[GibbyTheMole]

I am highly considering a Pentax K-3 but my main pushback is the limited number of lenses available, accessories, and other things such as lack of coverture in books, magazines, etc., because Pentax is not one of the "big three," if you count Sony. I wanted to get Pentax users' opinions in particular if they ever felt that they were somehow left out of the picture when they do not see their systems getting paid too much attention to.

1) Lenses: I have somewhere in the vicinity of 15 lenses covering everything from fisheye to super telephoto length , and haven't had any trouble getting lenses. The world is awash in lenses that will fit Pentax.

2) Lack of coverage/attention: Who cares? If it's good, it's good. And Pentax makes great cameras, whether the magazines know it or not.

Pentax is in the habit of switching course even more often then they switch owners. If you ask 10 different people what Pentax's strong point is, you'll get 10 different answers depending on which era they bought into the system. If you prefer Pentax right now, that is no guarantee you will like them in the future. Unless you just always stick to the same gear.

Sorry, but I'm not following you on the switching course thing. Pentax is the most backward-compatible of any system out there. Don't know how that's "switching course". And you can't guarantee someone will like anything they buy in the future just because they like it now.

[Clavius]

Really? How so? Do you know what you're talking about?

Once Pentax was considered THE innovator. Innovating so much that the other bigger brands copied them. WR/SR/compact build/durability/etc... They let that slip.

Once they were known as cheap. Another *cough* brilliant strategy which gave them a name they are still trying to shake off today.

They were also once known for the excellent optical qualities of their lenses, untill they started discontinueing the ones that were appreciated the most.

Other users remember Pentax for being THE standard in quality. Others again for being THE mainstream camera. It all depends on when they bought into the system.

More recently they are known for their fun colours and gimmicky gear.

And then the small Pentax lenses. They are one of those paradoxes that I find so intruiging about Pentax. They find miniaturisation in their lenses so ultimately important that they are even prepared to sacrifice several stops. (Sacrificing valueble low light performance, versatility and even sharpness.) But then again, they don't find miniaturisation important enough to sacrifice a mirrorbox and mechanism in their cameras. A much smaller sacrifice that doesn't even influence the quality of the images, but only the view through the viewfinder. So I think somewhere in the period between the development of the compact ltd lenses and the CMOS sensor they switched courses again.

It's like they're shooting in all kinds of directions but never really push through.

[monochrome]

Honestly, this line here is of concern. Pentax is in the habit of switching course even more often then they switch owners. If you ask 10 different people what Pentax's strong point is, you'll get 10 different answers depending on which era they bought into the system. If you prefer Pentax right now, that is no guarantee you will like them in the future. Unless you just always stick to the same gear.

Well that's a mew one. As far as I recall Pentax has consistently been about ergonomics, size, lenses and image quality. For about 60 years (except 3 1/2 under Hoya).

[Rupert]

For about 60 years (except 3 1/2 under Hoya).

How about the K5? I detested Hoya, but give them credit for the wonderful K5 I still use and admire.....and the K3 is just a much improved K5 in many respects......Since I feel like you do about Hoya, I have to believe that Hoya just "got lucky" with the K5...

Regards!

[ScooterMaxi Jim]

Once Pentax was considered THE innovator. Innovating so much that the other bigger brands copied them. WR/SR/compact build/durability/etc... They let that slip.


And then the small Pentax lenses. They are one of those paradoxes that I find so intruiging about Pentax. They find miniaturisation in their lenses so ultimately important that they are even prepared to sacrifice several stops. (Sacrificing valueble low light performance, versatility and even sharpness.) But then again, they don't find miniaturisation important enough to sacrifice a mirrorbox and mechanism in their cameras. A much smaller sacrifice that doesn't even influence the quality of the images, but only the view through the viewfinder. So I think somewhere in the period between the development of the compact ltd lenses and the CMOS sensor they switched courses again.

It's like they're shooting in all kinds of directions but never really push through.

