[biz-engineer]

While this is all very laudable, there is one major piece of the puzzle that they have missed out. What a 'pro' actually wants. And by 'pro' I mean a jobbing photographer who makes a living by making images.

Exactly, so the price list isn't for pros, it is for hobbyists who like to thing like pros. BTW, professionals are very clear about what they select based on practical experience, they don't need to read internet articles. And... a lot of the said "pros" are spending more of their time selling or promoting camera equipment then actually taking photographs (the famous "pro" of Fuji, earn their income almost directly from setting up workshop paid by Fuji). Digital cameras have turned everyone into a pseudo-pro and it has turned the former real pros into gear sales professionals.

[Lowell Goudge]

While this is all very laudable, there is one major piece of the puzzle that they have missed out. What a 'pro' actually wants. And by 'pro' I mean a jobbing photographer who makes a living by making images.


Of course they want a body and some lenses that do the job. But maybe more important, they need to make sure that their tool is there when they need it, and just works. They don't need to faff around trying to find a flash system that supports it. They don't need to worry about whether the lens they need is actually available in that mount. They want to be sure that if something breaks there is a store around the corner that will definitely have another in stock. If they need to rent a specialist lens they want it to a) exist and b) be available to rent today. If their camera needs a service, they want it back in days, not months. These are the things that are missing from the Pentax offering, not pixel counts and focus motors.


So frankly nobody whose living depends on a camera gives two hoots whether they can save a few thousand by going with Pentax, if that means losing a few tens of thousands because their camera has been sent by ship to Japan to wait for parts, or if they have to turn down work because they can't get the lens they need without trawling eBay for a rare barn find.

you will note however, aside from basic availability and rental of some other brands, the industry is getting much tighter and the major brands are being squeezed to make their pro lines make money, of their own accord, therefore the once lauded support for pros is becoming a thing of the past in my opinion.

basically nothing has changed for a pro, they need back up, they need a range of lenses, but regardless, they also need to think and cover situations if something breaks.

[reh321]

While this is all very laudable, there is one major piece of the puzzle that they have missed out. What a 'pro' actually wants. And by 'pro' I mean a jobbing photographer who makes a living by making images.

Of course they want a body and some lenses that do the job. But maybe more important, they need to make sure that their tool is there when they need it, and just works. They don't need to faff around trying to find a flash system that supports it. They don't need to worry about whether the lens they need is actually available in that mount. They want to be sure that if something breaks there is a store around the corner that will definitely have another in stock. If they need to rent a specialist lens they want it to a) exist and b) be available to rent today. If their camera needs a service, they want it back in days, not months. These are the things that are missing from the Pentax offering, not pixel counts and focus motors.

So frankly nobody whose living depends on a camera gives two hoots whether they can save a few thousand by going with Pentax, if that means losing a few tens of thousands because their camera has been sent by ship to Japan to wait for parts, or if they have to turn down work because they can't get the lens they need without trawling eBay for a rare barn find.

Someone could have two K-1ii bodies and still come out ahead.
The lenses are available at B&H.

[pschlute]

While this is all very laudable, there is one major piece of the puzzle that they have missed out. What a 'pro' actually wants. And by 'pro' I mean a jobbing photographer who makes a living by making images.


Of course they want a body and some lenses that do the job. But maybe more important, they need to make sure that their tool is there when they need it, and just works. They don't need to faff around trying to find a flash system that supports it. They don't need to worry about whether the lens they need is actually available in that mount. They want to be sure that if something breaks there is a store around the corner that will definitely have another in stock. If they need to rent a specialist lens they want it to a) exist and b) be available to rent today. If their camera needs a service, they want it back in days, not months. These are the things that are missing from the Pentax offering, not pixel counts and focus motors.


So frankly nobody whose living depends on a camera gives two hoots whether they can save a few thousand by going with Pentax, if that means losing a few tens of thousands because their camera has been sent by ship to Japan to wait for parts, or if they have to turn down work because they can't get the lens they need without trawling eBay for a rare barn find.

