[Digitalis]

Where as I know many shooters, who bought on brand reputation rather than thier actual needs.

oh man so do I, I'd say at least 70% of the people I work with bought their expensive cameras from the " Big three" out of necessity to be seen as professional than any actual desire to work with that brand*.

They see me working with my little but lovely all metal FA limited lenses, some of my colleagues have used my cameras and took delight in how well crafted the lenses and cameras were. I'll never forget the moment of delight from one of my colleagues when they discovered the built in lens hood on the FA77.

you don't pay much attention to mass marketing campaigns

Probably why Pentax hasn't been particularly successful...Pentax marketing? what's that??

* In a similar fashion to Pentax owners, Leicaphiles seem to be pretty happy with their choices....and silently judging others for theirs.

---

Last edited by Digitalis; 01-10-2022 at 02:18 PM.

[normhead]

Probably why Pentax hasn't been particularly successful...Pentax marketing? what what that??

The reason why Pentax isn't successful probably goes deeper than that. For example, comparing he K-3iii to the D500. As Pentax's attempt to catch up with this camera, they are 5 years late and a dollar short. The 5 years late, in that they are catching up with 5 year old tech and the dollar short, in the there's no tilting rear screen. So there are still features to the D500 I would like to have, even as a Pentax shooter..

Other companies are much more likely to be out in front with a wow factor that appeals to new buyers. There is definitely a lack of marketing, but that may be a function of a less than aggressive development of wow factor products that could be effectively marketed. What would be their D500 approach? "We almost caught up with the D500 but not quite?" The Pentax approach is "slow and steady" hoping for rabbit and the turtle type outcomes. With the heavy investment of major players in mirrorless technology there's a chance that will be a winning formula long term. Most have gone down the mirrorless rabbit hole. That may be a unique opportunity for Pentax.

Pentax's focus on IQ will keep them in the game. However, if their strategy does pay off, it won't be for years. People may get tired of spending their whole lives looking at digital images. OVF instead of EVF is the ace up the sleeve when that happens, if it happens. As I said, it's a gamble.

[AfterPentax Mark II]

Most of the photographers I actually talk to are familiar with their cameras and know why their brand of choice suits them. Pentax shooters are no different. The only difference being that Pentax shooters refused to listen to the big brand marketing and made a somewhat independent decision. Where as I know many shooters, who bought on brand reputation rather than thier actual needs. In fact I'v talked to many who's expressed reason for buying the camera they did was based on attributes available in higher end models that they will never buy.

If you bought Pentax, you didn't listen to the idiots at DPR, you don't pay much attention to mass marketing campaigns, you are petty decent t figuring out what you need, and where you can get it for a decent price. I guess that makes us different from 95% of people who buy cameras. Most simply don't care to do independent evaluation. They go with masses.

When I bought my first Pentax it was due to their "mass" marketing at the time. Those lovely small camera's as opposed to the horrific heavy Canon's they wanted to sell me. And that cute M 50mm F1.7. ME, ME Super and Super A with that beautiful black 50mm f1.4. They had brilliant flyers at the time and were mentioned a lot in periodicals. The only reason that I still buy Pentax branded camera's is that I thought I would/could use my old lenses. But that turned out to be more difficult that I thought, mostly because of the very small APS-C viewfinder and the hassle using the green button. Gone are the days of those lovely small camera's. They are huge now. Only one that comes a bit near is the KP. That I still buy Pentax branded gear is based on the mistake I made when buying my first DSLR. The only camera that I think is worth the Pentax brand is the K-01, because that is really Pentax, being different from all the others like Pentax always was and stood for.

[normhead]

When I first bought Pentax, they were the only ones with through the lens metering, and I hardly consider that a mistake. As for huge lenses.... my goodness. Do you even read the catalogue? 31 ltd, 43ltd, 40xs, 77 ltd., more APS-c designed lenses than any other company?

If I've noticed one thing about people critical of Pentax, a very few have technical needs that go beyond current tech. although there are much fewer of those now that the K-3iii is out. The majority won't know what they've got until it's gone. What Pentax does different, they take for granted. What others do different, they cherish.

I get so tired of the endless parade of people trying to claim that using old lenses with adapters is as good as native shooting. It can't be, you always have to deal with the adapter. Two things to look after instead of one. Of course if you are talking screw mount lenses, then it's an equal playing field. Then everyone has to use an adapter.