Well, pretty much everyone has moved over to CMOS - even in medium format. You go with where the technology is moving, just as Nikon has done regarding sensors. The Ltd. primes make sense because digital technology causes reduced light acceptance starting before f/2.8 - and by f/1.4 you have lost more than half stop on the typical sensor. As lenses get faster the need for precision is greater - so slower lenses are often sharper through the aperture range than their faster counterparts. For the record, Pentax moved toward small lenses with the M series bodies and lenses - quite recently, about 40 years ago. Changes in registration distances does influence the quality of images. Very few quality wide angle lenses have been designed for extremely short registration distances - a real problem for the micro 4/3rds users.

At the same time, I can agree with the general rant about brand focus to an extent. Pentax has interchangeable lenses covering no less than four format sizes (Q, DA, FA, 645) - that's a lot of balls in the air. Modernizing the FA lineup (or the pipedream of modifying the DA lineup to reach FF) is not an easy task, especially given the relatively small market likely to be interested. The headwinds from Canon and Nikon are too great, as Sony has discovered.

[bsamcash]

If your main concern is lens collection, then fret not. The strength of Pentax is the lenses. As long as you don't need a 600mm f2.8, I doubt you'll ever miss out on any options.

[monochrome]

Products are one of two things that matter. Saying there is anything wrong with the products is either FUD or you are asking Pentax to be what it isn't. Canon only matters to us because we think all cameras must be Canon cameras. Canon just doesn't matter to Pentax. Forget about Canon. They aren't going there. If you have to have a Canon camera or lens - that's fine. There's nothing wrong with that. Go ahead.

Nikon matters. Eventually.

Right now the other thing that matters is distribution. RIAC is making progress with dealers and will eventually be available in most local markets. It won't happen this month or even this year - but it will happen. If you can't wait, that's OK, don't wait. It won't chage anything either way though.

Products and Distribution. They're all that matter. The products are fine except where they're not offered. If your needs are where they aren't offered you know what to do. The distribution is getting better except where it isn't. If you're where it isn't and you need the Distribution now, you know what to do.

[normhead]

I own a Panasonic G3 with three non-kit lenses (45mm f1.8; 14mm f2.5; and a telephoto one). The pictures are great when there is plenty of light, and I love sharing them whenever possible on social media and whatnot. The only problem that I have is its low-light capability while shooting hand held and high ISO. I figured that a bigger sensor on a DSLR would do the trick and help me with low-light shooting.
I am highly considering a Pentax K-3 but my main pushback is the limited number of lenses available, accessories, and other things such as lack of coverture in books, magazines, etc., because Pentax is not one of the "big three," if you count Sony. I wanted to get Pentax users' opinions in particular if they ever felt that they were somehow left out of the picture when they do not see their systems getting paid too much attention to. There's also this sweet Sigma lens (18-35 f1.8) that is coming out soon, but even IT will not be made for Pentax. I just don't want to get into a system that I will later regret; this is my small little fear given that I do not know anyone who uses a Pentax and cannot get their opinions regarding my concern.
Thank you in advance.
Luis Limbert

Well if you think you'd not regret not having a chance to ever own a 31 ltd, a 77ltd a 21 ltd a 15 ltd, a DA 18-135 or a DA* 60-250, what are you even looking at Pentax for. You seem to know what everyone else's good lenses are, that you'd have to give up to use a Pentax, but you don't know what lenses are special on Pentax that you won't find an equivalent for or as good an equivalent for on other brands.

Or, paraphrasing what my photography teacher once said.. find the lens you like and buy the system that uses it.

[TER-OR]

Really, lay out your ideal kit. What do you want to do - which lenses will cover that? What kind of camera do you think you'll need? Then do the old fashioned side-by-side comparison and look at the cost-benefit analysis.

Here's my requirements: good longer macro (100mm+), long zoom, close macro, weathersealed walkaround. The icing on the cake is fisheye and UWA. I'm not overly concerned with flash control, most of my shooting is ambient or controlled lighting.

