Why Are Pentax with Prime Selection Grabbing Some of Mirrorless Market?

Started Aug 10, 2013 | Discussions
Paphios
Regular MemberPosts: 395
Like?
Re: Why Are Pentax with Prime Selection Grabbing Some of Mirrorless Market?
In reply to REShultz, Aug 11, 2013

REShultz wrote:

Yeah the thread's direction is unfortunate.

Pentax is really one of the only DSLRs that interests me. From the outside it seems you get the benefits of a DSLR with the benefits of mirrorless. I do regret that I can't get my hands on one in a showroom though to try it out. A little more exposure could do wonders. The last Pentax I held was my very first camera, a ZX-5n, which I wasn't ready or qualified to use.

If you are interested in Pentax, they are useful just the way you describe.  I currently use Pentax APS-C cameras (K5-IIs and K-30) and Nikon FF cameras (D700 and D800e).  I like using the Pentax cameras, but I am constantly mystified by their lack of a coherent marketing strategy and strange price fluctuations.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Gerry Winterbourne
Veteran MemberPosts: 7,472
Like?
Cherry picking
In reply to Richard, Aug 11, 2013

Richard wrote:

I thought there were only two issues but I thought, hmm, lets see what it would cost to replace my lenses. What I found is that the comparable lens from Pentax were much more expensive than Canons and that Pentax does not have my favorite go to lens the 70-200 2.8 or the 24-70 2.8

And, as a long-time Pentax user I check prices from time to time and find that at current prices it would cost about 20% more to buy the lenses I own from either Canon or Nikon.  This sort of argument often comes up - it's pretty easy to cherry pick a set of lenses to prove a point either way.

The only fair thing to say is that if you want a suite of lenses of specific style, FL, aperture etc you should check prices for those particular lenses.  It depends on which lenses you want where you'll find the lowest price.

It did not cover my Nikon14-24 2.8 either nor a fisheye (there may be some 3rd party alternatives).

Every maker has some unique lenses.  There are FLs in the Pentax line-up that no other maker offers: that partly explains what I said above.  Pentax has a 10-17FE lens.

-- hide signature --

Gerry
_______________________________________
First camera 1953, first Pentax 1985, first DSLR 2006
http://www.pbase.com/gerrywinterbourne
gerry.winterbourne@ntlworld.com

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Richard
Veteran MemberPosts: 4,605
Like?
Re: migrate to fullframe
In reply to CFynn, Aug 12, 2013

CFynn wrote:

Not everyone wants to "migrate to fullframe"

Agreed, what I was discussing is why the Pentax system like the K30 with a good supply of lenses, a resonably priced camera with advanced features like 6fps, IS on camera, APSc which means good image quality, DSLR which appears to be more desirable, smaller camera form factor. Why is it not mainstream and still niche market.

It should be selling as well as any Canon or Nikon, but it is not. So I was offering up explanations as to why. Not saying it is a bad camera or system.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Richard
Veteran MemberPosts: 4,605
Like?
Re: Cherry picking
In reply to Gerry Winterbourne, Aug 12, 2013

Gerry Winterbourne wrote:

Richard wrote:

I thought there were only two issues but I thought, hmm, lets see what it would cost to replace my lenses. What I found is that the comparable lens from Pentax were much more expensive than Canons and that Pentax does not have my favorite go to lens the 70-200 2.8 or the 24-70 2.8

And, as a long-time Pentax user I check prices from time to time and find that at current prices it would cost about 20% more to buy the lenses I own from either Canon or Nikon. This sort of argument often comes up - it's pretty easy to cherry pick a set of lenses to prove a point either way.5/

I have not found that to be true at all, perhaps post your lens line up and I will check that.

The only fair thing to say is that if you want a suite of lenses of specific style, FL, aperture etc you should check prices for those particular lenses. It depends on which lenses you want where you'll find the lowest price.

It did not cover my Nikon14-24 2.8 either nor a fisheye (there may be some 3rd party alternatives).

