[UncleVanya]

So things like AF speed are not objective measures?
Depth of a product line are not objective measures?

We all pick and choose what is important, but no one can say with a straight face that Pentax has been an industry leader for the past 35 years or so.

They aren't objectively better if you don't care about them. You are trying to quantify in an objective way all the things about gear that may be important to anyone in a universal way. The things the industry favors might have no real value to some people.

And as for depth of product... There is no value to that to many people if the depth doesn't include what they want. Again I'd the da limited lenses are your idea of perfection, there are not many options outside Pentax for anything similar.

Imagine you want the new Hassleblad, does the fact that they only have 3 lenses for the new camera make it less valuable to you?

[monochrome]

Pentax had an absolute river of cash flow from SMC licenses for 25 or 30 years. From time to time they released a ground-breaking individual product, but they usually failed to follow up.

Rather than investing in cameras and lenses - going bayonet, building a system like Nikon and Canon - they rested on their 60's dominance of the consumer enthusiast market and 6x7 and 645. They did not see Sports Illustrated, the NFL, and professional soccer coming; they did not see Reportage and gossip media coming. Th y let Nikon control news and Canon control sports; they let first Olympus then Minolta capture swaths of consumer enthusiast; because cameras is an 8% ROE business, they didn't have a massive cooperate parent to supply capital - and they drank their own Kool-Aid doing things like Factory In a Park.

Eyeglasses and Proctoscopes and Security Cameras are 20% Return businesses. Given their resources, Pentax probably made good business decisions at the time they were made, but they weren't risk-taking industry leaders - maybe ever, given that they bought Super-Multi-Coating.

What Ricoh is doing with Theta smells like aggressive, predatory product leadership - potential to be another GoPro or DJI. You can't do 360 streaming with a phone. Maybe they (seem to have) taken Theta away from Ricoh Imaging and moved it to the parent because Imaging doesn't have the killer instinct.

[Rupert]

Pentax had an absolute river of cash flow from SMC licenses for 25 or 30 years. From time to time they released a ground-breaking individual product, but they usually failed to follow up.

Rather than investing in cameras and lenses - going bayonet, building a system like Nikon and Canon - they rested on their 60's dominance of the consumer enthusiast market and 6x7 and 645. They did not see Sports Illustrated, the NFL, and professional soccer coming; they did not see Reportage and gossip media coming. Th y let Nikon control news and Canon control sports; they let first Olympus then Minolta capture swaths of consumer enthusiast; because cameras is an 8% ROE business, they didn't have a massive cooperate parent to supply capital - and they drank their own Kool-Aid doing things like Factory In a Park.

Eyeglasses and Proctoscopes and Security Cameras are 20% Return businesses. Given their resources, Pentax probably made good business decisions at the time they were made, but they weren't risk-taking industry leaders - maybe ever, given that they bought Super-Multi-Coating.

What Ricoh is doing with Theta smells like aggressive, predatory product leadership - potential to be another GoPro or DJI. You can't do 360 streaming with a phone. Maybe they (seem to have) taken Theta away from a imaging and moved it to the parent because Imaging doesn't have the killer instinct.

That all makes pretty good sense to me.

I tried being a "serious shooter" ( not too hard, to be honest) and it just didn't happen. I'm mostly a "snapper" and so I depend on the best gear to help make up for my deficiencies. The K1 has certainly delivered in the AF department, delivering fast and accurate focus more often than any previous Pentax body...by far.

I think there may be a lot of shooters like me that could benefit from more skills and less gear buying.

Regards!

[alamo5000]

Absolutely obsessed with the latest and greatest. But not obsessed enough with the actual skill involved. Keep in mind there is absolutely nothing wrong with using new technology to accomplish the task and to sometimes expand capabilities. The problem is when the latter becomes the obsession.

I've told this story a few times here on the forum but I have a couple of friends with that are by all means completely bad ass photographers. One of them is an old school guy and one day I was complaining about my gear. I said something along the lines of 'my lens sucks' or something like that. Boy I am telling you what. He didn't hold back. He was brutal. "Your lens doesn't suck! YOU SUCK!" He then proceed to tell me a story. Back in the heyday of National Geographic he went on an around the world trip with a film camera (before digital was in I guess). Before he left the airport in Los Angeles he loaded up a roll of 36 exposure film and off he went. Quite a while later (maybe even a few months) he came back home and one of the editors from National Geo wanted to see his shots. So he rolled up the film in his camera and handed it over.

The Nat Geo guy was just dumbfounded. "You mean that's it!? What the %^&#^ is wrong with you?!" but they developed an unfinished roll of 36 exposure film and you know what... he got 3 shots off that one roll printed in the magazine.

I then got what could be mildly be called a lecture about 'quit b****ing about your gear and start paying attention to what you're doing' albeit with a few more colorful words thrown in there.