I don't think Pentax ever claimed the K-1 to be a pro-camera with the same support network as Canon or Nikon. The website the OP linked to may think it it is doing a comparison, but that is their mistake, not Pentax.

[mikesbike]

If the K-1 and whatever lenses with it are appropriate for whatever a pro needs, then fine it is a "pro" outfit. Certainly the camera itself is of "pro" quality build and design, as are many of the lenses available for it.

As to a small, inexpensive FF lens outfit and yielding fine "pro" quality imaging, since we are discussing great FF imaging at low cost, let us not forget the excellent, compact, lightweight FA 35mm f/2 lens. I do not yet have a FF DSLR body, but this lens has long been a favorite for me on a 35mm film body.

[KiloHotelphoto]

define "full pro" if you are into wild life, you are looking at probably 10-20K for lenses. the camera is incidental

If they did this comparison for pro wildlife photographers only two brands have the lens lineup for that list.

[reh321]

I don't think Pentax ever claimed the K-1 to be a pro-camera with the same support network as Canon or Nikon. The website the OP linked to may think it it is doing a comparison, but that is their mistake, not Pentax.

The author is a professional, but he was comparing prices with a friend in mind - no claim that the friend was a pro expecting pro service, just that s/he wanted pro-level equipment.

---

Last edited by reh321; 03-08-2019 at 04:50 PM.

[johnha]

When the British Journal of Photography (who normally qualify their reviews based on the specific needs of working pros) reviewed the K-1 (Nov 2016) they ended the article with the following (the three lenses mentioned earlier were the 15-30, 24-70 & 70-200):

"Factor in two bodies, battery grips, the set of three lenses and a two-flash dedicated wireless kit and you'll be on the wrong side of £7000. You'll also have a DSLR system that, once you have become used to its unfamiliar benefits, will mean you never feel tempted to return to another major brand. Photographers who have not spent time in the company of the Pentax K-1 will have no idea what they are missing. Ignorance is no excuse."

Note: UK prices are substantially higher than extrapolating US prices that the £/$ rate would suggest.

[zapp]

Good of them to pick the 77 Ltd, saves cash and bulk over the 85mm choices. Pentax even gives you an extra 50mm at the long end for free!

What 85 choices are you talking about? Used stuff?

[Rondec]

I looked over the list and I don't think his prices are accurate at all, at least for Pentax. Is he using MSRP pricing? Because the FA 77 is 100 dollars cheaper than he lists, the DFA 15-30 is 300 dollars cheaper and the K-1 II body is only 1800 (B and H pricing). I didn't look into other brands, but they may not be totally accurate as well. Perhaps good to take this with a grain of salt.

And of course the D-FA 50/1.4 is a remarkable lens.

Thing is, who buys a complete camera system this way? Pentax has always had a price advantage for the functionality and quality, but so much depends on which functionality one values.

I think a lot of people make out a map of lenses they plan to buy in the future, even if they don't get them all today. I have a lot of the Pentax lenses on this list. I bought one or two a year, but eventually I got a full line up. I think this is the sort of thing that people probably should do before they buy into a system, even if they don't buy all of the lenses on their list at the beginning. Obviously the list you make won't be the same as this one. I would leave a bunch of lenses off as they don't interest me, but it still can be a handy thing to do.

[baro-nite]

I think a lot of people make out a map of lenses they plan to buy in the future, even if they don't get them all today. I have a lot of the Pentax lenses on this list. I bought one or two a year, but eventually I got a full line up. I think this is the sort of thing that people probably should do before they buy into a system, even if they don't buy all of the lenses on their list at the beginning. Obviously the list you make won't be the same as this one. I would leave a bunch of lenses off as they don't interest me, but it still can be a handy thing to do.

Well, that's a good point. My beef is with the article itself, kind of clickbait-y and taking the crudest possible approach to value -- MSRP only, as though the systems were otherwise equivalent.