Every maker has some unique lenses. There are FLs in the Pentax line-up that no other maker offers: that partly explains what I said above. Pentax has a 10-17FE lens

Pentax does not have this  14-24 nikon lens at all This is a full frame lens, the Nikon is not a fisheye. As far as fisheye. Nikon has the 10.5 2.8 and the 15 2.8 Canon has the 16 2.8 and the 8-15 F4.

Nikon and Canon have fast glass, which the Pentax does not have. Canon cover a similar length at F4. But in reality, they cover the fisheye with fast glass, which is an advantage the pentax does not have.

Canon and Nikon are covered for the slower glass in the Tokina 10-17 but if we go down this road then the Pentax is covered by the Sigma 15 2.8 so this is a wash to me, both cameras have the focal lenghts cover.

But as I said, I could not replace my lenses with comparable lenses for a number of focal lengths that are missing on the Pentax side, the biggest being FF lenses.

Again, show me your lens list. One thing though, when I was looking, I found the Pentax equavants were priced similar or much higer for lenses that were not FF. Again this is an issue at least for me.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
David Lawson
Senior MemberPosts: 2,752Gear list
Like?
Re: Why Are Pentax with Prime Selection Grabbing Some of Mirrorless Market?
In reply to REShultz, Aug 12, 2013

This may help, again it may not. However, it's why I went from Pentax to mirrorless

I used a Pentax K5 with Ltds (15, 21, 40, and 70) and yes it was a nice set up. However, the problems I had was the flash system and lenses. I had shot professionally on Nikon mainly for their flash set up so maybe it's not a fair comparison. Personally I think Nikon has, in my experience, the best flash system. As I was close to retirement and no longer needed a comprehensive outfit so I traded the Nikon one for a Pentax one and also gained a substantial cheque. I used the 50-150 to finish off a portrait contract I had, What I really wanted was a fixed 85mm lens but apart from trying to find an old f1.4 at a ridiculous price none were available still aren't. I also wanted a pro level 17-70 type zoom, which was promised but never appeared. I always had the sdm failure scenario in the back of my mind. It's ridiculous Pentax never got that sorted and if they now have it should have been done earlier. Screw driven lenses are not used by any other manufacturer as far as I'm aware. Pentax solution for their 18-135 sdm was, and I quote, "The DC motor found in the lens is based on the motors used for screwdrive autofocus in Pentax camera bodies, although it's obviously been modified to be quieter and to fit inside the lens." Way behind anything Canon, Nikon etc now has.

So what I'm saying is Pentax, possibly due to the fact it's been bought and sold over the last few years hasn't moved forward. The K5 was a breakthrough camera for them and they got a lot out of the sony chip at its heart. They still do and the K5 11s is a good camera but only a K5 without the AA filter and a few added tweaks. No progress with smaller, and more AF sites. No improved flash system and nothing to speak of in terms of lenses, unless you need an extreme telephoto.

My solution was to go mirrorless and chose the Fuji X-E1 which I really like. The files out of the camera are so good I've more or less stopped using RAW. They sail through my on line agencies QC, my only pro work now, with the minimum of adjustments and some none at all. Which is all I ask for these days. The outfit is smaller than the Pentax, the flash, although not as sophisticated as Pentax's is acceptable and does the job I need it to. I don't require off camera control any more and I am not averse to cables. I'm convinced by the Fuji chip and their lenses and am looking forward to the X-Pro2, which is saying something, as I thought my wanting new cameras was a thing of the past, along with paid assignments.

david

 David Lawson's gear list:David Lawson's gear list
Fujifilm X-E1
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Leandros S
Contributing MemberPosts: 920Gear list
Like?
Re: The problems as I see it.... Pentax, or is it Ricoh
In reply to Richard, Aug 12, 2013

Richard wrote:

The problem with Pentax is 2 things, first, no path to FF.

That is such patent BS. Take a look at a typical Canikon lens selection, work out how many of those lenses are DX or EF-S. Those lenses will not see much use after a full frame transition, same as any current Pentax DA lenses. When you're fully committed to full frame, you can sell those lenses. Because Pentax lenses don't get IS/VR upgrades every few years, they depreciate less. Bonus for Pentax.