I have other stories from him and other people that are also fantastic photographers. Almost every single time it came down to content of the photo, the lighting, the composition and all those other things.

[robert52]

I go 1 step more I think we today are too obsessed with having latest & greatest in every thing in life. I have had more gear in my life ( not only photography ) that my parents ie better cards house etc & am I really better off no. Also too many people are living on the never never with money. Yes its good to have new / better gear but ONLY if you can afford it. I guess this is part of the reason why I buy cameras lens cars etc 2nd hand
I came to the relativity with new gear does it make me a better photographer / sports etc person answer no

[cmar]

One of the reasons I like Pentax is because traditionally they didn't continually update and self obsolete their own stuff, unlike some manufacturers. Still made lenses with screw drive - excellent one less thing to break, in camera stabilisation ditto, haven't changed their mount since the 70's- excellent, most of their upmarket lens designs went back 20 years or more, solid well designed optics, metal construction - no problem for me, they were good then, and still good now.
Other examples exist, a Porsche is still recognisably a Porche, and has looked like a Porsche for 50 odd years, same thing a Landrover, same thing a Landcruiser. Or if we are sticking to photography a Lecia is an excellent example.
I hate change just for the sake of change, I want to see a real improvement, before I buy, not just an incremental one.

[Rondec]

If you want the gear and can afford it, there isn't any problem, is there? I warrant that most full frame cameras are actually sold to hobby photographers, not professionals. But the same is probably true for skiing equipment and fishing gear, etc. Many hobbies are expensive and photography isn't nearly as expensive as some others that are out there.

The bigger questions have to do with budget and with what gives you enjoyment.

[monochrome]

If you want the gear and can afford it, there isn't any problem, is there? I warrant that most full frame cameras are actually sold to hobby photographers, not professionals. But the same is probably true for skiing equipment and fishing gear, etc. Many hobbies are expensive and photography isn't nearly as expensive as some others that are out there.

The bigger questions have to do with budget and with what gives you enjoyment.

Most people don't budget.

It is important to make intentional decisions about consumer items bought for enjoyment. Money spent is money not saved for the future, but saving and self-denial can be as obsessive as gear acquisition.

Think about what you want and why you want it, and what you are willing (responsibly able) to spend, then actively seek it. In many ways intentional spending is defined by what you intentionally don't spend.

[mohb]

In your world, a dead car is as good as a working one because you are going to take the bus anyway

I don'tt drive so the 'deadness' of cars has no relevance to me - is this an objective or subjective view?

[Rondec]

Most people don't budget.

It is important to make intentional decisions about consumer items bought for enjoyment. Money spent is money not saved for the future, but saving and self-denial can be as obsessive as gear acquisition.

Think about what you want and why you want it, and what you are willing (responsibly able) to spend, then actively seek it. In many ways intentional spending is defined by what you intentionally don't spend.

I suppose. But I do budget and save for the future and I have very few hobbies other than photography. But then people are making me feel guilty for buying expensive lenses and camera bodies that I don't really need.

[BigMackCam]

Folks, I've had to delete a couple of messages that were getting personal. Please keep it friendly. Thanks

[Sailor]

This sort of discussion has been going on since I got my first SLR (a Pentax MX) at the end of 1978 (and doubtless well before that). Prior to getting the camera (it was a Christmas present from my parents), I picked up a photography primer (title long forgotten) that contained a short anecdote that's stuck with me all these years. Here is my paraphrased version:

A young man, who was a passionate photographer with a simple camera, walked into a camera store and asked the proprietor to sell him a camera that would let him take better pictures than his current one. The proprietor, a man of the old school, asked to see examples of his photos before suggesting a particular make or type. The store owner was stunned by the aesthetic and technical quality of the young man's efforts. So when the young man asked again, "sell me a camera that will help me make better pictures", the proprietor replied: "I can't sell you a camera that will produce photos better than these, but I can sell you one that will make it easier to make photos this good."

I've always thought this little anecdote summed up nicely the relationship between photographic technology and photographic excellence.

Jer

[redcat]

"I can't sell you a camera that will produce photos better than these, but I can sell you one that will make it easier to make photos this good."

totally agree, with the newest techno, it's a lot easier to get sharp, in focus photo. On some camera, "eye-focus" is already a feature, no more struggle to get the closest eye in focus !

[monochrome]

I suppose. But I do budget and save for the future and I have very few hobbies other than photography. But then people are making me feel guilty for buying expensive lenses and camera bodies that I don't really need.

I didn't mean to infer I was addressing you personally.

I suppose we don't really need almost anything we have, beginning with a dishwasher. It's just choices. I have one television and a lot of cameras and lenses.

[noelpolar]

I have one television .

I could do that, but nobody builds one room houses anymore.