Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
01-26-2012, 11:54 AM   #31
Veteran Member
wlachan's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Canada
Photos: Albums
Posts: 2,626
QuoteOriginally posted by slip Quote
Is it just because they think that is what people want? has it just been a tradition?
I picked up a K5 not long ago and thought it was a bit small for my hands (which are not that big) and preferred the bigger size of my k10 body
I think it has much to do with history but my short answer is no, Pentax did not prefer small. Pentax was switching from big size series to small size series twice in the past. The first time was from the K series to the M series in late 70's, then the Z/PZ series to the MZ/ZX series in late 90's. Each time it was because the bigger size series didn't do well. One cannot help but thinking that Pentax have been unable to compete with the big players technologically so they had to try something different, and size is their solution.

This applies to the Limited primes too when the public interest in the Z/PZ series was really low. The FA* we prize now were sitting ducks on both new and used markets. The first Limited lens FA43/1.9 released in 1997 really turned thing around. Without that, Pentax might have disappeared already IMHO.

As to the bodies being too small, don't forget Asians are generally smaller. It is not really a gender difference only. There is simply no one-size-fit-all design. Also, it is the shape & depth of the grip that matters the most rather than the overall size of the camera I believe.

01-26-2012, 12:40 PM   #32
Site Supporter




Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Texas
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,149
On the Leica forum there are lots of comments by pros that are sick of lugging around their huge and heavy dSLRs, and have switched to Leica M9 as an answer to get even better IQ in a small light package. I wanted a FF dSLR, but picking one up convinced me that I don't want what is available now. That's a big reason I decided to try the K-5. I always liked the MX, and still prefer it for the small size and shape. (The old ads read "Just hold a Pentax.")
Leica has an advantage because their relatively fast lenses (1.4 - 2.0) are also very small compared to SLR lenses, as they don't have to be retrofocus to clear a mirror.
Part of the preference (too large / too small) depends on how one learned to hold a camera. Rangefinder and small camera users primarily hold the camera on their left hand, under the body behind the lens, using their left fingers for focus and aperture. The right only helps steady, flick the shutter speed, and trip the shutter (and wind film if appropriate). When using a camera this way a right-hand grip just gets in the way. I had a grip for my LX, but found I liked the "flat camera" shape better and haven't used the grip since. I also learned to carry a camera in my left hand (back in 1965) so a grip doesn't help me carry either.
I'd even prefer my K-5 without the "grip" shape, except the control layout is now designed around that shape - so there's no going back.
01-26-2012, 01:15 PM   #33
Pentaxian
aleonx3's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Brampton, Ontario
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,888
It is easy to forget.... the first and second generations of cell phones were huge... the advance of technologies enable manufacturers to reduce the size of tools (including cameras). There is also an argument that Canikon don't want to make radical changes to the camera bodies because professionals get used to the buttons and sizes and therefore less inclined to try new design. However, that also have changed recently... just look at 60D and D7k design. Also, the market has changed... products like cameras used to be dominated by North America and European user market are no longer true. The majority of the market is in the Far East now, I have been to Japan, the "world camera" store in the city has every kind of cameras on display not just Canikon models.
01-26-2012, 07:47 PM   #34
Pentaxian




Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Eureka, CA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,977
QuoteOriginally posted by Lowell Goudge Quote
WHere small does get me a little, is in the limits it imposes on maximum aperture. in the transition from K-M series lenses, we lost some significant lenses.

specifically,

- the 500/4.5 disappeared totally
- the fastest 50mm went from 1.2 to 1.4
- the 85mm went from 1.8 to 2
- the 135F2.5 disappeared
- the 200 F2.5 disappeared
- oddly enough the 150 went from F4 to F3.5
While it's true that the K 85/1.8 was replaced by the slightly slower M 85/2, none of the other fast lenses mentioned above disappeared when the M series came out. The K 200/2.5 actually came out in 1977, the same year as most of the M lenses. It remained in production until 1986. The K 135/2.5 remained in production until 1985, which means it was not replaced by the slower M 135/3.5, but by the faster A 135/1.8. The K 50/1.2 remained in production until it was replaced by the A 50/1.2. The K 500/4.5 remained in production until the late 90s. The M series did not completely replace all the original K-mount lenses; most of the fast high-end lenses remained in production until the A series (or even later).