There aren't a lot of cameras out there that can match a K-1 in live view the tilting back screen with pixel shift for IQ and manual focus. A K-1 in pixels shift out resolves even the new 42MP cameras. And using live view, it accurately allows defining your DoF and shifting the focal plane, which you can see moving as you manually focus the lens. I'm not sure how it gets better than that.

---

Last edited by normhead; 01-10-2022 at 09:11 AM.

[mbukal]

The reason why Pentax isn't successful probably goes deeper than that. For example, comparing he K-3iii to the D500. As Pentax's attempt to catch up with this camera, they are 5 years late and a dollar short. The 5 years late, in that they are catching up with 5 year old tech and the dollar short, in the there's no tilting rear screen. So there are still features to the D500 I would like to have, even as a Pentax shooter..

Other companies are much more likely to be out in front with a wow factor that appeals to new buyers. There is definitely a lack of marketing, but that may be a function of a less than aggressive development of wow factor products that could be effectively marketed. What would be their D500 approach? "We almost caught up with the D500 but not quite?" The Pentax approach is "slow and steady" hoping for rabbit and the turtle type outcomes. With the heavy investment of major players in mirrorless technology there's a chance that will be a winning formula long term. Most have gone down the mirrorless rabbit hole. That may be a unique opportunity for Pentax.

Pentax's focus on IQ will keep them in the game. However, if their strategy does pay off, it won't be for years. People may get tired of spending their whole lives looking at digital images. OVF instead of EVF is the ace up the sleeve when that happens, if it happens. As I said, it's a gamble.

yes, all right, but they (canikosony) were at the time of the discontinuation of DSLR technology the level that Pentax reached and not completely after a few years as they left that level reached (caf / memory card write speed / issue speed new lenses / distribution sales and service network), if they (canikosony) return to the abandoned level of DSLR they will continue at the already high level plus experience from the "abandoned field",
Pentax has a bright future ahead only if old and especially new users do not feel that Pentax is lagging behind and chasing the competition and relies mostly on the old glory of M / A / F / FA lenses, and some individual characteristics that the competition does not have

hanging out with amateur photography friends like me (who don’t make a living from photography) I convinced myself a few of them switched from the started with they Pentax on Nikon or Canon and less to Sony, for the reasons mentioned above, here’s the last I talked to him about switching from Pentax to Sony (this time luckily for me because he will sell me DFA28-105), I was unlucky that someone in the last 4 years boasted that he switched from canikosony to Pentax to have more of us and I have a feeling that I am the last Mohican among photographic acquaintances who continues to use Pentax (satisfied and happy last Mohican)

[normhead]

Pentax has a bright future ahead only if old and especially new users do not feel that Pentax is lagging behind and chasing the competition and relies mostly on the old glory of M / A / F / FA lenses,

You do understand that with the D FA* 50 1.14 and D FA* 85 1.4 Pentax has released some best in class optics? So many people in their statements minimize the value of what Pentax does. Part of that is people who see, Pentax as "chasing" when they have many features, astro-tracer, pixel shift, IBIS etc. for which many are "chasing" Pentax. And in the are of the K-3iii viewfinder, pixel shift etc. they aren't even trying to catch up. the biggest tool of the propagandist is always, ignore what the other guys sucks at, ignore what the brand you dismiss does better than the others. If technical issues were an issue, the DR of Canon cameras should have wiped them out yeras ago. Finally with the Z6 they get into the game. That's not what it's about. But they had great AF and buffers in their high end models and that kept them in the game. Not by "chasing" someone else. By doing well what they did well. Pentax users are probably the least educated in what their camera does well, in these types of discussion. And that's not Pentax's fault. Their current videos are excellent.

The first rule of Pentax antagonists is, never mention the things Pentax does well. And if you do mention them in passing, make them sound un-important. Make other things sound more important. What value is fast FPS and AF to a landscape shooter? Yet what do they criticize about Pentax?

