[AfterPentax Mark II]

Not everyone on the forum thinks this way.

I made a comment once that my Sigma APO 70-200/2.8 was a good investment, and someone commented that since the lens depreciates, how can it be an investment. My view was, like with quality tools they last a long time. I still use mine after 20 years, while many others have changed lenses multiple times

Some people mix up the investment in money and the investment in a hobby. An investment in your hobby never looses its value. Investments in money (shares and so on) are risky and most of the time the value decreases and you can only stare at a black and white account summary.

---------- Post added 18th May 2021 at 22:40 ----------

Pentax is cheap, but not good value, in my opinion.

I am glad it is just your opinion. How do you really think about it?

[kypfer]

If you include the used market and 3rd party manufacturers I'm not sure there is any financial advantage to buying pentax.

Depends where you're starting from.
From scratch, there's a lot of good inexpensive Canon stuff out there and quite a lot of relatively recent mirrorless gear is appearing locally.
For myself, with a long-standing assemblage of M42 lenses, when I changed over to Pentax about 20 years ago there wasn't really much other option if I didn't want to buy everything again in a different mount.
So I've stuck with Pentax, "retired" a lot of my older lenses, but I've still got a few bits and pieces that I use occasionally that I otherwise would have needed to replace had I changed to a different system.
So, for me, the financial advantage was in not having to replace a lot of seldom-used glass whilst retaining the option to use it occasionally if I wanted to … the list starts with an 8mm fisheye and works up
Maybe one day I'll find a well-used but still functional K-1 at a price I want to pay and be able to use all my old full-frame glass again, just as it was meant to be used

[luftfluss]

I do have a good bit of Pentax equipment, and I love their engineering and design; I would love to love Pentax, and I still use the stuff I've got. But at this point, I feel like the guy who's standing in front of someone else who's slapping his face, and I'm at the point at saying, I'm not going to stand here and take that anymore. Pentax has proved too expensive for me.

I do understand your feelings about this. It feels like for those of us in the USA there is an uncertainty in the repair chain, if something goes wrong.

The way I look at it is this: if I were to purchase a $2000 lens - say, the D FA 150-450 - and I had an accident and broke it, would I be able to get it repaired (on my dime) in a reasonable period of time? It seems as though there is a significant possiblilty that I would have to send the lens to Precision, and then either wait for parts from Japan or have the lens sent to Japan... and be without it for months. For me, that is unacceptable.

That might not even be the absolute worst situation. Panasonic has refused outright to repair some lenses (notably their "PanaLeica" 100-400), and instead offered a discount on refurbed that wind up matching the street prcies of brand new copies. For me, that is even more unacceptable.

Purely from reading on the Internet - always a dangerous thing - Canon and Fuji seem best at this. Nikon has reorganized their service scheme and I've had bad experiences with Sony (non-camera related).

I feel a greater sense of security using my old telephoto lenses, like my Tamron Adaptall 300/2.8 and 400/4, simply because if they break there are a number of outfits that can repair them as long as the lens elements are intact... no electronic components.

[zzaletel]

#gobrokesavingmoney

Hasn't done me wrong yet!

[clackers]

Mostly irrelevant - She has her mad money account and I have mine. We can buy anything that fits within our own allotment (and I'm pretty happy with my DA* 300 for the time being).

Very civilized, Dave!

On the broader topic of cheapness, I think every camera company including Ricoh has abandoned buying market share with discounting. Compact cameras are gone, and APS-C is under real threat. Pentax has released a new APS-C body but it's two grand.

To survive in the crashing market, all the manufacturers will have to become niche, targeting wealthy hobbyists, not ordinary folk who already have a phone. Nikon have already admitted this in their financials.

The mass market is over, and that's cruel to beginners to this great hobby of ours. But there is no sense in companies all exiting the business like Olympus have done.

[robgski]

#gobrokesavingmoney

#eatyourwaythin ! ?

[photoaki]

If you include the used market and 3rd party manufacturers I'm not sure there is any financial advantage to buying pentax.

My thinking is that's exactly where Pentax comes ahead. I've been able to find some great buys (e.g., ME Super + winder + 35-70mm and 70-210mm zooms for $45).
Every Pentax product still works, too.