[normhead]

Well, that's a good point. My beef is with the article itself, kind of clickbait-y and taking the crudest possible approach to value -- MSRP only, as though the systems were otherwise equivalent.

Every system has it's features. But it is true, when the K-1 came out, some folks jumped to the system, and some of them jumped back when some part of the feature set didn't meet their needs. However MSRP is hardly the crudest possible approach. For many it's the only relevant approach. And it's verifiable and repeatable. As the recent test on Pentax and other's AF reveals, there is a lot of unwarranted criticism of Pentax out there. Paying attention to that would be the crudest possible approach.

[baro-nite]

For many it's the only relevant approach.

For many casual shooters, sure. And obviously for pros it's an essential part of the ROI equation. But not the main one (says this non-pro).

As the recent test on Pentax and other's AF reveals, there is a lot of unwarranted criticism of Pentax out there. Paying attention to that would be the crudest possible approach.

There's also warranted criticism, of any system. The trick is figuring out which is which.

[normhead]

There's also warranted criticism, of any system. The trick is figuring out which is which.

The trick is repeatable scientific measurement.
How does Pentax AF-C compare to other brands? - PentaxForums.com
Anyone posting personal opinions without scientific support in rigorous testing can be taken with grain of salt. Their opinion is to be trusted only at your peril.
And ignoring the internet clickbaiters.

In the following chart...


The Pentax K-3 captures 14 images using AF.c tracking, tops in class tied with 2 others. It actually confirms my own shooting with a K-3. Tracking my dogs running towards the camera, the Pentax is very strong on the mid range images, before the dogs get closest to the camera. In the 4th , 5th, 6th and 7th frames, Pentax beats every camera tested. IN other words, it's better tracking than the 7 other cameras tested in that range. It's not as good in other ranges, but the range for the first 8 images is close to even the best. That has always been my observation, but i didn't have numbers. In the last 6 images as the subject gets closes to the camera the Pentax doesn't do as well, also confirmed by my own experience.

Thinking back on my own experience, as the test chart suggests, I don't think I've ever missed a mid rage shot using Pentax AF.c tracking. Once it locks focus, it stays locked, until the motor that drives the AF in the lens is unable to move the focusing elements fast enough to keep up, which is why fast focusing elements are critical to AF speed, when tracking.

Here we have the repeatable numbers in a test designed to be impartial, they aren't what everyone on the internet is claiming. The question now is, will the nay sayers start talking science, or continue to spout ignorance.

We have had to rely on anecdotal reports, because there was very little science available. That excuse is gone. From here on, your ignorance is on you.

It should be redundant to point out how much nonsense has been posted on this forum by people who didn't know any better. Perhaps now folks will be able to see them for what they are. Opinionated people with little regard for the accuracy of their statements, and acting without any science behind them. They are content to just repeat the imagined criticisms of other brand's fanboys in their evaluations, or base their conclusions on side by side shooting with shooters from other brands, when it's they themselves and their techniques that are the weak link, not the camera.

My complaint with Pentax is the speed of the burst with AF.c turned on, not the AF performance or acquisition rate. And even that doesn't affect Pentax's performance in the above tests, It still go off 14 frames, tops in the test.

And what's with the Fuji XT1? It got off 9 frames while the best got off 14. That would drive me crazy.

[zapp]

PetaPixel just posted a comparison of getting a pro kit together HERE.
Sony, Canon, Nikon, Pentax, Leica, Fuji, Pan/Oly
I'll let their site get the traffic so you can check the price comparison, but here's the bottom line:

“Pentax is hugely a winner as the lowest cost full frame system to buy into"

Spend more than 5 minutes to look at it, interesting what kind of BS is published online. Pentax does not even have a complete lens lineup. Add some cheap Samyang stuff and call it inexpensive. Why not look out for used lenses or film bodies to drop prices. Now I wasted even more time on this.
Comparing apples with water melons.