[Spock]

Looking at old brochures for Pentax lenses and accessories leads me to believe that Pentax has never had a proper plan for developing and marketing it's 35mm and later digital SLR K-mount systems.

Here are a few examples of what I mean:

The LX - launched in 1980 was intended to be a system camera and indeed remained in production until 2000 - and yet it was never compatible with the A-lenses (or many A-series accessories) that were launched not long after the LX. Strange?

You'd think that at some point Pentax would have updated the LX with a 'LX Super' or something like that - but it never happened.

What camera then, were the expensive and exquisite lenses such as the A* 300/4 designed to be used with? Surely not the Super Program / Super A - which was really a mid-range, not a high-end camera.

Going one step further, the LX was advertised as a dust and moisture sealed camera (much like the K10/K20 and K7 are today) and yet there were never any weather-sealed lenses available until very recently. What then was the point of adding unnecessary expense to the LX?

Going back to the Super Program / Super A - it was replaced by the SFX(n)/SF1(n) which, while nice cameras were not as 'professional' and were lacking in some features when compared to its predecessor. (And still the A-series lenses remained in production - even though they could not be autofocussed on the new cameras).

I could go on with many more examples (such as the ill-fated, ME-F) but I'm sure other long-term Pentax users will see where I'm coming from.

Is it just me who wonders who was steering Pentax during those years - and set the stage for the problems Pentax is having being taken seriously by professional photographers these days?

[séamuis]

I could go on with many more examples (such as the ill-fated, ME-F) but I'm sure other long-term Pentax users will see where I'm coming from.

why was the ME F ill-fated? I don't think you quite understand the point of the ME F back then. it wasn't designed to bring AF to Pentax with a specific system. it was designed as a 'guinea pig' of sorts. a test of the system and more importantly to test the appeal of AF with consumers at the time. and designed to bring recognition and intrigue to Pentax. it was, what it was. in lens motors didn't make much sense then and for a lot of reasons doesn't make much sense now. it did what it was supposed to do, and works quite well, still to this day. in good light, its rather fast and accurate. a great camera, the first to give us the 'green hexagon' focus confirmation.

[Spock]

why was the ME F ill-fated? I don't think you quite understand the point of the ME F back then. it wasn't designed to bring AF to Pentax with a specific system. it was designed as a 'guinea pig' of sorts. a test of the system and more importantly to test the appeal of AF with consumers at the time. and designed to bring recognition and intrigue to Pentax. it was, what it was. in lens motors didn't make much sense then and for a lot of reasons doesn't make much sense now. it did what it was supposed to do, and works quite well, still to this day. in good light, its rather fast and accurate. a great camera, the first to give us the 'green hexagon' focus confirmation.

Okay fair enough - 'ill-fated' probably wasn't the best way of describing the ME-F - and I didn't really mean it that way. I was actually quite intrigued and impressed by the ME-F myself - both at the time and now.

What I was trying to illustrate (and perhaps the ME-F wasn't the best example) is that there seems to have been a lack of a logical progression in terms of building up the Pentax system in the K-mount era.

The fact remains, we had a professional camera (LX) that couldn't make full use of the available lenses (A & F) and which in turn didn't match the environmental sealing construction of the LX.

There were different winders, motors, remotes, etc for LX, MX, A-series and SF-series - none of which seemed to offer as much forward or backwards compatibility as they might have.

For example, any reason why the MX and ME had different winders? You'd be hard pressed to tell the winders apart if you had them side by side and yet they were completely incompatible and probably shared few common parts - despite being designed for cameras that released at the same time.

[séamuis]

because they were different camera bodies. the MX wasn't really an 'M series' camera as much as a camera that was similar in size. the MX shared virtually no components with the rest of the M series and as far as I know, the last fully mechanical body Pentax produced. the rest of the M series shared the winder. heck even into the 'Program' series the ME and MEII winders were useable.

the MX was a standalone mechanical professional system. the ME series was a series of consumer bodies. its really not fair to count the MX with the rest of the series. it was an injection of miniaturization into the last of a dying breed.

in the case of the LX and A lenses. well I honestly think that Pentax was following the right path. im sure that for working professionals in 1980, the things that AE offered were seen more as gimmicks than anything else. the same way AF would likely have been seen at the time. the LX was a serious "pro" system and it needed to be marketed that way. it had the only 'auto' function it need. Av. and it used an extremely unique and accurate metering system for it. why did they need to upgrade the LX with a KA bayonet and all that came with it? it would have been detrimental to the systems image and the people using it would likely not have replaced their lenses with A series anyhow.

---

Last edited by séamuis; 09-02-2009 at 09:59 AM.