[Billy]

I've just been reading this article on photo.net and wondered what you guys would think of the author dismissing the smaller players out of hand:

Quote:
The market leader in the professional/advanced amateur photography world is Canon. If you don't have a major investment in lenses you will probably want to buy a Canon digital SLR. The number two spot is occupied by Nikon, which is also a reasonable choice. Fuji and Kodak have made digital SLRs that accept Canon- and Nikon-mount lenses. Once you get beyond Nikon and Canon it becomes very difficult to rent lenses and the companies that make the more obscure systems don't have a large enough market share to invest enough money to build competitive bodies. Leica, Minolta, Olympus, Pentax, and Sigma are the small vendors in the digital SLR market. Unless you have an enormous investment in lenses for one of these brands the only one of these worth considering for purchase is Olympus, due to its innovative Four-Thirds system

[raz-0]

I think the first half or it is more or less valid. If you need access to a lot of lenses easily, and/or temporarily, you have to go cannon or nikon. If you need all sorts of flashes, Nikon seems to be the best supported from what I have seen shopping around.

However, the K10D is an incredible body when compared to most of the other brands. Especially if you consider the cost of the body as a legitimate concern with your budget.

For someone who makes a living with their camera, I can see the first issue being a make or break issue. For a hobbyist who will do 90% of their work with a handful of lenses, the features and cost effectiveness of a product matter more.

The recommendation of olympus because it uses the four thirds system is something I totally disagree with, but that may just be my personal bias about paying similar dollars for a smaller sensor with more noise. While 4:3 fits on your computer monitor better, I don't like the aspect ratio much, especially for portait oriented pictures.

[Lowell Goudge]

I am amazed that someone with such a closed mind actually had a thought escape.

Although I personally have a bias towards pentax DSLRs due to my past investment in pentax film cameras, I do not believe that should be the "only reason" to purchase a new pentax.

These cameras dollar for dollar have more features than the other cameras, are easy to use, and produce good images. That should be the only reason to purchase a consumer camera. What the pro's use is not relevant to some extent because they have infinite budgets, change their equipment yearly because they are hard on it, etc...

If you look at pentax, they have taken a large portion of the DSLR market, in relitively short time, and perhaps that is more to thepoint of the review. That type of review is more a "protective stance" for loss of market share to someone with a better placed product.

With respect to the 4/3 system, there is a great thread on comparing the Olympus E510 to the K10D. Aside from anything else, the reviewer has it really wrong. 4/3 systems don't fit your computer better, they fit OLD computers better. new ones are 16/9 format as are most TV screens now, which better fit a 3/2 format sensor like the ASP-C. Aside from that argument, is the cost of 4/3 lenses, especially wide angle. The product is just wrong, poorly priced and poorly performing. If anything, 4/3 is the attempt at a standard that will fail, just like BETA VCRs.

[cbustapeck]

I think that while the article has certain points, I don't agree that Pentax isn't worth considering, just because it lacks the market share. In this day and age, when you can buy repair parts and accessories for most any camera ever made, and have them shipped to the far corners of the world in mere days, a small market share means less and less.

When I bought my K100D, I considered the other cameras available on the market, and it didn't seem any better or worse than those at a similar price-point. My next camera, a K10D (due to an unfortunate incident with the K100D), seems to perform comparably to other cameras at the same price point. Sure, it's not a $3,000 camera, but you aren't paying $3,000, either.

The big selling point for me on the Pentax brand is, contrary to what the author might suggest above, the availability of lenses. Older Pentax lenses, especially the screw mount ones, are far cheaper than they ought to be. If you're willing to sacrifice a bit of speed, you can assemble an excellent collection of prime lenses for a small fraction of what they might cost in any other lens mount that you can fit on a digital camera.

[ncallender]

I've read that article before, and like most articles on photo.net, they have good content, but favor Canon and Nikon (in that order). What happened to going into a store and picking the camera body that fit you the best? Then - pick up a *good* lens or two and actually really learn how it all works. Everyone's different - I don't get why so many people try to push their gear prefs on others, but everyone does - even reviewers. Oh well.

The problem is that all the advice in that article makes great sense until you order your canon xti, get it in the mail and then find out that a) it doesn't fit your hands, b) the user controls don't align with how your brain works, c) it's too heavy/light and you don't like actually carrying it, d) the monster of a lens you bought with it is just way too big (or you bought the cheapo kit lens and can't understand why photos from your old P&S look better...)