The DA limiteds are small because that is the lineage of the limiteds: the original FA 43 was designed to be small, which it is for FF lens. It's also f1.9, which is slow for a 43mm lens. The small size was probably originally pursued partly as a selling point, but also to keep the cost down. When the lens sold well, Pentax decided to make more. All but the FA 31 were designed to be small, thereby sacrificing the maximum aperture but keeping costs down. Even the FA 31 was originally supposed to be a smaller, slower lens (I believe it was supposed to be f2.4), but Pentax decided for utterly mysterious reasons to make it their fastest wide angle lens ever. It's the largest and (no coincidence) the most expensive limited.

So, at least in terms of small primes, I think keeping costs down plays an important factor. A DA 21/1.4 produced with the specifications of a limited lens would be a very expensive lens. Since its move to digital, Pentax has shied away from producing lenses more expensive than $1,500, while trying to keep most of their lenses under $1,000. This means high end primes have to be a bit on the slow side to keep the prices down. And if you have to make the lens slow, why not also make it small?

01-26-2012, 09:22 PM   #35
Veteran Member
alohadave's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Quincy, MA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,024
QuoteOriginally posted by monochrome Quote
Have you seen wristwatches lately?

(And don't ask what a wristwatch is.)
Heh. When I first heard a friend talking about a 40mm face, I was shocked that people wanted something that big on their wrist. But, now I have one that is about 35mm, and I like it.
01-26-2012, 10:38 PM   #36
Veteran Member
magkelly's Avatar

Join Date: May 2010
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 5,905
QuoteOriginally posted by Patajac Quote
building cameras foucusing just on japanese market would be a rather funny business plan considering market size
Unless you're selling more cameras there than anywhere else, which is I believe the case with Pentax. The west is a market they want to cultivate more but from what I've seen of Pentax sales figures they push Pentax far more in the east than they do elsewhere. Not just Japan but other countries there too. Hit Tokyo and you won't have much of a problem buying anything Pentax. Here I pretty much have to fly 1200 miles to NYC to be able to shop in a brick and mortar store that sells a full line of Pentax gear. Buying Pentax here is like buying certain Japanese cars. Yeah you can get one, if you don't mind traveling a fair bit, or settling for used maybe, but it's not like every major town here has a new car dealership with all the latest models.

I'm actually thrilled to see Pentax making more of an effort in the west actually. I'd love it if they would hook up in a much bigger way with Best Buy or even Walmart. It sucks that you can't just walk into a store here and buy a Pentax new, check them all out before purchase. Canon and Nikon I can walk into Walmart, Target, Best Buy and a few other stores, but Pentax? Nope. For all the fact that they are supposedly selling Pentax K-r's at Walmart I haven't see one live in my stores yet and I don't really expect to. The latest Nikon and Canon cameras are a given, but never in all my life have I ever seen a brand new Pentax here for sale in my town, not ever.
01-26-2012, 11:41 PM   #37
Veteran Member
alohadave's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Quincy, MA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,024
QuoteOriginally posted by magkelly Quote
I'm actually thrilled to see Pentax making more of an effort in the west actually. I'd love it if they would hook up in a much bigger way with Best Buy or even Walmart. It sucks that you can't just walk into a store here and buy a Pentax new, check them all out before purchase. Canon and Nikon I can walk into Walmart, Target, Best Buy and a few other stores, but Pentax? Nope. For all the fact that they are supposedly selling Pentax K-r's at Walmart I haven't see one live in my stores yet and I don't really expect to. The latest Nikon and Canon cameras are a given, but never in all my life have I ever seen a brand new Pentax here for sale in my town, not ever.
Before the retail agreements went tits up, I saw and was able to try the K10D and K100D Super in Ritz/Wolf's, but they were wicked expensive compared to online.
01-27-2012, 12:36 AM   #38
Veteran Member




Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Manila
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,190
I guess Pentax/Ricoh should decide on where it's better to get profits - Japan, or The World. I'm Asian, and even with our proximity to Japan (or heck, the very Pentax factory for camera bodies - where the K-7, K-5, K-x, K-r, and 645D were born - is in my country), we couldn't get Pentax stuff that easily. Based from the Kitazawa interview, it seems Pentax is still bent on making their cameras smaller... but I wish, smarter also.

The miniaturization is good but only up to a certain extent - the K-7/K-5 package being best. I do not find it comfortable lugging Canikon's bulky sets, but even the K-x feels a bit small for my hands. A pocketable DSLR? Good idea, but just as an idea for me. The Q should be the smallest Pentax should make and that's about it. If they can make pancake primes and zooms for the Q then there's no more a need for their APS-C line to get any smaller.

