Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
01-10-2013, 12:54 PM   #76
Veteran Member
Laurentiu Cristofor's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: WA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,044
QuoteOriginally posted by snake Quote
I don't see your point.

Fuji is aiming to be #3 in the world right now and it looks like they soon will be. They did it by reinventing themselves, proving that no camera company is fixed or resigned to a fate set decades ago, like Pentax. From what I've been reading, Fuji made $100+ million alone from the X100.
What companies are aiming for has nothing to do with reality. All companies are aiming to be at the top. Fuji has definitely got some attention from enthusiasts, but their market share is rather insignificant - their cameras don't even show in the top MILC sellers. They are closer to Pentax than they are to Olympus/Panasonic/Sony.

01-14-2013, 01:47 PM   #77
Senior Member
Reliant K1000's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: BC - On the 49th parallel
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 232
I wonder if other Canadians will chime in here...I find that since we have a major chain here on the west coast that carries Pentax (London Drugs) it's not quite as bad a phenomenon as it is elsewhere. Availability is OK, thanks to them, but certainly Pentax is not as ubiquitous as others.

Even in the film days you were seen to be a bit of an also-ran if you shot with a Pentax rather than a Nikon or Canon. This divide has only increased since the digital era. But give them their due, I think they're getting more on track now that Ricoh has taken the helm, and I'm hopeful that they can elevate Pentax a bit more.

But I don't think that they ever will be as beloved by the general public as a Canon or Nikon. Which is fine, really - I just don't want them to leave the scene altogether!
01-14-2013, 09:55 PM   #78
Veteran Member
zoolander's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Gold Coast
Photos: Albums
Posts: 337
Another point I forgot to mention before with regard to Pentax losing market share has to do with lenses - this is just my opinion and perception of the situation.

Lenses in the past and today seem to be a major motivating factor for professionals. I've seen some old school Canon lenses (but more-so modern lenses ) which are just huge ! A lot of Canon lenses are enormous, they have huge and shiny front elements and are impressive engineering marvels despite some of them having average resolution (according to Photozone).

This is the bling effect, huge prime and zoom lenses the size of pickle jars and drainage pipes, that announce: " look at me, I'm freaking huge and beautiful ! " . They may not be the greatest optically but they'll make a pro photographer feel and look more professional.

If a pro turns up to a shoot with an itsy-bitsy-teeny-weeny lenses, then he/she (mainly he) won't look like a professional should - and the Canon guys will snicker at him ! I am assuming that the "Bling" effect is largely governed by the "small p**is" syndrome. It kind of reminds me of a TV episode of "Just Shoot Me" where the magazine photographer Elliot is mocked for having huge lenses because of his underlying masculine inadequacies, and need to over compensate.

So that being said, great big shiny lenses appeal to professionals, amateurs and hobbyists alike, and its a smart design/marketing philosophy because it makes money. In this regard, Pentax has opted for the small, compact and high quality design philosophy, because it appeals to a certain more self secure photographer who prefers convenience over making statements.

As another example: I've seen Nikon cameras in stores like the large D800 and D3 with Nikkor 50mm primes attached which make the whole outfit look stupid, because the lens looks like a toy. You can't shoot professionally like that, you better run out and get a big and chunky Sigma 50mm 1.4 !

So like I said before, Pentax needs to assert itself by releasing a series of full frame lenses: fisheye, wide angle, 12-24, 24-70, 70-200 and new primes. But I'll add: these lenses need to be huge and chunky and look disproportionately larger than the camera body. They should be beautifully crafted (perhaps with M42 styling) in either in shiny metal, or powder coated high gloss, with shiny gold rings and writing - I'm talking real bling ! Whether they're optically good or not is irrelevant, because posers are posers ! But if Pentax is an honest brand, then they should be optically excellent.


QuoteOriginally posted by snake Quote
Canon and Nikon bring quality to the table, too. To say otherwise is to be in denial.
With regard to this comment by....'snake' ....colorful name !

Look, I'll have to differ with you on that comment, based on my own research and experience. I only give props to Pentax, Canon 5dIII, Sigma, Tamron and Tokina. I am not personally in denial about Canon and Nikon, and i could tell you all about how I wish I could have thrown my Nikon into a brick wall. I could tell you about my opinions on their various models - but this is a different topic all-together.

For what its worth, the Pentax models are probably the best in class and price segment. I'm sure that Canon or Nikon could create a better camera than the Pentax models, but you'll be paying through the nose and will be duly gouged - and Canon and Nikon can get away with this !

The initial thread question being asked, is why is Pentax struggling with market share - in-spite of having great products in their respective class.

Pentax needs to do a "Canon" with its full frame camera and offer glorious and chunky lenses to improve its position in the market place, and the brands esteem with professionals. Taking risks with design philosophy like with the Marc Newson designed was a marketing mistake, they should have gone with the Sony NEX style of bling.