Photogrpahy isn't about specs on paper - pick the tools that work *for you*. That's why I don't have a K10d - it's an awesome camera, but it's just too big for what I realistically want and I wouldn't carry it around. What's the point in that? Speaking of which, I can't wait for the next generation of cameras. eeeee

nough said - everyone here knows this already.

IMO Photo.net reviews are heavyly oriented towards Canon but they are nice if you dont read the conclusions/comparisons

[WMBP]

Billy,

I think it's foolish to say that Canon and Nikon (and maybe Olympus) are the only products worth considering. The paragraph you quote doesn't quite say that, but that seems to be where it's going. The truth is, there are lots of reasons to pick a camera brand. For example, if you've been using Pentax all your life and have a ton of great Pentax lenses, then of course, buying Pentax would probably make sense, at least economically.

But the rest of the statement is basically correct. Canon is the market leader, and not just (as your source says) in "advanced amateur and professional" photography, it's the leader in every area, as far as I can tell. And there definitely are some major advantages to buying Canon or Nikon. It's not just that it's possible to rent Canon and Nikon lenses. There are also more Canon and Nikon lenses available for purchase, both new and used. Take a look at Sigma and Tamron's sites on the Web: just about every lens they sell has a Canon and Nikon version, but only some are available with Pentax mounts. Buying Canon or Nikon, you also have more bodies to choose from, including full-frame digital bodies. Among other things, that means that there's room to grow (as in, you could keep buying more and more expensive cameras); with Pentax, on the other hand, you move up from the K100D Super to the K10D and you've hit the product line's ceiling. This would be fine if the K10D were clearly the greatest camera available for any use, at any cost -- but it's not. There are more accessories like detachable flash units available for Canon and Nikon cameras. Almost every book on the market about digital photography seems to assume that you have a Canon or a Nikon camera. Join a camera club, most of the experts there will be using Canon or Nikon equipment. And the Canon and Nikon cameras are not bad, not bad at all. A the low-end and even perhaps in the middle "end" of the respective product lines, Pentax competes very favorably. The K100D is a better camera in itself than the Rebel XTi. The K10D competes very favorably with the Nikon D80 or even more expensive models, simply in terms of the body and its features. Pentax lenses are excellent, if you can find 'em.

So if you compare this camera to that, Pentax is a very strong option for consumers. This is especially true if the Pentax camera being compared is a K10D. If you compare systems to systems, on the other hand, Pentax looks a lot weaker. This is never going to change.

But does that mean that Pentax is a bad choice? Not at all. There are excellent reasons to buy Pentax -- but most of them have to do with money. In the conventional DSLR market, the Pentax K10D is far and away the best value for the money, not because the camera itself takes better pictures than, say, a Nikon D200, but because the camera is very well designed, because it takes photos that are as good as cameras that cost a lot more, and because the selection of lenses is good enough to make it a viable choice for many photographers. The K10D's ergonomics really are great -- but if somebody gives me a Canon 5D, I'm going to use it. Would I care about shake reduction in the body if I could afford to buy shake reduction in my lenses?

The fact that the reasons to buy Pentax have more to do with money than anything else is slightly embarrassing, I think, but it should not be. The truth is, all of the major manufacturers now make terrific cameras. Different models have different limitations, but if, in the end, it's about the photos rather than the hardware used to take them, then almost any brand will do. If I were a zillionaire, I'd own twenty different cameras, made by half a different manufacturers. Which one would I carry around most? I don't know. I think it's interesting that Ken Rockwell, who apparently does own dozens of cameras, is so fond of the Nikon D40.

I don't know what to think about Olympus and the four-thirds system. Yes, it's innovative. It's been designed from the ground up with digital photography in mind. But it looks to me as if the engineers at Olympus were thinking mainly about lenses, rather than sensors -- and it turns out that sensors are where the real action is, at the high end of the market. I would not be surprised if the four-thirds system succeeds and establishes itself as a great choice for amateurs and hobbyists. I don't see it making any inroads among pros. That's not a knock.

Will

[Lowell Goudge]

Will

One point that has not been addressed properly is that Cannon is a market leader, No argument,

No argument that Nikon is second, BUT

In about 1980 for example, GM was the world wide market leader. When asked how Toyota was going to advance, the chairman said his objective was to get 0.5% per year of GM's market share.

Today Toyota is number 1 world wide, and I think they are about 20 years ahead of schedule.

Buying something just because they are market leader today is not always the best reason.

[therightpic]

Hey,

In my case these biased opinions of expert reviewers didn't matter. In fact I found many good reviews from users on the K10D everywhere I went on the web.

