[ThorSanchez]

This. A lot of my friends know that I shoot with a camera & they do like the results that I get out of my K-50. Some of them have had interest in buying a camera, but once I tell them that they either have to attach their camera to the PC or take out their SD card & place it into the PC's internal or external card reader to download OOC jpegs at the bare minimum, they're like, "Oh no. That sounds like too much of a hassle for me. I do like the images from your camera better than the ones I get from my phone, but I'll just stick to using my phone to take pictures. It's way easier." I don't even talk to them about RAW files & the whole converting those to jpeg images at all, since that usually seems to be way over their heads.

Here's the sad thing. If someone really wants a camera recommendation from me, I don't bother telling them to get a Pentax or any other DSLR. I'll tell them to look into into a mirrorless body 'cause I know that they will have a hard time using a DSLR, especially when it comes to confirming focus through the viewfinder. A mirrorless body is closer to what they're already kind of used to.

I think we sometimes forget that we're the weird 2%. Two percent may be exaggerating by a factor of 10. My sister, who bought a K-50 on my advice, uses only SOOC jpegs and has lost the hood for her kit lens, never used it anyway. She's probably the 2%.

Most folks look at an ILC with removable SD cards and figuring out Lightroom or RawTherapee and all this stuff we do in the same way they'd look at replacing the head gasket on their Toyota. They understand that some people do this and actually like it, but can't even fathom doing it themselves.

[Lev]

I think the issue is that learning photography is more than most younger people want to do. When my recently graduated daughter took a photo class at UCDavis she became lab instructor because she had actually developed film. She says there were problems because many students didn't want to bother learning what each chemical does. Now phone cameras are acceptable for digital photography classes.

Does this mean there will be so called "pro" photographers in future which will have no idea what's behind their photos, well, technically?

[officiousbystander]

Most folks look at an ILC with removable SD cards and figuring out Lightroom or RawTherapee and all this stuff we do in the same way they'd look at replacing the head gasket on their Toyota. They understand that some people do this and actually like it, but can't even fathom doing it themselves.

In the olden days you used to have to edit ini files in Windows to get programs to work, edit modem strings to bypass hotel PABXs, manually install drivers to add peripherals etc. And MS Office had over 20 floppies to install. I still upgrade my own computers. But young people today laugh at us because they assume we're not computer literate. Maybe you're right. The technical aspects of photography are being overlooked. Let's hope they're at least learning to critically appraise an image.

[The Squirrel Mafia]

I think we sometimes forget that we're the weird 2%. Two percent may be exaggerating by a factor of 10. My sister, who bought a K-50 on my advice, uses only SOOC jpegs and has lost the hood for her kit lens, never used it anyway. She's probably the 2%.

Most folks look at an ILC with removable SD cards and figuring out Lightroom or RawTherapee and all this stuff we do in the same way they'd look at replacing the head gasket on their Toyota. They understand that some people do this and actually like it, but can't even fathom doing it themselves.

I tell them that it ain't rocket science. I guess we are the 2% here. Hahaha!

And yes. I have done my fair share of tinkering with my '95 Miata. Have completely removed the engine twice with tranny & once replaced the tranny with a "new" one under the car. Never again. I'd much rather pull everything out, even though it's more work. It's much easier & gives me a chance to check & replace other stuff while everything is out. Hahaha! Same with the Torsen LSD. But yeah. I guess we're a dying breed.

[rr1736]

If cost and capabilities are considered then pentax cameras are a great way to start

[clackers]

Lev, I agree with those that for beginners not actually motivated by photography, a 'real' camera like a Pentax or any other brand is unnecessary.

But if they develop a passion, of course it's a great brand to make art with:

Pentax in 2018: What the Brand Brings to the Table - Gear Guides | PentaxForums.com

[luftfluss]

Ironically, it will be beneficial to the camera industry when ILC's perform and behave more similarly to phones... and much of that has to do with compensating for users who have no idea about the technical aspects of camera usage.

[DWS1]

I think Pentax is still a very appealing option. The problem is the masses don't think Pentax is still making cameras.

[peggers]

I think there is more potential appeal of DSLRs than people expect. A certain number of people getting into photography are doing it through film.

Pentax SLR’s definitely have significant popularity with film photographers.

That is encouraging for the long term future of Pentax. Let's hope these folk tend to jump to digital relatively quickly!

[Kobie]

I think Pentax is still a very appealing option. The problem is the masses don't think Pentax is still making cameras.

I'm part of a number of photography for beginner groups on FB and here's what I see pretty much daily, sometimes multiple times per day...

"I want to get a new camera, currently shoot with phone. What's the best camera? Canon, Nikon or Sony? My budget is $500"
Sometimes it's just "Canon or Sony" other times it's just "What's the best camera?"