Its all about the bling !
01-14-2013, 11:02 PM   #79
Ash
Community Manager
Loyal Site Supporter
Ash's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Toowoomba, Queensland
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 22,695
I don't believe the bling factor is size related. Pentax has prided itself in making small, quality primes with great IQ. It's customers appreciate that. If there were a FF camera, then there would be more pros using FA Ltd lenses for their work. Pros are less interested in the size of their gear than they are with the end result. And if they can get the same result with see gear then I'm sure they would be all for it. That's where I think Pentax can make a good impact in the professional market. But those who get big heads over the size of their gear could just be manifesting their superiority complex.

01-15-2013, 05:13 AM   #80
Senior Member
em-tx's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 206
QuoteOriginally posted by Ash Quote
I don't believe the bling factor is size related. Pentax has prided itself in making small, quality primes with great IQ. It's customers appreciate that. If there were a FF camera, then there would be more pros using FA Ltd lenses for their work. Pros are less interested in the size of their gear than they are with the end result. And if they can get the same result with see gear then I'm sure they would be all for it. That's where I think Pentax can make a good impact in the professional market. But those who get big heads over the size of their gear could just be manifesting their superiority complex.
Dear Ash,
however you might have partly true - I do not completely agree with you in terms of size. I think many pros like their own spine and try to keep it healthy. I want to have pro equipment which I can travel with relatively....However read this blog from Jim Radcliffe. Have fun:
The Road Less Travelled
01-15-2013, 05:24 AM   #81
Ash
Community Manager
Loyal Site Supporter
Ash's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Toowoomba, Queensland
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 22,695
I think you're agreeing that smaller and lightweight is attractive to pros. And that's why Pentax would do well with a FF camera since the FA Ltds are already available and are such compact and succinct little dynamos of image quality.
01-15-2013, 06:17 AM   #82
Senior Member




Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Sweden
Posts: 207
Original Poster
This thread has given me this understanding so far:
Pentax - Relatively smaller and cheaper lenses, great image quality, is right there with the Canikons in terms of IQ.
Canon & Nikon - Big lenses, great image quality, expensive.
Now, there has often been a mention that the pros partly use Canikons to look cool. I think that's a very, very small reason to own the Canikons. There must be something solid about the Canikons for so many famous pros to use those brands. I am talking about people like Bryan Peterson, Joel Sartore, all the numerous Kelby training guys, David Nightingale, Kevin Kubota etc etc. Most of these are at a stage of their careers that they would gladly use Pentax if it gave them what they were after. Contrarily, although we know Pentax lenses has excellent IQ, are cheaper, the K-5's are awesome, still they don't use Pentax!!!

That brings me back to my original question: Why is Pentax neglected?
01-15-2013, 06:52 AM   #83
Senior Member




Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Sweden
Posts: 207
Original Poster
Snake, trolling requires decieving at some point. Now why in the name of photography would anyone troll at a forum like this? So no, not as far as I know.

01-15-2013, 06:54 AM   #84
Banned




Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: NY/Germany
Posts: 1,183
QuoteOriginally posted by voyager13 Quote
Snake, trolling requires decieving at some point. Now why in the name of photography would anyone troll at a forum like this? So no, not as far as I know.
Not necessarily, but it seems like you're taking unneeded shots at other companies, no amount of answers are good enoguh for you, and now, with your last post, you want to continue circling back with an essentially dead, lifeless topic where no amount of answers are good enough for you.
01-15-2013, 07:27 AM   #85
Senior Member




Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Sweden
Posts: 207
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by snake Quote
Not necessarily, but it seems like you're taking unneeded shots at other companies, no amount of answers are good enoguh for you, and now, with your last post, you want to continue circling back with an essentially dead, lifeless topic where no amount of answers are good enough for you.
Snake, you are welcome to divert your energies elsewhere on PF if you don't like this 'circling' or 'dead, lifeless topic' of my thread. No one is pushing you to participate. "Unneeded shots at other companies?" Whatever that means, I don't want to know.
01-15-2013, 08:04 AM   #86
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 25,855
I taught hundreds of student using K-1000s. Pentax just needs to let people know they are still making product. They already have some market recognition. They really need to put some cameras where people can see them. Personally I think they need to do the Apple and Sony thing, and have a few of their own stores. If you have good product that the retail stores aren't pushing, you need a place where you can walk in and Pentax is king. After Apple started doing well in their own stores, and showed how well you could do with Apple product if the counters weren't manned by Apple hating PC geeks, other stores started asking for their product. Once Apple started selling stuff themselves, the big chains realized, it wasn't Apple product that was deficient, it was the attitudes of their sales staff. Pentax is in a similar situation.
01-15-2013, 08:54 AM   #87
Pentaxian




Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Eureka, CA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,977
QuoteOriginally posted by voyager13 Quote
There must be something solid about the Canikons for so many famous pros to use those brands
Canon and Nikon make a better system camera for event shooting (i.e., sports, weddings, journalism). Event shooters require high quality fast lenses, state-of-the-art focus systems and sometimes state-of-the-art flash systems, and Nikon and Canon deliver in these areas like no one else. Pentax cameras, as is generally acknowledged, don't have state of the art flash or focus systems; nor does Pentax have as many fast lenses as Nikon and Canon. Hence Pentax has far less appeal to professionals than Nikon and Canon.