I just got my K10D. I have never owned a DSLR. I owned a Canon film Rebel but hardly used it and still have a Sony DSC H5, which is a nice camera. Anyway, my point is that I am coming into this with a pretty neutral stand on brands.

I figured I would buy a Nikon or maybe a Canon, mostly because of the name, and started doing research leaning in that direction. I also checked out Sony and Olympus (I think the E510 is pretty cool). I looked over what everyone had in my price range and I just kept coming back to the K10D after reading reviews and handling a few different brands and models. I thought about it for a long time because this isn't something I can sink a lot of money into and make a mistake on.

Is it really a better camera than the others? I don't know yet but just based on features I felt I was getting a high end camera for a steal ($565 after rebate!)

I love the fact that I can find older lenses at a pawn shop or on eBay and use them, even in a limited fashion. I would gladly use a nice older lens if it gets the job done, especially if I can find them cheap. I also think as I check new lens prices that what you get from Pentax or for Pentax cameras seems to be equivalent for a lot less money. That is a nice feeling. I am not worried about the so-called limited availability of Pentax lenses, I see them available everywhere I look on the web.

Some other things I like:

I travel frequently and love the seals and ruggedized body. I don't have to worry about some genius spilling something on my bag on the plane or to stop shooting in a Singapore rainstorm or during snowfall in Switzerland.

I also like the fact that the camera can be used in a very point-and-shoot way for now but can grow with me as I go from an amateur to a journeyman and then eventually a pro (I hope).

My buddy just got a D80 and we are going to be shooting together a lot so I will know soon whether or not I made an error but I don't think I did.

My opinion.

[Sponge Worthy]

Billy,

I think it's foolish to say that Canon and Nikon (and maybe Olympus) are the only products worth considering. The paragraph you quote doesn't quite say that, but that seems to be where it's going. The truth is, there are lots of reasons to pick a camera brand. For example, if you've been using Pentax all your life and have a ton of great Pentax lenses, then of course, buying Pentax would probably make sense, at least economically.

But the rest of the statement is basically correct. Canon is the market leader, and not just (as your source says) in "advanced amateur and professional" photography, it's the leader in every area, as far as I can tell. And there definitely are some major advantages to buying Canon or Nikon. It's not just that it's possible to rent Canon and Nikon lenses. There are also more Canon and Nikon lenses available for purchase, both new and used. Take a look at Sigma and Tamron's sites on the Web: just about every lens they sell has a Canon and Nikon version, but only some are available with Pentax mounts. Buying Canon or Nikon, you also have more bodies to choose from, including full-frame digital bodies. Among other things, that means that there's room to grow (as in, you could keep buying more and more expensive cameras); with Pentax, on the other hand, you move up from the K100D Super to the K10D and you've hit the product line's ceiling. This would be fine if the K10D were clearly the greatest camera available for any use, at any cost -- but it's not. There are more accessories like detachable flash units available for Canon and Nikon cameras. Almost every book on the market about digital photography seems to assume that you have a Canon or a Nikon camera. Join a camera club, most of the experts there will be using Canon or Nikon equipment. And the Canon and Nikon cameras are not bad, not bad at all. A the low-end and even perhaps in the middle "end" of the respective product lines, Pentax competes very favorably. The K100D is a better camera in itself than the Rebel XTi. The K10D competes very favorably with the Nikon D80 or even more expensive models, simply in terms of the body and its features. Pentax lenses are excellent, if you can find 'em.

So if you compare this camera to that, Pentax is a very strong option for consumers. This is especially true if the Pentax camera being compared is a K10D. If you compare systems to systems, on the other hand, Pentax looks a lot weaker. This is never going to change.

But does that mean that Pentax is a bad choice? Not at all. There are excellent reasons to buy Pentax -- but most of them have to do with money. In the conventional DSLR market, the Pentax K10D is far and away the best value for the money, not because the camera itself takes better pictures than, say, a Nikon D200, but because the camera is very well designed, because it takes photos that are as good as cameras that cost a lot more, and because the selection of lenses is good enough to make it a viable choice for many photographers. The K10D's ergonomics really are great -- but if somebody gives me a Canon 5D, I'm going to use it. Would I care about shake reduction in the body if I could afford to buy shake reduction in my lenses?

The fact that the reasons to buy Pentax have more to do with money than anything else is slightly embarrassing, I think, but it should not be. The truth is, all of the major manufacturers now make terrific cameras. Different models have different limitations, but if, in the end, it's about the photos rather than the hardware used to take them, then almost any brand will do. If I were a zillionaire, I'd own twenty different cameras, made by half a different manufacturers. Which one would I carry around most? I don't know. I think it's interesting that Ken Rockwell, who apparently does own dozens of cameras, is so fond of the Nikon D40.

