[cprobertson1]

An average Joe will never get the maximum performance out of Porsche or a Ferrari. So just owning a Porsche or Ferrari does not make you a performance driver. Us Pentaxians represent a small single digit percentage of the crowd out their. Unfortunate as it may be, we will carry on the legacy and longingly seek out other Pentaxians!

Indeed! A master will do more with the tools of a novice than a novice will do with a master's.

You can see where the brand-consciousness came from though - once upon a time, before the days of widely accessible reviews and databases, the only mark of a good reputation was the brand name. At some point (20th century) when capitalism really took off, we perverted the concept so that it was a mark of prestige to own a brand name item, rather than a mark of quality - though of course, the two aren't mutually exclusive.

The "problem" (though it isn't a problem for the companies producing these brands) is when the quality is high and the reputation solid - the item becomes popular. Once market dominance is established - in this case by a handful of top-contenders - the consumer can easily make the assumption that their dominance is because the products are in some way superior.

You can see why this is fallacious thinking - "of high quality" does not in any way imply "of superior quality" - but it benefits marketing forces to reinforce that conflation!

Couple this with the human instinct to boast, and we can see in very simple terms why "brand snobbishness" will be around for a long, long time... in fact, I suspect it will be around as long as "capitalism" is a thing - and even then - unless we turn to some sort of worldwide centralised manufacturing, I don't even think capitalism is a necessary ingredient for it! We've invented a behemoth concept that will be with us for generations!

---

You've actually just reminded me of a no-brand camera I bought of ali-express last year. It's a no name product - very literally - no model number, no brand... just a mirrorless, interchangeable lens camera with an M42 mount, and some adapters for the common brands (Pentax-K mount adapter included! Colour me impressed!)

It was a terrible camera - the sensor was on squint, so you never got an even image field - there was always a gradient across it. The construction was questionable, the image quality was best described as "weird", there was permanent vignetting, it consistently took 3 seconds to save any image, the mode-setting dial was "squiggly", the interface was insane, and the only EXIF data it could save was the time, which was consistently wrong, and occasionally featured Chinese characters.


So, when I said "A master will do more with the tools of a novice than a novice will do with a master's." - I really hadn't thought of this little guy... Because both a master AND a novice would definitely benefit from using a brand-name camera over this little guy... with the notable exception of lomo photographers, who would definitely have fun with the "character" of this... thing!

It stopped working a while back - I'll see if I can get it working again because it's enough of an oddity that I should definitely share it!

[photoptimist]

Couple this with the human instinct to boast, and we can see in very simple terms why "brand snobbishness" will be around for a long, long time... in fact, I suspect it will be around as long as "capitalism" is a thing - and even then - unless we turn to some sort of worldwide centralised manufacturing, I don't even think capitalism is a necessary ingredient for it! We've invented a behemoth concept that will be with us for generations!

Brand snobbishness is much older the capitalism.

I'm sure it dates back to when Bob and Joe made sharp sticks for the tribe. Some thought Bob made the best sharp sticks and would make snarky "get a real sharp stick" remarks to users of Joe's sticks.

[luckylu]

So advertising, brand, legacy (i.e. parents and grandparents had one or returning to SLR), capitalism or maybe just the 3 P's (Price Prestige or Practicality) many things make up why people buy things. I was at work the other day and one of my colleagues was signing up for a photography course she had just bought her first DSLR. Conversation went like this

"So which one did you buy?"

"A Canon... erm I think yes a Canon"

" So what made you step into DSLR"

"well I took this picture on my phone"... and she showed me her screensaver of a pic which she took at lake Como "I want to get into it now"

"good choice of camera" I said "why Canon"

"well Amazon had a prime daily deal on so I just got it"

I wonder if it was a Pentax whether she would have bought it. after further discussion she didn't even realise that it had interchangeable lenses.

Knowing Paula I think fairly soon there will be a pristine used Canon for sale, I wonder how many others buy their first DSLRs and never then invest into the brand buying lenses and accessories where the money really is for the manufacturers. It would be interesting to know what %age of buyers go on to buy the lucrative "add ons". Pentax can survive on the lens sales for their cameras I'm sure.
and with buyer's like Paula and even Jessops closing stores in the UK,brick and mortar presence is becoming less important.

On a recent trip to London I spent around 2 hours near tower bridge and the tower of London. I saw 4 DSLR's and one of them was a Pentax (not including my K-70)however there were countless people taking pictures on other devices.

[Alex645]

Brand snobbishness is much older the capitalism.