Some people mix up the investment in money and the investment in a hobby. An investment in your hobby never looses its value. Investments in money (shares and so on) are risky and most of the time the value decreases and you can only stare at a black and white account summary.

That's a really good point. And I do have fun with the Pentax stuff (when it works).

---------- Post added 18th May 2021 at 22:40 ----------

I am glad it is just your opinion. How do you really think about it?

Hah! Here's the thing - if I say what I really think about it, I'd be risking a suit for product disparagement, because I'd be making statements of fact. But since it's only an opinion, and opinions aren't statements of fact, I'm ok from a legal liability perspective. It doesn't even matter if it's not a fact that I hold that opinion.

---------- Post added 2021-05-19 at 03:16 AM ----------

I do understand your feelings about this. It feels like for those of us in the USA there is an uncertainty in the repair chain, if something goes wrong.

The way I look at it is this: if I were to purchase a $2000 lens - say, the D FA 150-450 - and I had an accident and broke it, would I be able to get it repaired (on my dime) in a reasonable period of time? It seems as though there is a significant possiblilty that I would have to send the lens to Precision, and then either wait for parts from Japan or have the lens sent to Japan... and be without it for months. For me, that is unacceptable.

That might not even be the absolute worst situation. Panasonic has refused outright to repair some lenses (notably their "PanaLeica" 100-400), and instead offered a discount on refurbed that wind up matching the street prcies of brand new copies. For me, that is even more unacceptable.

Purely from reading on the Internet - always a dangerous thing - Canon and Fuji seem best at this. Nikon has reorganized their service scheme and I've had bad experiences with Sony (non-camera related).

I feel a greater sense of security using my old telephoto lenses, like my Tamron Adaptall 300/2.8 and 400/4, simply because if they break there are a number of outfits that can repair them as long as the lens elements are intact... no electronic components.

Well said, and I agree completely (and, by the way, Sony is also on my "do not buy list" for the same reasons).

[AfterPentax Mark II]

The type of work I did the people I had to deal with told me: "Never say what you think and never think what you say!" (They were people on the wrong side of the law, whereas I was there to uphold it.)

It feels like for those of us in the USA there is an uncertainty in the repair chain, if something goes wrong

In Europe it is more or less the same, but in the case of warranty it is the seller that is responsible and not Ricoh, that makes it a bit easier for us to get things repaired under warranty within a reasonable time, the buyer does not do business with the "repair-shop" the seller does this. But as soon as warranty is over, than the problems start, but even then the legal position of a buyer in the European Union is better than that in other parts of the world, as we have strong customer protection rules.

[Sandy Hancock]

Pentax is cheap, but not good value, in my opinion.

Your purchasing choices have likely differed from mine. I think Pentax is quite expensive, but excellent value.

The Limited and Star lenses are outstanding, and the higher end bodies are rugged, reliable, and unlike anything the other brands offer.

I would be fascinated to see some details of what products have earned such chagrin from you....

[bdery]

Some people mix up the investment in money and the investment in a hobby. An investment in your hobby never looses its value. Investments in money (shares and so on) are risky and most of the time the value decreases and you can only stare at a black and white account summary.

Agreed, although I believe the cause is the use of the word "investment". Governments do that all the time also. You're not "investing" on a road, you're "spending". It might be wise, useful, etc, but it's not investing. Spending money in your hobby might be well spent, but it's not an investment.

[Wasp]

If you buy something that was $1000 at 20% off, you did not save $200. You spent $800...

[UncleVanya]

If you buy something that was $1000 at 20% off, you did not save $200. You spent $800...

That’s must mean. Lol, don’t pop our bubbles.

[bertwert]

If you buy something that was $1000 at 20% off, you did not save $200. You spent $800...

Stop being so pessimistic. I saved that $200!

[catfishjohn]

I have never a problem saving money for a new lens, camera, winder ect. I just try anticipate the need, or want, well ahead and start saving the money I get from selling blood. Usually a few short months and I have a new toy. This method has proven to have a flaw. My wife is getting older and seems to be passing out more often lately.