I don't know what to think about Olympus and the four-thirds system. Yes, it's innovative. It's been designed from the ground up with digital photography in mind. But it looks to me as if the engineers at Olympus were thinking mainly about lenses, rather than sensors -- and it turns out that sensors are where the real action is, at the high end of the market. I would not be surprised if the four-thirds system succeeds and establishes itself as a great choice for amateurs and hobbyists. I don't see it making any inroads among pros. That's not a knock.

Will

Excellent post...

Face it folks, Pentax is a niche player...

I would define Pentax's niche -- as value conscious (as opposed to label conscious), advanced amateurs (no offense to the pros here, but most pros DO NOT use Pentax DSLRs), and people with a large prior Pentax investment...

Unfortunately, it seems most people would rather pay more for Nikon or Canon models that provides less.... (Imagine having to pay an extra couple $ hundred per lens to get image stabilization -- madness).

That said, I will not be surprised if Sony eclipses Pentax in DSLR market share with its new models, purely based on marketing...something Pentax appears to be incapable of....

[patrickt]

I simply don't dicuss brands with people. It's a lot like religion. I asked one tourists to show me his new Canon, I'm still curious and don't get to see many cameras, and it was nice. But, when he finished he said, "I'll bet you wish you had one." When I said I was happy with my camera he was off and running. Then I met a young man who said his camera was much better than mine because, these are his words, "It cost $5,000." Now, who could possibly argue with that logic. I offered to sell him my camera for $10,000 and then he'd have a camera twice as good as the one he had. He doesn't talk to me any more.

No, it's sort of pointless. I'm happy with my K10D and, for me, that's really all that matters.

to show that I am not biased and that I am in a quasi-trolling mood. I would say that the evolt e-510 costs now 675 USD (Body+14-40+42-150) in adorama. So who has now more bang for the buck?

[jeffkrol]

I've just been reading this article on photo.net and wondered what you guys would think of the author dismissing the smaller players out of hand:

Quote:
The market leader in the professional/advanced amateur photography world is Canon.

No comment

If you don't have a major investment in lenses you will probably want to buy a Canon digital SLR.

Opinion w/ no facts. Nikon would also be here and the "smaller players" as well IF they had the lenses/accessories you need.

The number two spot is occupied by Nikon, which is also a reasonable choice. Fuji and Kodak have made digital SLRs that accept Canon- and Nikon-mount lenses. Once you get beyond Nikon and Canon it becomes very difficult to rent lenses

About the only thing factual and true in the whole thing.

and the companies that make the more obscure systems don't have a large enough market share to invest enough money to build competitive bodies.

Just a plain stupid statement. Depends on your needs and depends on the companies engineers ect.

Leica, Minolta, Olympus, Pentax, and Sigma are the small vendors in the digital SLR market. Unless you have an enormous investment in lenses for one of these brands the only one of these worth considering for purchase is Olympus, due to its innovative Four-Thirds system

What is so innovative about the 4/3rds system? Does this person have stock in some 4/3rds company???? Second really stupid statement.

[stewart_photo]

(snip) I would define Pentax's niche -- as value conscious (as opposed to label conscious), advanced amateurs (no offense to the pros here, but most pros DO NOT use Pentax DSLRs), and (snip)

Most amateurs (non-pros) "DO NOT use Pentax DSLRs" either. So, according to your logic, the Pentax isn't for amateurs as well.

stewart

[Lowell Goudge]

Most amateurs (non-pros) "DO NOT use Pentax DSLRs" either. So, according to your logic, the Pentax isn't for amateurs as well.

stewart

On this basis the camera is not for anyone. OK lets dwell on this a while.
.................................................
.......................................
.....................
..........
....

OK time's up.

In fact as many have stated, it is the photographer not the camera that makes the great picture, and while it is true that there are more lenses and system elements possibly available for the other bigger names, it does not mean that a creative person cannot take great photos using pentax equipment.

All one needs to do is look at the pictures some post in this forum.

It is also stated here that all cameras are very close in terms of final optical and image quality, and while pentax perhaps lacks the budget to put as many modles forward, or as quickly does not mean that you should not buy the product.

If, over the last few years pentax has made an error, it is in their marketing department (or lack of), and in the marketing department of third party lens makers. I believe the big mistake they all made was they underestimated the popularity of pentax cameras, and the demand for lenses and accessories. That has led to a short term supply problem, has put the price of used lenses up, and frustrated some who are new to pentax and did not have a supply of quality lenses from their film cameras.