Then work out how much the rest of your lenses have cost (Canikon) and work out what they might cost without IS (Pentax). Bonus for Pentax.

Then deduct from the Pentax side the price difference between a Pentax APS-C (K-30) and a Canikon equivalent. Probably a bonus for Pentax.

The bottom line is, whether you switch from Pentax to another brand for full frame, or Pentax delivers a full frame with reasonable lens selection (remember you can supplement with Sigma lenses!), going with Pentax as your entry level is unlikely to lose you much money, end of story.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Leandros S
Contributing MemberPosts: 920Gear list
Like?
Re: Cherry picking
In reply to Richard, Aug 12, 2013

Richard wrote:

Nikon and Canon have fast glass, which the Pentax does not have.

What? There's a 31mm f/1.8, 43mm f/1.9, 50mm f/1.4, 55mm f/1.4, 77mm f/1.8, 200mm f/2.8, 300mm f/4 and 560mm f/5.6. If you want a fast standard zoom, Sigma's 18-35 1.8 will be available shortly, plus much of the rest of Sigma's line-up. So what on Earth could you be talking about?

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
audiobomber
Veteran MemberPosts: 4,051Gear list
Like?
Re: Why Are Pentax with Prime Selection Grabbing Some of Mirrorless Market?
In reply to David Lawson, Aug 12, 2013

David Lawson wrote:

This may help, again it may not. However, it's why I went from Pentax to mirrorless

This is such a strange move. You left Pentax because not enough lenses, and no sophisticated flash system, and went with a brand that is weaker on both counts.

I used a Pentax K5 with Ltds (15, 21, 40, and 70) and yes it was a nice set up. However, the problems I had was the flash system and lenses.No progress with smaller, and more AF sites. No improved flash system and nothing to speak of in terms of lenses, unless you need an extreme telephoto.

There are several new lenses coming, as shown in the roadmap, and Pentax already has far more lenses than any mirrorless system; 109 lenses for Pentax vs. 8 for Fuji, according to this site. http://snapsort.com/compare/Fujifilm-X-E1-vs-Pentax-K-5-IIs

My solution was to go mirrorless and chose the Fuji X-E1 which I really like. The files out of the camera are so good I've more or less stopped using RAW. They sail through my on line agencies QC, my only pro work now, with the minimum of adjustments and some none at all. Which is all I ask for these days. The outfit is smaller than the Pentax, the flash, although not as sophisticated as Pentax's is acceptable and does the job I need it to. I don't require off camera control any more and I am not averse to cables. I'm convinced by the Fuji chip and their lenses and am looking forward to the X-Pro2, which is saying something, as I thought my wanting new cameras was a thing of the past, along with paid assignments.

The K-5 IIs is more than a match for a Fuji XE-1. Same resolution, similar sensor, each with its own boost to get beyond standard 16mp performance. When I compare Fuji X to K-5 IIs, I see more detail in the Pentax files. Fuji has less noise and less detail. The photos on this site show this well (replace NEX7 with K-5 IIs) http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/fujifilm-x-e1/19

You are praising the XE-1 for its jpegs. I don't understand why you couldn't get the same or very similar look with Pentax. The jpeg menu has eight jpeg presets (image tones), each with unlimited combinations of contrast, saturation, sharpness, etc. If you can't get what you want out of this jpeg menu, you aren't really trying.

You like your Fuji better, that's understandable, people have preferences, but your reasons for switching are questionable. The only advantages i can see are smaller size, and an EVF. Even these are a matter of preference. I'll take an OVF every time, and small size is actually a disadvantage if you're using a larger lens and/or external flash. MILC is not an option for me, no AF-C and no fast or pro quality supertele lenses.