The answers are always the same no matter which of the 3 versions of the question get's asked.
Sony gets about 70% of the recommendations, followed by Canon and Nikon pretty much evenly spread at about 20%.
Some people will say FujiFilm (about 5%).
Panasonic, Olympus make up the remaining 5%.
Nobody (unless it's me) mentions Pentax. Save maybe 3 times that I've seen.

The reasons are always the same, Mirrorless is just better, period.
Even if you explain pros and cons of shooting Mirrorless vs DSLR, they ignore ALL the cons of Mirrorless and just say DSLR is old and dead. Mirrorless is the future.

They're so blinded by the tech that they can't even read properly. "The budget is max $500" and people are recommending the Sony A7R II and A7R III and A7R IV. Canon R5 and 6 and Nikon Z6 and 7.
It's all the cameras that are presented all across the internet, YouTube, Ads, Camera Store landing pages, hell, even radio commercials. It's all they know because it's always in their face.

In the end, they end up either getting a Nikon D3XXX, or Canon T5, 6, 7.
The next day the new DSLR owner "I went to take a picture, it looked fine on the screen, but when I took the picture, it was really dark. Did I just get a broken camera? I just got it from the store/just arrived I didn't drop it, I'm so upset! I don't know what to do?! HELP!!!!!!"

They just aren't used to having to understand the correlation of various settings to make a good exposure. They expect the same "what you see is what you get" experience that they're used to on their phone and anything else is just too hard.

[mikesbike]

I always tend to gravitate towards, "which system is easier to use for what you want to do" with beginners.

And I differentiate to them between "easier" and "best". There's nothing new about people wanting the easiest way to make a photograph. So SLR cameras have not been the most popular device in my remembrance. That step has always been by people searching for the way to produce better results, and a method to address difficult situations with a good outcome.

[normhead]

And I differentiate to them between "easier" and "best". There's nothing new about people wanting the easiest way to make a photograph. So SLR cameras have not been the most popular device in my remembrance. That step has always been by people searching for the way to produce better results, and a method to address difficult situations with a good outcome.

The last person to ask my advice, my cousin Rose a few weeks ago, just wanted a generally useful that would be good for taking images of flowers. She didn't want cheapest, she wanted the easiest possible way t get good enough images.

I like the idea of being the best, but I also know what it takes. A Pentax of better camera, and a lot o proportion and knowledge. You don't ind that in beginner. beginners by definition are still figuring it out.

The best camera for me would probably be a Nikon D850. I'm one the hoard of people who or one reason or another can get along with less than "the best".

If one of my rich buddies ever asks, I'll tell them about the best, and what they need to do to make use of "the best". Anyone else, just figure out what they need.

[mikesbike]

I like the idea of being the best, but I also know what it takes. A Pentax of better camera, and a lot o proportion and knowledge. You don't ind that in beginner. beginners by definition are still figuring it out.

Absolutely. Putting in some work to gain knowledge comes with the territory of a device that offers the control necessary to achieve what is sought after. And by that I mean the type of device, like an SLR type as one option, not necessarily a particular brand or model. But I do think for those who want to take the plunge, Pentax still provides the most bang for the buck in features and capability.

[SimonC]

I don't spend a lot on camera equipment and go in and out of periods of using what limited camera equipment I have. When we have completed our (retirement move) move to Anglesey I will be doing much more photography and developing my skills, probably will join a camera club and will look to upgrade my now ancient Samsung GX10 (I always think of it as Pentax though).

I have acquired a number of lenses, extension tubes and teleconverters several of which are older, legacy lenses. There is nothing which would tempt me away from Pentax and although in comparison it is probably not the biggest investment in camera equipment ever it is all quality stuff and I enjoy using it.

I for one would recommend Pentax to anyone interested in starting out, an innovative camera company which offer excellent value and have a great range of lenses old and new.

[Cerebum]

Unless a person has someone to guide them, I think you will find that someone new to photography will buy what they see – think cameras at Best Buy or Target. Rather few, I suspect, will do a whole lot of research other than "everybody says Canon is a good brand" or "a guy at work loves his Nikon." Sony will also probably sell some new users based on brand recognition.

Who knows from weather-sealing, ergonomics, menu systems, or old lenses?

I would think of Pentax as very much a niche product for certain photographic cognoscenti and not really on any newcomer's radar.

From my own experience, I started to be a "serious" hobbyist 8 years ago after I retired. I, at that time, owned a Canon super-zoom. I chose Pentax because a had a pair of serious Pentax binoculars for birding and really liked them. Ergo a Pentax K-5II. Absolutely no other reason. Who knew that camera bodies were $500 and also $2000? Who knew about kit and premium lenses? Who knew the I.Q. differences of primes and zooms? I think that I might reflect most of us – learn as we go.

My route wasn't dissimilar. I wanted a canon but remembered Pentax being the brand to have, did minimal research, just enjoughh to avoid the BS and got a K30. I have never looked back. Film is getting big, we may get people via spottys and k1000s Pentax film cameras are still sexy beasts