[mbukal]

I, as a long-term user, understand! no one minimizes Pentax's progress, and these lenses are dedicated lenses and the newcomer will certainly not buy them for a start, but Pentax does not have the range that existed in the FA series with a variable aperture that would be useful for any new user to start / start eg: 24-90 / 28-80 / 80-200 / 80-320 or a new one that Pentax has never had in its FA range 28-125 / 24-105,
how can someone new be attracted to buy to start K1 (ll) + DFA * 50 / 1.5 + DFA * + 85 / 1.4 + DFA * 70-200 / 2.8 (DFA 24-70 / 2.8 + DFA 70-210 / 4 in others systems have a cheaper equivalent, and the original is not much more expensive)

[Lord Lucan]

A TRUE noncorformist doesn't want to be noncorformist so much as simply is noncomformist!

Makes me think of Russell's Paradox which says (in short) that things that do not belong in a group do in fact belong to the group of things defined as things that do not belong in a group. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_paradox#Informal_presentation

[normhead]

First of all, for the D FA*50 and D FA*85, they don't have equivalent, they have inferior.

FA series with a variable aperture that would be useful for any new user to start / start eg: 24-90 / 28-80 / 80-200 / 80-320 or a new one that Pentax has never had in its FA range 28-125 / 24-105,

They have the DA 28-105. They still have all the old FA. I still have my FA 35-90, although I don't use it much because the DA 28-105 is so much better, And carrying a little Sigma 24mm AF macro is convenient if you think you need 24mm. As for the 80-320... the DA 55-300 PLM is best in class.

The pattern continues, ignore what Pentax has done really well, sell half truths and fictions to support the notion that to shoot Pentax you have to punish yourself. Those of us who have proved that to be untrue will always object.

My carrying kit is the K-3, 55-300, DA 16-85 or DA 18-135, and DA*55 1.4. I lack exactly nothing I'd actually pay for. For the K-1 Sigma 24 macro, D FA 28-105, Rokinon 14 28, DA*200, DA*60-250. Tamron 300 2.8 (or DA*300ƒ/4) with the 1.7x AF adapter of HD DA 1.4. Anything I don't have is too heavy for me to carry. Not to mention that the DA 55-300 works acceptably well with a few caveats on the K-1 for a light weight fast focussing kit that can't be matched on any brand.

People seriously need to value what they have, instead of focusing on what they think they could take advantage of. I own 22 Pentax compatible lenses most of which I rarely use. Any lens I'd buy now would spend most of it's life in my lens cabinet.

Pentax has done a really good job of making excellent consumer grade glass and covers that with the most important FF pro glass, even if they don't cover every niche. Currently, anything they release is top shelf. If they aren't currently releasing it, there's something there you can use. Can't afford the D FA*50 1.4? D FA 50 macro, FA 50 1.4, DA*55 1.4, DA 50 1.8. Some folks seriously need to study the catalogue.

In medium telephoto. D FA* 70-200, or DA*60-250, or DA* 200, or DA 55-300, or FA 80-320 or FA*80-200, or D FA 70-210, or F 70-210 or D FA 100 macro with TCs. Seriously? What gives?

10 of those lenses are still in production.

I point these things out for the record. I wouldn't expect anyone who would make such a statement to change their mind.

[Crooski]

And don't forget Pentax users have the Pentax forum

[mbukal]

sir normhead just claim what I said, nothing else, that Pentax still lives on the old glory of FA lenses + new in small quantities and very slow release time which is not enough to attract new users and as far as I personally see it to keep most of the old ones, there are around me as the last Mohicans, why do you intentionally mix FA / DFA lenses with DA lenses, those lenses are not for the same format, I can use but with big compromises, I repeat that it is not, I can not put DA 55-300 on my K1 and be happy because I can't use it completely as a whole, I have to use FA 80-320 (silver) with a compromise known to me both in optics and focusing, because I have no alternative, ie I have no DFA in that class / range, I repeat that it is by no means YES 55-300 which I have successfully used in APSC format and I know its capabilities, as I used DA17-70 / 4 in APSC but again I repeat such a range or at least approximate I do not have in FF, mixing APSC format which has a super covered range of 11mm to 300mm with FF format that I talk about all the time just trying to deny my claim but you successfully confirm what I am writing

[normhead]

And don't forget Pentax users have the Pentax forum

For people like me who can struggle with user manuals.. that is actually really important.