-- hide signature --

Dan

 audiobomber's gear list:audiobomber's gear list
Pentax K-3 Sony a6000 Pentax K20D Pentax smc DA 15mm F4 ED AL Limited Pentax smc FA 50mm F1.4 +14 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Richard
Veteran MemberPosts: 4,605
Like?
Canon primes...
In reply to Leandros S, Aug 12, 2013

Leandros S wrote:

Richard wrote:

Nikon and Canon have fast glass, which the Pentax does not have.

What? There's a 31mm f/1.8, 43mm f/1.9, 50mm f/1.4, 55mm f/1.4, 77mm f/1.8, 200mm f/2.8, 300mm f/4 and 560mm f/5.6. If you want a fast standard zoom, Sigma's 18-35 1.8 will be available shortly, plus much of the rest of Sigma's line-up. So what on Earth could you be talking about?

You must not know Canons lineup 17 4 TSE, 24 3.5 TSE, 45 2.5 TSE, 24 1.4, 35 1.4, 50 1.2, 50 1.4, 50 1.2, 85 1.8, 180 3.5 macro, 200 1.8, 200 2.0, 300 2.8, 400 2.8, 500 4, 600 4, 800 5.6, 1200 5.6

Those are just fast Full frame Canon primes, this does not include Canons slower primes aps-c lenses, Nikon or any zoom lenses from Nikon or Canon.

Those Sigma lens you talk about, many of them work on Canon and Nikon FF cameras as well. They are full frame lenses. I don't know if or how many full frame lenses Pentax makes, they don't specify it.

Just in this comparison, Pentax does not have fast glass in comparison to Canon and has a lot of fast glass that Pentax does not have, which was my statement of fact, you have said nothing to change that.

You can see all Canon Lenses here. It would be good if there was a website to see all pentax lenses for a full comparison.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
MoreorLess
Senior MemberPosts: 2,447
Like?
Re: Why Are Pentax with Prime Selection Grabbing Some of Mirrorless Market?
In reply to audiobomber, Aug 12, 2013

audiobomber wrote:

David Lawson wrote:

This may help, again it may not. However, it's why I went from Pentax to mirrorless

This is such a strange move. You left Pentax because not enough lenses, and no sophisticated flash system, and went with a brand that is weaker on both counts.

I used a Pentax K5 with Ltds (15, 21, 40, and 70) and yes it was a nice set up. However, the problems I had was the flash system and lenses.No progress with smaller, and more AF sites. No improved flash system and nothing to speak of in terms of lenses, unless you need an extreme telephoto.

There are several new lenses coming, as shown in the roadmap, and Pentax already has far more lenses than any mirrorless system; 109 lenses for Pentax vs. 8 for Fuji, according to this site. http://snapsort.com/compare/Fujifilm-X-E1-vs-Pentax-K-5-IIs

My solution was to go mirrorless and chose the Fuji X-E1 which I really like. The files out of the camera are so good I've more or less stopped using RAW. They sail through my on line agencies QC, my only pro work now, with the minimum of adjustments and some none at all. Which is all I ask for these days. The outfit is smaller than the Pentax, the flash, although not as sophisticated as Pentax's is acceptable and does the job I need it to. I don't require off camera control any more and I am not averse to cables. I'm convinced by the Fuji chip and their lenses and am looking forward to the X-Pro2, which is saying something, as I thought my wanting new cameras was a thing of the past, along with paid assignments.

The K-5 IIs is more than a match for a Fuji XE-1. Same resolution, similar sensor, each with its own boost to get beyond standard 16mp performance. When I compare Fuji X to K-5 IIs, I see more detail in the Pentax files. Fuji has less noise and less detail. The photos on this site show this well (replace NEX7 with K-5 IIs) http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/fujifilm-x-e1/19

You are praising the XE-1 for its jpegs. I don't understand why you couldn't get the same or very similar look with Pentax. The jpeg menu has eight jpeg presets (image tones), each with unlimited combinations of contrast, saturation, sharpness, etc. If you can't get what you want out of this jpeg menu, you aren't really trying.