I'm sure it dates back to when Bob and Joe made sharp sticks for the tribe. Some thought Bob made the best sharp sticks and would make snarky "get a real sharp stick" remarks to users of Joe's sticks.

But Joe's wife poisoned Bob to eliminate the competition so everyone had to use Joe's sticks....until Bob's wife pushed Joe's wife off a cliff and married Joe and taught him how to make a sharper stick....but Joe was lazy and wouldn't listen to her and it was faster and easier to make an okay stick with his monopoly. He also forbade his new wife from gathering mushrooms....

[photoptimist]

But Joe's wife poisoned Bob to eliminate the competition so everyone had to use Joe's sticks....until Bob's wife pushed Joe's wife off a cliff and married Joe and taught him how to make a sharper stick....but Joe was lazy and wouldn't listen to her and it was faster and easier to make an okay stick with his monopoly. He also forbade his new wife from gathering mushrooms....

LOL!

And that was the first mono-pole-y in the history of humanity!

[Leumas]

LOL!

And that was the first mono-pole-y in the history of humanity!

I see what you did there

[totsmuyco]

But Joe's wife poisoned Bob to eliminate the competition so everyone had to use Joe's sticks....until Bob's wife pushed Joe's wife off a cliff and married Joe and taught him how to make a sharper stick....but Joe was lazy and wouldn't listen to her and it was faster and easier to make an okay stick with his monopoly. He also forbade his new wife from gathering mushrooms....

Great story. Though I'm confused if it's a happy ending or not. LoLs!!!

[Alex645]

Great story. Though I'm confused if it's a happy ending or not. LoLs!!!

Absolutely happy ending for Joe. Tragic ending for Bob and Joe's first wife. Joe's second wife (Bob's wife) couldn't complain....other than sticking around with Joe became dull.

The Disney version is that Bob monopolized the market with sharp sticks, Joe developed the sling shot, and the wives remained nameless. Joe was killed in the development of the sling shot when he pulled the sling the wrong way and shot himself in the face. Joe's wife (her name was Woman) buried the world's first sling shot with Joe, left the tribe, and joined a Ludite cult. Bob's wife (her name was also Woman) helped Bob's success by repairing sharp sticks in the evening and eventually demanded Bob to call her by her name, Eve. And they all lived happily EVEr after.

[totsmuyco]

Absolutely happy ending for Joe. Tragic ending for Bob and Joe's first wife. Joe's second wife (Bob's wife) couldn't complain....other than sticking around with Joe became dull.

The Disney version is that Bob monopolized the market with sharp sticks, Joe developed the sling shot, and the wives remained nameless. Joe was killed in the development of the sling shot when he pulled the sling the wrong way and shot himself in the face. Joe's wife (her name was Woman) buried the world's first sling shot with Joe, left the tribe, and joined a Ludite cult. Bob's wife (her name was also Woman) helped Bob's success by repairing sharp sticks in the evening and eventually demanded Bob to call her by her name, Eve. And they all lived happily EVEr after.

Shot himself the wrong way... Now this a happy ending.

[Mikesul]

I am pretty sure that I have never, in 60 years of photography, seen another Pentax User.

[totsmuyco]

Sixty years of photography and you've never seen another Pentaxian. That is sad @Mikesul. At least I've met about 8 when I went to France last July. Though I've never talked to any of them. I know there are about 5 of us here in Iloilo City. I've met one in Facebook and one recognized my gear when I was out on a shoot and introduced himself as a Pentax user.

[Cerebum]

Sixty years of photography and you've never seen another Pentaxian. That is sad @Mikesul. At least I've met about 8 when I went to France last July. Though I've never talked to any of them. I know there are about 5 of us here in Iloilo City. I've met one in Facebook and one recognized my gear when I was out on a shoot and introduced himself as a Pentax user.

We have three in Lancaster photographic society positively common

[cprobertson1]

Brand snobbishness is much older the capitalism.

I'm sure it dates back to when Bob and Joe made sharp sticks for the tribe. Some thought Bob made the best sharp sticks and would make snarky "get a real sharp stick" remarks to users of Joe's sticks.

Ah, the Bobians and the Joeians didn't use branded sticks though - they couldn't see the point in it!

Actually, I had forgotten about "branding" in the traditional sense which was used on cattle - first instance of branding with a symbol or name was used by the Egyptians in 2700 BCE to indicate ownership, and to deter thievery.

To quote wikipedia, "However, the term has been extended to mean a strategic personality for a product or company, so that "brand" now suggests the values and promises that a consumer may perceive and buy into."

