[Lord Lucan]

Crazy rich was unsuccessful sarcasm based on previous comments going a bit too far into personal finance. Possibly also my deep jealousy of K-1ers.

Understood, but different people have different priorities. I have known people who go on world cruises and buy a new car every two years, but complain they are hard-up and they even believe themselves. What they mean is that they are hard up after the world cruises and cars etc. Spending £2-3000 on photo kit that will last say 5 years is no more than people spend on many other hobbies. I'm thinking of golf, sailing, cycling, hang-gliding, in fact almost anything that requires equipment unless it is just running.

I have had a K-1 with one modern lens (the rest are legacy) for four years and have no intention of replacing it until it fails. I have 13 year old car (ditto) which I service and repair myself and I do all my own home maintenance, decorating and building (I admit I did draw the line at replacing the roof). I don't go on "dream" holidays (they don't appeal anyway) and I think you would find from my photos here that I take pictures where I find them, mostly local to me. I am not short of money, but I am frugal by nature (which is a reason why).

PS : That's not my house in the avatar BTW

---

Last edited by Lord Lucan; 01-13-2021 at 02:02 PM. Reason: Added PS

[Kunzite]

Well said. I cannot disagree with a single word you said in your post. I totally put the burden of this mess on Ricoh's shoulders. They had so many opportunities 645Z, K1, GR to take the bull by the horn but they decided to sleep walk through this super competitive imaging business. I have bought plenty of Pentax gear at what used to be reasonable prices. In all honesty I cannot recommend their current stuff to anyone. I do not need their hate mail for the rest of my life!!

I would invest in the brand more if things were looking up. A $1,900 APS-c body? I don't think so. I got into the Fuji system for mainly my video needs. The X-T4 will work circles around the K3III for less money. It would match the still image quality and blow away the K3II in video capabilities. And I am supposed to be loyal to Ricoh, do their dirty work, and tell my family and friends to buy into a dying brand. I don't think so. I want to clarify my comments before the moderators and other forum members try to chew my head off. My love affair with Pentax goes back some 40 years! I have bought close to $10k worth of their DSLR gear just in the past few years. So I do not hate the brand. They are simply not competitive anymore, in price and in capabilities.

What a load of... nonsense.
Assuming the price is true, you wouldn't pay that for a Pentax but would gladly pay for a $1700 Fujifilm. Then, you build a fake explanation about why it is so.
You know nothing about the K-3 III's image quality. You know nothing about the K-3 III's capabilities except for a specs list (if you know that).
You say that recommending Pentax is "dirty work" - but you basically recommend Fuji instead, and that's fine.
You say Pentax is a "dying brand", and that's pure BS.
Your history with Pentax doesn't matter. What matters is the anti-Pentax nonsense you're posting now.

[Kunzite]

Anything. Literally anything. Get it into photographers hands. Get some online ads. Send out review samples. I tried to find anything, anything at all for reviews on the Pentax 70-200 F2.8 D FA. Google it. The first result is this forum. Sometimes google will bring up Ephotozine. The Youtube reviews are almost all worthless, and one of the major ones basically shows me that this lens is not all that sharp. There's basically nothing. Your depth of online presence is this forum, which you see as plenty because you're immersed in it.

They are doing some advertising; even our tiny local dealer had adds in magazines and whatever. Nobody noticed.
Reviews are not advertising. If they were, they'd be useless.

[Kunzite]

I think that the specific comparison to the Tamron lens is the one on YouTube by the Cameraville. I remember it -- it was the subject of several extensive discussions here on Pentax Forums.

Which is neither reputable nor reliable.

[btnapa]

What a load of... nonsense.

Wake up and smell the roses. You might miss the bus, Gus!

[c.a.m]

Wake up and smell the roses. You might miss the bus, Gus!

You might have missed previous comments in response to your earlier post: The future of Pentax is in your hands! - Page 7 - PentaxForums.com

Having a preference for the Fujifilm system is not an issue -- they make fine gear (my son loves his X-T3, which I played with for several days). And, it's okay to not be enamored with Pentax or to recommend other brands -- that's a personal choice.

However, the critical statements in your earlier post seem to be unsupported by evidence.

There is a reference to a "mess," but it's not clear to which mess you refer. Also, "dying brand" is not substantiated.

The comment on a notional price of the K-3 Mark III ("$1,900") ignores the full picture. For example, as a point of comparison, Nikon offers their D500 for USD $1,500 -- 20% cheaper, but it's now five years old. The price of the X-T4 is only 10% less than your supposed price of the Pentax. From what we know so far, it seems that the new Pentax will introduce an impressive capability, but we don't know all its details or its retail price. So, isn't it premature to judge its value proposition?

The negative comparison of the K-3 Mark III to the Fuji X-T4 is made without an objective basis. "Work circles around" and "blow away" are subjective terms that are difficult to interpret.

It would be useful if you would explain your rationale for your comparison. And, especially, please let us know whether you know the full feature set and performance of the K-3 Mark III. Have you used it?

Thanks.

- Craig

[MarkJerling]

Wake up and smell the roses. You might miss the bus, Gus!

What is your purpose in posting here?