You like your Fuji better, that's understandable, people have preferences, but your reasons for switching are questionable. The only advantages i can see are smaller size, and an EVF. Even these are a matter of preference. I'll take an OVF every time, and small size is actually a disadvantage if you're using a larger lens and/or external flash. MILC is not an option for me, no AF-C and no fast or pro quality supertele lenses.

-- hide signature --

Dan

I'd guess it really depends what you want in terms of lens range, Pentax certainly has the advantage in zooms but Fuji is looking likely to build a considerable advantage in terms of fast primes.

Within a year your likely to have...

12mm f/2.8

14mm f/2.8

18mm f/2

22mm f/1.4

32mm f/1.8

35mm f/1.4

50mm f/1.4

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Gerry Winterbourne
Veteran MemberPosts: 7,472
Like?
Re: Cherry picking
In reply to Richard, Aug 12, 2013

Richard wrote:

Gerry Winterbourne wrote:

Richard wrote:

I thought there were only two issues but I thought, hmm, lets see what it would cost to replace my lenses. What I found is that the comparable lens from Pentax were much more expensive than Canons and that Pentax does not have my favorite go to lens the 70-200 2.8 or the 24-70 2.8

And, as a long-time Pentax user I check prices from time to time and find that at current prices it would cost about 20% more to buy the lenses I own from either Canon or Nikon. This sort of argument often comes up - it's pretty easy to cherry pick a set of lenses to prove a point either way.5/

I have not found that to be true at all, perhaps post your lens line up and I will check that.

Priced today from what is probably the biggest cross-brand supplier in the UK: DA35/2.8Ltd macro (£379), FA50/1.4 (319), DA70/2.4Ltd (459), DFA100/2.8WR macro (499), DA*200/2.8 (749); total £2,405.

Of these all work well on FF except the 35/2.8. On my Pentax bodies they are all stabilised, so to compare Nikkor lenses I pick the nearest equivalent that has VR (if there is one). I know that some people claim that in-lens stabilisation is more effective than in-body, but I've asked several times for evidence and no one has ever provided any.

The nearest Nikkor equivalents - with about 3 out of 5 lacking VR - are 40/2.8 macro (255), 50/1.4 (289), 85/1.8 (379), 105/2.8 macro (629), 200/2.8 macro (1,239); total £2,791 (16% over Pentax prices for kit that lacks stabilisation on 60% of the items).

The only fair thing to say is that if you want a suite of lenses of specific style, FL, aperture etc you should check prices for those particular lenses. It depends on which lenses you want where you'll find the lowest price.

It did not cover my Nikon14-24 2.8 either nor a fisheye (there may be some 3rd party alternatives).

Every maker has some unique lenses. There are FLs in the Pentax line-up that no other maker offers: that partly explains what I said above. Pentax has a 10-17FE lens

Pentax does not have this 14-24 Nikon lens at all This is a full frame lens, the Nikon is not a fisheye. As far as fisheye. Nikon has the 10.5 2.8 and the 15 2.8 Canon has the 16 2.8 and the 8-15 F4.

Try reading what I wrote again: you said Pentax doesn't have fisheye (FE); I said it did. I said nothing about the rectilinear zoom (although Pentax does have a 12024 zoom).

But as I said, I could not replace my lenses with comparable lenses for a number of focal lengths that are missing on the Pentax side, the biggest being FF lenses.

And as I said, nor could I the other way round.  That was the whole point of my first post - it's meaningless to compare generically; everyone should price their own chosen set.

Again, show me your lens list. One thing though, when I was looking, I found the Pentax equivalents were priced similar or much higher for lenses that were not FF. Again this is an issue at least for me.

First, I'm not sure you understand the basic fact that past about 50mm all primes are effectively FF, although it is different for zooms.  Without knowing the specific comparisons you have made I don't know if you compared fully weather-sealed Pentax lenses with non-sealed lenses; but if you did, there's a likely explanation for price differentials.

When talking of FF "upgrade" it's important to be clear what it means.  People who start with entry-level DSLRs usually start with entry-level lenses that won't cover FF.  So for them "upgrade" means "start again"; in other words, they are no better placed than people who buy into Pentax.