[mbukal]

And don't forget Pentax users have the Pentax forum

Of course, among other things, and because of him I am still happy to use Pentax photo equipment, members of the Pentax forum are negligible users in the total number of users of Pentax equipment

[normhead]

you just claim what I said, nothing else, that Pentax still lives on the old glory of FA lenses + new in small quantities and very slow release time which is not enough to attract new users and as far as I personally see it to keep most of the old ones, there are around me as the last Mohicans, why do you intentionally mix FA / DFA lenses with DA lenses, those lenses are not for the same format, I can use but with big compromises, I repeat that it is not, I can not put DA 55-300 on my K1 and be happy because I can't use it completely as a whole, I have to use FA 80-320 (silver) with a compromise known to me both in optics and focusing, because I have no alternative, ie I have no DFA in that class / range, I repeat that it is by no means YES 55-300 which I have successfully used in APSC format and I know its capabilities, as I used DA17-70 / 4 in APSC but again I repeat such a range or at least approximate I do not have in FF, mixing APSC format which has a super covered range of 11mm to 300mm with FF formatom that I talk about all the time just trying to deny my claim but you successfully confirm what I am writing

Well that is interesting stuff about you... but does it have anything to do with pentax?
Tell us what you need, we'll tell you how to live without it. The DA*60-250 was an FF patent. The flagship FF lenses are 15-30, 24-70, 70-200, D FA 150-450, that is exactly the same as 10-300 equivalent on APS-c. The complaint seems to be a desire for cheap lenses for expensive cameras. Many of us can't agree with that philosophy. Some of us wouldn't pay for the quality of lens other companies offer at cheap prices, so we'll just have to differ. Prejudice against the DA glass that can be used on FF is personal preference, not necessity. Some of those lenses are better than what the competition is selling for their low end FFs.

The fact that people may desire good lenses and at bargain basement prices in no way makes it possible. Funny how when Pentax didn't produce expensive glass, but produced compact glass that was joy to work with and carry, people complained about their IQ. Now that Pentax has made top quality glass, that compete's with anyone's in every way, they complain because they don't make enough cheap glass.

My DA 55-300 PLM is so much better than my old Sigma 70-300 on FF, you're making me laugh. It would seem the quality of the lens is unimportant, only the designation.

Before Pentax wasn't good enough because thier glass didn't hold up on the test charts. Now they are killing the test charts and people complain because they don't to make the cheap stuff. I was all up in arms about Pentax making the 28-105 instead of a 24 to 105, until I started reading the reviews of the 24-105s. That's when I started thinking, maybe this 28-105 isn't so bad.

I guess, complainers are going to complain no matter what Pentax does. It costs nothing beyond making one a slave to one's biases. Seriously, complaing about the slow release of lenses that are already out? What's that. The slow release is over, the lenses are there for you to buy. The time it took them to get released is irrelevant. It may be true that others may be happy with the low end glass released by other companies. But that's not an argument for Pentax reducing their standards. There's lots of "lenses for he way people shoot pictures, not for the test charts" lenses available second hand. Pentax can't make money in that market. Because of their shrinking market share, they are seriously over-saturated in that market.

[normhead]

4 in APSC but again I repeat such a range or at least approximate I do not have in FF, mixing APSC format which has a super covered range of 11mm to 300mm with FF formatom that I talk about all the time just trying to deny my claim but you successfully confirm what I am writing

The flagship FF lenses are 15-30, 24-70, 70-200, D FA 150-450, that is better than the 11-300 equivalent on APS-c.

How did that confirm what you are writing?

This reminding me of the false claims of some 6D shooters who couldn't admit, I got more resolution from my K-3. They too were caught up in labels. That time it was "It's FF therefore it's better" facts didn't matter, then, or apparently now.

I'm looking at the same data as everyone else.. I'm saying I'm getting along just fine. There are others saying "It's not good enough." If you look at the same data and come to different interpretations, then you have little more than a discussion of personal preferences, and those never lead to consensus.

Good luck going forward, I hope some day you'll find the contentment I have.
I have everything I need and want, with back up for everything. FA-J 18-35, FA 28-200, Sigma 8-16, FA 35-80. Old glass I can use just for fun. I'm good for whatever. D FA 28-105, DA*60-250 DA*200 for when I want serious IQ. Lots of choices at every focal length that I regularly use and fill in cheaper glass, for occasional use niches.

There are some for whom they will never be satisfied, no matter how many options are available. There's always something wrong. And the grass will always be greener on the other side of the fence. And if we only bought camera systems no-one has ever complained about, no one would buy any camera, ever.