Thus: DA18-135 WR, DA55-300, Sigma 28mm f1.8 macro, DA10-17 fisheye. I have a few other lenses, but this is my essential kit with a K5 (formerly K10).
Compare with a weathersealed body from another manufacturer- I haven't done that, maybe I should but it's academic now.

You should do this before making the decision to any given system.

[TaoMaas]

Once Pentax was considered THE innovator. Innovating so much that the other bigger brands copied them. WR/SR/compact build/durability/etc... They let that slip.

Uh...no...not sure they were EVER considered that. At least, not for the things you listed and not by the overall camera-buying public. If anything, they were known for being non-existant.

Once they were known as cheap. Another *cough* brilliant strategy which gave them a name they are still trying to shake off today.

Pentax was known for being less expensive, not cheap. They did it by sacrificing features, not quality. I don't think they're trying to shake off anything. They're still striving to be a less expensive alternative.

They were also once known for the excellent optical qualities of their lenses, untill they started discontinueing the ones that were appreciated the most.

I think they're still pretty much known for that. The Limited series is a great lens line!

Other users remember Pentax for being THE standard in quality. Others again for being THE mainstream camera. It all depends on when they bought into the system.

More recently they are known for their fun colours and gimmicky gear.

And then the small Pentax lenses. They are one of those paradoxes that I find so intruiging about Pentax. They find miniaturisation in their lenses so ultimately important that they are even prepared to sacrifice several stops. (Sacrificing valueble low light performance, versatility and even sharpness.) But then again, they don't find miniaturisation important enough to sacrifice a mirrorbox and mechanism in their cameras. A much smaller sacrifice that doesn't even influence the quality of the images, but only the view through the viewfinder. So I think somewhere in the period between the development of the compact ltd lenses and the CMOS sensor they switched courses again.

It's like they're shooting in all kinds of directions but never really push through.

Ah...okay...you don't really know. Just cherry-picking and revising history.

[johnyates]

lack of coverture in books, magazines, etc.

If that's important, you don't want a Pentax.

with three non-kit lenses (45mm f1.8; 14mm f2.5; and a telephoto one).

Lenses with the equivalent focal lengths are readily available with Pentax mount. Either Pentax branded or third party.

It's your decision as to what to buy--there's lots of information available (especially here). Do some research and see if what you learn supports your decision to go with Pentax. If not, buy something else--there's so much choice available.

[boriscleto]

I detested Hoya, but give them credit for the wonderful K5 I still use and admire

My K-5 says Ricoh on the bottom, so I don't have to think about Hoya at all unless I'm using my K-x...

I haven't used the K-x in more than a year, think its time to sell it so I can CLA the LX.

[normhead]

And then the small Pentax lenses. They are one of those paradoxes that I find so intruiging about Pentax. They find miniaturisation in their lenses so ultimately important that they are even prepared to sacrifice several stops.

Or is it that others sacrifice portability to achieve a wider aperture? Every sacrifice goes both ways. Do you want lenses you can take with you, or stay at home lenses? What is with these other manufacturers who only make their best glass, in extreme heavy wide aperture products, that's really only useful indoors under studio lighting, during much of the day? If you're a house body, you might not like Pentaxes. if you're an active kind of guy, who spends a lot of time out doors, you might like what Pentax has to offer. Pentax doesn't make lenses for people who live in their mom's basement. Lots of others do though.

[boriscleto]

Pentax doesn't make lenses for people who live in their mom's basement. Lots of others do though.

Do they make lenses for someone who lives with their 91 year old Grandmother who can only get out for a few hours a week?

Because if they don't I've spent way too much on them in the last 5 years.

[monochrome]

Do they make lenses for someone who lives with their 91 year old Grandmother who can only get out for a few hours a week?
Because if they don't I've spent way too much on them in the last 5 years.

When do you fish?