QuoteOriginally posted by northcoastgreg Quote
So, at least in terms of small primes, I think keeping costs down plays an important factor. A DA 21/1.4 produced with the specifications of a limited lens would be a very expensive lens. Since its move to digital, Pentax has shied away from producing lenses more expensive than $1,500, while trying to keep most of their lenses under $1,000. This means high end primes have to be a bit on the slow side to keep the prices down. And if you have to make the lens slow, why not also make it small?
Nice point there!

01-27-2012, 12:49 AM   #39
Veteran Member
Laurentiu Cristofor's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: WA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,044
QuoteOriginally posted by TaoMaas Quote
I don't think Pentax is obsessed with "small"...I think all the other manufacturers are obsessed with "large".
Not really - not all of their models are large. They're just not focusing on small only. Which is actually a good thing. I think this obsession with small cameras has gone overboard. The K-7/5 body is still great, but anything smaller than that would be inconvenient to use with any large lens.
01-27-2012, 01:12 AM   #40
Veteran Member




Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Manila
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,190
QuoteOriginally posted by Laurentiu Cristofor Quote
The K-7/5 body is still great, but anything smaller than that would be inconvenient to use with any large lens.
I once tried the K 500 4.5 in a shop...

ended up laughing.

I also tried on some high-spec lenses like the DA 16-50, and my K-x looks crazily small with it on. Even the Sigma EX DG 24-70 f/2.8 seems like it will swallow the K-x body. But an advantage for Pentax lenses- they're also smaller than their Canikon counterparts, usually. I think it's better to make the lenses smaller than the bodies smaller than the K-x/K-m.

Last edited by Alizarine; 01-27-2012 at 07:39 PM.
01-27-2012, 02:46 AM   #41
Senior Member




Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: FL
Posts: 246
I like the size of my K-x. I have pretty good sized hands and have no trouble with the ergonomics. In the world of electronics, smaller things usually cost more because of the research and engineering that goes into miniaturizing things. A good example are laptops. A smaller screen size usually costs more than a larger one with similar specs. Computers used to take up a large room, but now they can be in a clamshell shape and less than an inch thick.
01-27-2012, 04:11 AM   #42
Veteran Member
Verglace's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 468
Small is good, but I think pentax sacrifices much to keep things small.
Eg:
small but slow primes
small Q but it has a small(er) sensor.

If they could keep things small and still perform at the same level as the competition it would be good and they do get it right sometimes (eg, k-5 is smaller than d7000 but performs roughly the same if not better), although the k-5 could use being a cm or 2 taller.
01-27-2012, 05:53 AM   #43
Veteran Member




Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Iowa
Photos: Albums
Posts: 2,269
QuoteOriginally posted by samtr87 Quote
I like the size of my K-x. I have pretty good sized hands and have no trouble with the ergonomics.
Yeah, I'm a big guy, 6'4" with big hands & long fingers & I'm ok with the K-x. I think it's a fantastic camera.
01-27-2012, 06:55 AM   #44
Pentaxian
JinDesu's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: New York City
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 5,626
The k-x is a perfect small camera. I've held the the k-5 and it's the perfect medium camera for me. Add in the battery pack, and both cameras become amazing in portrait mode. Well, the k-5 anyways. The k-x needs a battery grip to round it out!!
01-27-2012, 09:11 AM   #45
Forum Member




Join Date: Jul 2011
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 73
Pentax seems to be aiming towards to the amateur and semi pro market where smaller cameras seem to be popular. But I somehow dont think the pentax bodies are way too small as dslrs either. I somehow feel they have achieved a good balance between a very small body and large one. My k-x or k100d certainly doesnt feel too small when held in hand
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, dslr, people, photography
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Don't say Pentax "Q" in French ... "Q" = "cul" = "A--" Jean Poitiers Pentax Q 52 11-10-2013 06:25 AM
Misc Small town "3" 9-11-2011 Photopat Post Your Photos! 2 09-11-2011 03:08 PM
True "small business" want taxes jeffkrol General Talk 5 11-18-2010 10:50 PM
Which Zoom Lens? "Tamron AF 18-250mm", "Pentax-DA 18-250mm" or "Sigma 18-250mm" hoomanshb Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 4 07-30-2010 09:50 AM
Dear Pentax (A "small" rant about what I want) JJJPhoto Pentax DSLR Discussion 11 04-28-2008 06:38 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:16 PM. | 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