There is another factor involved here as well. Many if not most professionals have already heavily invested in a Canon or Nikon system. It would be time consuming and possibly costly to switch systems. Most pros are likely to stick with the brand they've already invested in. So if Pentax were to improve their focus and flash technology and come out with more fast glass, this would by no means guarantee that more pros would begin using Pentax. Pentax has been down this road before. In 1980, Pentax released its first and only professional camera, the LX. Despite being $200 cheaper than Nikons comparable F3, the LX did not make much of a dent. Most of the pros had already invested in a Nikon system (which back in those days was considered the gold standard for cameras and lenses). It didn't matter that Pentax made (slightly) better lenses or that LX featured superior metering technology. Once a photographer invests in a system, they often feel locked in, and they don't feel comfortable trying another system.

Pentax is neglected because professionals tend to drive the market, and pros require the high-end cameras and lenses only produced by Nikon and Canon. If you're a hobbyist looking for advice from pros via blogs, workshops, and podcasts, you'll hear a lot of talk about Nikon and Canon gear, because those are the systems pros are using. You'll also see a lot of images, particularly many of the best images (best because shot by experienced professionals), taken with Canon and Nikon cameras and lenses. Out of this emerges a kind of echo chamber which promotes Canikon at the expense of Pentax.

What is forgotton in all this is that the needs of the professional are not identical with the needs of the hobbyist, the photo enthusiast, or even the advanced amateur. Photographers who shoot landscapes, studio (or non-candid) portraits, still life, and other "artistic" orientated photography don't necessarily require super-advanced auto-focus or flash systems; some of them may not even require fast lenses (or they may not be able to afford such glass, which practically amounts to the same thing). Such photographers may be better with a Pentax system, which costs less and is more orientated to non-event, non-professional types of photography, then with the Canikon systems almost solely promoted by pros with larger bank accounts and more exacting needs.
01-15-2013, 09:07 AM   #88
Banned




Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: NY/Germany
Posts: 1,183
Also don't forget that Canon and Nikon offer pro services, have parts in stock around the world in new and used forms, have service partners, loaner programs, and so on. Pentax isn't even close here.

This is outside of the fact that Canon and Nikon make great cameras and lenses, which the OP will also not accept as a valid answer.
01-15-2013, 09:37 AM   #89
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 25,855
QuoteQuote:
This is outside of the fact that Canon and Nikon make great cameras and lenses, which the OP will also not accept as a valid answer.
Yet neither has been able to make an APS-c camera that surpasses even the 2 year old K-5 in the DxO scores. Over all, as an average of the the components DxO considers essential in a camera body, in APS-c , Pentax makes the better product. better than most Canon and Nikon full frames. So let's not even go there.
01-15-2013, 10:00 AM   #90
Banned




Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: NY/Germany
Posts: 1,183
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
Yet neither has been able to make an APS-c camera that surpasses even the 2 year old K-5 in the DxO scores. Over all, as an average of the the components DxO considers essential in a camera body, in APS-c , Pentax makes the better product. better than most Canon and Nikon full frames. So let's not even go there.
So you're only talking about bodies, while people need complete systems to actually take pictures. Systems include such things as lenses, along with support equipment and some need actual pro support, which Pentax isn't even close to offering.

This isn't a question about APS-c vs. APS-c or APS-c vs FF.

Canon and Nikon make good cameras, no matter what they are. They also make great lenses, too.

So we can go there because it's a nonsense point to bring up, more worthy of DPR. Canon and Nikon make great cameras. That's all. Pentax makes a good camera. Also, the D7000 is very close, in my testing, to the K5. I still went with the K-5, but I wouldn't find a single thing lacking if I was on a D7000.
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!
camera, pentax, pentax help, photography, products
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Why is Pentax messed up? photoman1 Photographic Industry and Professionals 28 12-13-2012 09:00 AM
Why is the K7 so terrible? or rather why am i having such a problem with it? runslikeapenguin Pentax DSLR Discussion 60 05-01-2012 01:16 PM
Macro Two Neglected Brothers 2grahamb Post Your Photos! 7 01-06-2012 04:01 PM
Green Pentax Km is not coincidence, this is why.. HermanLee Pentax News and Rumors 41 04-08-2009 06:19 AM
This is why Pentax is so amazing as a company macdaddy Post Your Photos! 3 04-19-2007 03:48 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:08 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