[christiandre]

I can't understand the lack of enthusiasm for Pentax DSLR... Do you know which are generally the reproaches made to the brand ? I heard that Pentax had a propensity to reach quickly the highlights burned, or that the lenses were not very effective or numerous ... What do you heard on your side, from no-pro photographers ?

[zzeitg]

Pentax market share is much smaller than it deserves.

However, since I jumped ship to Pentax (2009), I never thought about any other brand. There's nothing in this price category what I would like to have. And mainly: what I would like to hold.

Back in 2009, when I did my research to decide which DSLR system to buy, I got Pentax recommendation from a friend. Should I decide based on marketing, it would have to be Canon or Nikon (or event. Sony). There's virtually no Pentax marketing in my country.

[veato]

What I hear mostly is smaller system, fewer lenses, blah blah. But honestly whilst I could see this argument for a pro most amateurs are more than catered for.

Also in a recent magazine review of the K-3 II one of the down-sides listed was that it's not full frame!

[Gray]

Reasons - lack of marketing and the herd mentality. Ricoh spends very little properly marketing Pentax cameras and lenses. And new DSLR users, who may not know any better, just seek security with the "big boys" Canon and Nikon.

I'm conflicted in this - I rather like not being part of the herd, taking the road less travelled and being different. Being small keeps Ricoh focused too - they chase profit like the big boys, but they don't artificially segment their products by withholding good features and lowering quality to get market share. I love the way Pentax works for me, but I would hate Pentax to get too big because it would ruin the specialness for me (because they would ultimately start cutting corners in quality and features I think).

---

Last edited by Gray; 04-08-2016 at 04:51 AM.

[zzeitg]

What I hear mostly is smaller system, fewer lenses,

Which is a fact, but only if they speak about >10k USD lenses.

[Digitalis]

In a nutshell: Confirmation Bias

[carlb]

Reasons - lack of marketing and the herd mentality. Ricoh spends very little properly marketing Pentax cameras and lenses. And new DSLR users, who may not know any better, just seek security with the "big boys" Canon and Nikon.

I'm conflicted in this - I rather like not being part of the herd, taking the road less travelled and being different. Being small keeps Ricoh focused too - they chase profit like the big boys, but they don't artificially segment their customers with an endless line of contemporary camera models that are hardly distinguishable from one another. I love the way Pentax works for me, but I would hate Pentax to get too big because it would ruin the specialness for me (and they would ultimately start cutting corners in quality and features I think).

I also like being part of a "special" group - almost like we secretly know what the others are missing out on. I want Pentax to continue to prosper (and under Ricoh I think they will) but I don't want them to become so big that they become another Canon or Nikon.

[FantasticMrFox]

Pentax has advantages (build quality, features, price, weather sealing, the Limited lenses etc.) and disadvantages (AF for action shots, flash, fewer lenses, no professional support) compared to the competition. The reason why their market share is so small is apparently that they slept through the digital revolution and were simply left in the dust. Then a company called Hoya bought them, managed them horribly for a couple of years as they were not interested in the consumer imaging business but Pentax more profitable medical imaging, then dropped them again. Then Ricoh took over and since then they have consolidated their market share and exist alongside their much larger DSLR brothers Canon and Nikon. Their advantages are not great enough for them to catch up market share wise, but they are good enough not to lose even more. With the overwhelming success of the 645Z and the (likely) great success of the K1 there is a chance the situation might change and Pentax may become more successful in the future.

[TER-OR]

You'll hear a lot of comparisons, most of which aren't quite valid. When compared at price points, Pentax often wins. When comparing a K50 with a D810, sure...but that's not a valid comparison. Same with lenses, Canikon tend to be more expensive because of the in-lens shake reduction. IBIS is as or more effective at shorter focal lengths.

Where Pentax has traditionally had a bit of a deficit is long telephoto and long zoom lenses. The problem is most users don't have these anyway, they're quite expensive. When you throw the reasonably-priced DA300 into the conversation and now the 1.4X modern teleconverter that advantage closes. It is true that the third-party lens manufacturers have a lower number of their long lenses in K-mount.

Canon, in my opinion, are losing ground quickly. Their consumer-grade cameras are getting long in the tooth and they seem to be falling behind in sensor technology. Nikon's consumer-grade cameras seem to be getting less well constructed, and also are getting outdated. Sony...is Sony, they seem to do things their own way and it doesn't always work as well as one would like. At least they're moving forward.

I think Pentax is the most flexible system around, given the compatibility with older lenses and focus on ergonomics.

[normhead]

The forum is an odd mix of old time users from way back, and people who have done a lot of research before buying. SO far we don't have those users who bought the camera because of Maria Sharapova's catwalk impression. It tends to make the forum a much more interesting and focussed place than I've seen for other cameras. However, if in the end Pentax does an Apple like rebound, it will be because of it's core users. So, you have to be careful what you hope for. The graphics, film and photography power users kept Apple alive through dark times, as soon as it caught the attention of the average Joe, it ditched them, and dumbed down to an iPhone user mentality.. Be careful what you hope for.

[FantasticMrFox]

Same with lenses, Canikon tend to be more expensive because of the in-lens shake reduction.

That's often cited, but really not true. Compare some random Pentax lens to its Canon equivalent (e.g. 50 f/1.8, 16-50 vs 17-55, 16-85, 18-135, 55-300 vs 55-250 etc.) and you will find that Pentax rarely has a price advantage in lenses, often it's actually more pricey.

[FantasticMrFox]

Which is a fact, but only if they speak about >10k USD lenses.

Not really. Look at Pentax UWA offering, it's pretty scarce. I never thought there would be lenses I want that Pentax or third party manufacturers cannot offer, until I started to yearn for an affordable UWA. Canon has the great 10-18 at about €225, there's the Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 at €460 that isn't available for Pentax. Then there are all the Sigma 'Art's at below €1,000 that aren't available for Pentax except for three of them ...

I agree that most people will find everything they ever need in Pentax' lens line-up, and Ricoh is doing a great job at slowly filling the gaps, but even I as an amateur have recently experienced the situation where something I want simply isn't available.

[Sandy Hancock]

+1 to Norm.
Personally, I don't want Pentax to become a big player; I want them to continue to be a successful, profitable, niche player. I think Ricoh is sensible enough to understand that being the biggest is not the only worthwhile goal.

[pathdoc]

The reason why their market share is so small is apparently that they slept through the digital revolution and were simply left in the dust.

One wonders what would have happened if the Philips 6MP sensor had been a success and the "MZ-D" had gone forward as intended. Having to pull it must have been horrible for Pentax, but IIRC the only other camera to use that sensor had a very grim history.

I read somewhere that they brought the MZ-D/original K-1 to the current K-1 launch and it is actually a working prototype, but they had no battery to fire it up. WTH? We want to see what we missed out on, if only so that we can breathe a sigh of relief!

[FantasticMrFox]

I read somewhere that they brought the MZ-D/original K-1 to the current K-1 launch and it is actually a working prototype, but they had no battery to fire it up. WTH? We want to see what we missed out on, if only so that we can breathe a sigh of relief!

https://youtu.be/QuiGHrK58Tk?t=1m30s