Thinking about it historically, you can quite easily see why branding could evolve into it's current state - Bobhmet and Joebari were Egyptian landowners in the 2700's and everybody thought Bobhmet's cows where the shiz, so Joebari upped his game and bought a few of them and bred them with his stock to make supercattle that could feed twice as many labourers.

That is why the 2700's coincided with when they started to really get into their pyramid building. Supercattle. Honest! That's how it happened. Only Joebari cattle could have done this: get yours today! Labourers sold separately.

Sorry for the confusion, incidentally, when I said 20th century, I first of all, should have said 19th century - when the brands of various things got taken up by the marketing machine and turned into their current capitalist format - I didn't mean snobbishness around a particular make wasn't around before - more that it's current incarnation based around a corporate entity, rather than an individual person, started then. :P

Joebari and Bobhmet merged incidentally - they married into the family of a third farmer, some old guy called MacDonald? Old MacDonald they called him - he had a farm, and on that farm he had some supercattle, if the legends are true. They now serve a few million supercattle daily.

---

So advertising, brand, legacy (i.e. parents and grandparents had one or returning to SLR), capitalism or maybe just the 3 P's (Price Prestige or Practicality) many things make up why people buy things. I was at work the other day and one of my colleagues was signing up for a photography course she had just bought her first DSLR. Conversation went like this

"So which one did you buy?"

"A Canon... erm I think yes a Canon"

" So what made you step into DSLR"

"well I took this picture on my phone"... and she showed me her screensaver of a pic which she took at lake Como "I want to get into it now"

"good choice of camera" I said "why Canon"

"well Amazon had a prime daily deal on so I just got it"

I wonder if it was a Pentax whether she would have bought it. after further discussion she didn't even realise that it had interchangeable lenses.

Knowing Paula I think fairly soon there will be a pristine used Canon for sale, I wonder how many others buy their first DSLRs and never then invest into the brand buying lenses and accessories where the money really is for the manufacturers. It would be interesting to know what %age of buyers go on to buy the lucrative "add ons". Pentax can survive on the lens sales for their cameras I'm sure.
and with buyer's like Paula and even Jessops closing stores in the UK,brick and mortar presence is becoming less important.

On a recent trip to London I spent around 2 hours near tower bridge and the tower of London. I saw 4 DSLR's and one of them was a Pentax (not including my K-70)however there were countless people taking pictures on other devices.

YOU just made me realise! The German Tank Problem!

It can apply to Pentaxians viewed in the wild! We can statistically determine whether or not we are in fact rare! Bayesian analysis to the rescue!

You've raised an interesting point with Paula - which conveniently brings us round full circle

Brand Awareness: she's displayed, at the very least, brand recognition - "here are some brands - I know that one - so I'm going with it". In this case, she's typed in "camera", seen "Canon" and said "Ah-ha! I've heard of that, they make good cameras!" and forked out for it.

There's actually an alternative route called "brand recall" where you don't search, but go straight for the brand: "I have a need for a camera, Canon can fulfil that need - I'll search for a Canon". This doesn't appear to have happened in this case (as she replied "I saw it in a flash deal" rather than "I have heard Canon are good") - I mention it merely as an alternative route that demonstrates how deeply entrenched marketing can become in the consumer.

I'd actually strongly recommend reading through the wikipedia page on Branding, as it gives a fascinating insight into the marketing machine and it's various methods - and pretty much covers everything I've said before more eloquently than my rambling has



Oops, I menat to say, btw! Paula seems to have at least a budding interest in photography, even if it is in a naive kind of way - I'd look up a few local photography clubs and pass the details onto her: we all have to start somewhere! Who knows, maybe it might even prevent a near-pristine Canon going on sale at some point! xD

[Serkevan]

I found myself drawn inexplicably to Pentax despite three people telling me "Go Canon", "Go Nikon" and "I'd tell you to go Sony, but you've already have Canon glass at home* so go Canon". Turned out most of my childhood memories of me or my parents using a camera, were of this...


In the end, the decision was made for other reasons, but having no clue about what to buy, I probably wouldn't have even thought of Pentax without some pervasive, half-forgotten memories. Luckily I did so it all turned out okay... although I'm sure I would have been happy with Canon or Nikon as well**.


*A "My lenses are mine" was heard immediately after
**My wallet probably wouldn't have, though .

[Archimedes the Dog]

A coworker in another part of our company today posted a couple shots taken with a K-1 MkII. The company isn't that big, either, so it's a startling event for me.