4, but if you compare it to the one,. it is a real deal, if you compare it to the other, it is high priced.

Aperture alone is not the only thing in play here. Pentax has fairly special rendering on its primes, particularly the FA limiteds. In addition, they are sharp wide open, whereas many f1.4 lenses need to be stopped down to f2 to be usable.

Zooms are the weakest place for Pentax, mainly because of their use of SDM. These certainly need tweaking, but certainly the Canon 17-55 f2.8 (not an L lens) is not a cheap lens either. It is not a full frame lens, but does cost better than a thousand dollars new.
12-27-2012, 10:13 AM   #895
Veteran Member




Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,893
QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
It is all in what you compare it to. Really tough, frankly, since a lens like the DA*55 to me, compares more to the Canon 50mm f1.2, than the Canon 50mm f1.4, but if you compare it to the one,. it is a real deal, if you compare it to the other, it is high priced.

Aperture alone is not the only thing in play here. Pentax has fairly special rendering on its primes, particularly the FA limiteds. In addition, they are sharp wide open, whereas many f1.4 lenses need to be stopped down to f2 to be usable.

Zooms are the weakest place for Pentax, mainly because of their use of SDM. These certainly need tweaking, but certainly the Canon 17-55 f2.8 (not an L lens) is not a cheap lens either. It is not a full frame lens, but does cost better than a thousand dollars new.
Aperture isn't everything, of course, but even small changes mean the glass has to be much larger. Or we could compare the DA* 55mm with the Nikon 50mm F/1.4... the Pentax is $680 and the Nikon is $440.

That Canon lens you mention is APS-C. There's no 'L' lenses that are APS-C IIRC. It's expensive of course. Not as expensive as DA* 16-50, though, and I'm not aware of large numbers of Canon 17-55's that fail in the field, either.


Pentax lenses, IMO, aren't really any cheaper than other manufacturers. Pentax seems to be going towards a low-cost body and high-cost lens approach, which is probably the correct thing to do.
12-27-2012, 11:31 AM   #896
Ash
Community Manager
Loyal Site Supporter
Ash's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Toowoomba, Queensland
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 22,695
These aren't equivalent comparisons. Just as the FA 50/1.4 isn't comparable to the DA* 55, there aren't apples vs. apples comparisons we can make between lenses of different systems. But we can say that no system is cheap, and generally speaking Pentax is cost effective or better value for money that the big two that are subject to a lot of elitist price wars, particularly with higher end lenses.
12-27-2012, 11:50 AM   #897
Veteran Member




Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,893
QuoteOriginally posted by Ash Quote
These aren't equivalent comparisons. Just as the FA 50/1.4 isn't comparable to the DA* 55, there aren't apples vs. apples comparisons we can make between lenses of different systems. But we can say that no system is cheap, and generally speaking Pentax is cost effective or better value for money that the big two that are subject to a lot of elitist price wars, particularly with higher end lenses.
You're right, there's no direct comparison. You could say that whether a system comes out to be cheaper or more expensive depends a great deal on the assumptions made.

I'm not sure what assumptions you're using to make Pentax a better value on lenses (lately). I, personally, don't see it.
12-27-2012, 12:56 PM   #898
Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 16,216
QuoteOriginally posted by ElJamoquio Quote
You're right, there's no direct comparison. You could say that whether a system comes out to be cheaper or more expensive depends a great deal on the assumptions made.

I'm not sure what assumptions you're using to make Pentax a better value on lenses (lately). I, personally, don't see it.
I will just try to say how I see it. Leaving full frame out of it (if you want full frame, for the present you better just go with Canon/Nikon), Pentax has some very nice lenses that are better priced than the high end lenses from Canon/Nikon and better quality than the low end lenses from them. If you want small, high quality, all-metal build lenses from Canon/Nikon, you aren't going to find much, particularly not in the 400 to 600 dollar range.
12-27-2012, 02:04 PM   #899
Veteran Member




Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,893
QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
I will just try to say how I see it. Leaving full frame out of it (if you want full frame, for the present you better just go with Canon/Nikon), Pentax has some very nice lenses that are better priced than the high end lenses from Canon/Nikon and better quality than the low end lenses from them. If you want small, high quality, all-metal build lenses from Canon/Nikon, you aren't going to find much, particularly not in the 400 to 600 dollar range.
Fair enough, but keep in mind that I said (lately). If you'll allow me to (temporarily) use your up-to-600 guideline as a strict interpretation, Pentax has two metal lenses - the 40mm and the 43mm.

Canon has a ton of lenses in that range with excellent, albeit not all-metal*, build quality.

*I'm assuming here, I've only ever touched ~10 types of Canon Lenses.
12-27-2012, 02:20 PM   #900
Ash
Community Manager
Loyal Site Supporter
Ash's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Toowoomba, Queensland
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 22,695
Even try to find lenses comparable to the remainder of the DA and FA Limited series, all of which are brilliant in IQ right from wide open, and you'd be hard pressed to find decent rivals in their price range. The Limited series primes are just a marvel of engineering, both in terms of build and size/weight, and combining great IQ. Arguably, faster lenses in similar focal lengths produced by Canikon may need to be stopped down to a similar aperture as these Limited lenses are wide open in order to get the same kind of image quality. Yet these same Canikon lenses are both bulkier and more expensive. And at least the FA Limiteds are FF compatible...
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!
d800, ff, full-frame, pentax, pentaxian, reps, seminar, tokyo, week
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
ready to go! first development coming soon dj_saunter Film Processing, Scanning, and Darkroom 17 05-15-2011 09:14 PM
Development: Rwanda style. ihasa General Talk 16 04-07-2011 11:37 PM
two bath development icywarm Film Processing, Scanning, and Darkroom 22 01-08-2011 12:27 AM
UN Human Development Report mikemike General Talk 5 11-05-2010 05:55 AM
Any Arrested Development (TV) fans here? RolloR General Talk 8 10-21-2010 08:25 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:10 AM. | 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