[Tako Kichi]

The curve is showing what I would expect to see but it would be interesting to see a 'years of use' poll too. I bought my first Pentax in 1979 and have had at least one ever since (which is 35 continuous years of Pentax use) but I have used other cameras as and when I've needed to. I currently have a Pentax K-1000 and a K-30 but I also have an Olympus Trip compact 35mm film camera and an Olympus C2040 which was my first digital camera (a great camera for it's time with a f1.8 lens).

[steve1307]

I just celebrated the 21st anniversary of my 21st birthday this weekend.

Happy birthday !

Putting it that way, I had the 22nd anniversary of my 21st birthday on the weekend too.
.
.
.

BTW: 22 years since my first Pentax SLR, 9 years old with Pentax digital(compact) but only a 4 y.o with Pentax DSLR

[rod_grant]

In the 1960's I used to dream about having a Pentax (the dream was always for the black body!) - but had to make do with the affordable Practika IV.
It took about 40 years for the Pentax dream to come to reality. Didn't get into DSLR until 2005.

[Clavius]

it's starting to look like the famous but much-abused "bell curve" distribution, which is pretty much what you'd expect with the adoption of a hobby that involves a significant financial commitment from disposable income.

Yes, but the bell curve used to apply to hobbies like fancy cars, 2000ltr reef aquariums and golf. Anybody used to have access to a beginners tier of photography. Please read everybodies reactions in this thread too. Why were most of the people that have been loyal to Pentax for so long, able to buy Pentax gear when they were teens and early twenties? No amount of paper-routes or shelve-filling is going to earn any kind of Pentax gear now. Something changed.

[RonHendriks1966]

With 153 responses so far, the distribution looks nowhere near as skewed to the upper age band as when it started. In fact, it's starting to look like the famous but much-abused "bell curve" distribution, which is pretty much what you'd expect with the adoption of a hobby that involves a significant financial commitment from disposable income.

Looks like it yes.



There is one slight difference noticable. The average age is going towards 50. The average age of people in The Netherlands (western modern society = 39). So on average we are 10 years older and have a larger then average "elderly" bubble.

I will come back on that later, but would be great to get to 500 respondants.

[hollywoodfred]

I'm 61, but I've only owned a DSLR for nine months.

[bdery]

Why were most of the people that have been loyal to Pentax for so long, able to buy Pentax gear when they were teens and early twenties?

A couple of reasons:

1-camera phones did not exist. If you wanted to take pictures, you needed a DSLR, mostly
2-there were some compacts, granted, but not that many, and people passionate about photography did not buy these, just as they do today
3-cameras were expensive then, but a film camera costs a lot less, in proportion, than a DSLR does, especially when it lacked AF and sometimes auto metering

There are probably many more reasons but these stand out to me.

[RobA_Oz]

Yes, but the bell curve used to apply to hobbies like fancy cars, 2000ltr reef aquariums and golf. Anybody used to have access to a beginners tier of photography. Please read everybodies reactions in this thread too. Why were most of the people that have been loyal to Pentax for so long, able to buy Pentax gear when they were teens and early twenties? No amount of paper-routes or shelve-filling is going to earn any kind of Pentax gear now. Something changed.

Aside from the fact that some of those types of jobs for young people have disappeared, the thing that has remained the same, relatively speaking, is that good cameras now cost roughly the same as they did forty years ago. I bought my first new Pentax SLR, a SP-F, in 1974 for $210 AU, including a 50/1.4 lens. My K-3 last year (40 years later) cost about $1,200 AU, without a lens. In terms of model range those cameras are about equivalent, although the SP-F was soon topped by the ES. $210 in 1974 is worth about $1,565 in today's money, which is probably about what you'd pay for a K-3 with the Pentax FA50/1.4 as a package. So, if you're in work, you can equally well afford a new DSLR today as people in the same situation could afford an equivalent film SLR in 1974, at least in Australia. What has probably changed most in that time has been the expectation that all consumer goods would have fallen in price, as many have, so it's probably harder for newcomers to see the value in a DSLR, not that they are harder pressed to afford one.

[rod_grant]

Yes RobA, I was earning about $4300 when I bought my Konica Autoreflex for (I think) $225 probably a bit earlier than 1974.

[Kerrowdown]

Oh dear, I'm just starting on the slides down side of this demographic curve now.

[Giklab]

I'm 19. I'd love to know who my 3 amigos are .

[kkoether]

Kicking and screaming since 1961.


Pentaxian since 1981.

[RobA_Oz]

Oh dear, I'm just starting on the slides down side of this demographic curve now.

As long as you don't straddle it, you should be OK.

[bkpix]

With a nod toward subidoc, I just celebrated the 21st anniversary of the 21st anniversary of my 21st birthday on Saturday.

[SpecialK]

Excellent! I think this will give some interesting data.

Interesting, perhaps, but nearly every poll is meaningless :-) Maybe only younger or older people reply to polls. Younger people probably don't know the once-great Pentax name and therefore are over at Fred Miranda talking Canikon.