The typical FLs made for film (= FF) cameras developed to suit 135 (FF).  Some of those FLs convert happily to APS-C, some don't.  Buying one set of FLs just in case you later change format might work or it might not; but it's misleading to give the impression that it will always work.  And there's the down side too: my 200/2.8 has AOV/FOV equivalence with 300/4 on FF, but it costs £749 v 929 (Pentax) or 1.029 (Nikkor) - and while Pentax doesn't offer equal speed the Nikkor 300/2.8 costs £4,045.

-- hide signature --

Gerry
_______________________________________
First camera 1953, first Pentax 1985, first DSLR 2006
http://www.pbase.com/gerrywinterbourne
gerry.winterbourne@ntlworld.com

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Richard
Veteran MemberPosts: 4,605
Like?
Lots of EF lenses by comparison
In reply to Leandros S, Aug 12, 2013

Leandros S wrote:

Richard wrote:

The problem with Pentax is 2 things, first, no path to FF.

That is such patent BS. Take a look at a typical Canikon lens selection, work out how many of those lenses are DX or EF-S

Look at the previous post, all of those lenses are EF and fit both cameras. All my lenses except for the kit are FF lenses.

There are 11 EF-S  APS-C lenses on this page of 24. These are zoom lenses only

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-Zoom-Lens-Reviews.aspx

There is only 1 EFS lens on this page of 39 lenses all but one are EF primes that work with both cameras.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-Lens-Reviews.aspx

Then there are all the 3rd party lenses.

For Nikon, All DX lenses fit on FX cameras and the cameras will go into DX crop mode if desired.

Please understand, Pentax is not even in the same league.

. Those lenses will not see much use after a full frame transition,

Out of 63 lenses only 12 of Canon EF-S lenses will work on the FF camera. Most people like myself who think someday they may upgrade to a FF camera only buy EF lenses. I have only 2 Canon lenses that will not fit on FF, One was part of a kit and the other is a 11-16 2.8 Tokina which will fit but will only do FF at 17mm and do a circular fisheye at 11mm

same as any current Pentax DA lenses. When you're fully committed to full frame, you can sell those lenses. Because Pentax lenses don't get IS/VR upgrades every few years, they depreciate less. Bonus for Pentax.

If pentax did not have any bonuses, people would not buy this camera brand. Having in body IS is great, the bonus you don't get is that the lenses are still more expensive than the Canons, why is that?

Then work out how much the rest of your lenses have cost (Canikon) and work out what they might cost without IS (Pentax). Bonus for Pentax.

Again, as I said, from what I have seen Canon lenses with IS are often less expensive than the Pentax lenses.

The bottom line is, whether you switch from Pentax to another brand for full frame, or Pentax delivers a full frame with reasonable lens selection (remember you can supplement with Sigma lenses!), going with Pentax as your entry level is unlikely to lose you much money, end of story.

Sorry, you are incorrect. Nikon, all the DX lenses work on FX bodies. For Canon, there are only 11 EFS lenses that will not fit on Canon bodies out of 63 lenses depends on which ones you buy. Anyone that brings the thought of being interested in full frame into buying a system and or ise eventually moving to FF will only buy FF lenses or they will go Nikon. You will lose money on Pentax compared to Nikon and with Canon it depends if the person was even thinking about FF when they made their purchase. And still we are talking rumors, there is no Pentax FF for 35mm and if you move to medium format, there are only 4 lenses.

This is a huge downside for Pentax for a person considering a brand of camera. This is not a slam to Pentax, we know it is a smaller company and they do produce good cameras and lenses. I was answering the discussion as to why then is Pentax not mainstream and is a niche market. The reasons I have listed including lenses keep these cameras out of the hands of advanced enthusiasts moving to FF eventually, Pros and the masses, because if they do any research and are wanting the best system, the best system has the lenses like Canon has. Whether the consumer needs them or not.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Leandros S
Contributing MemberPosts: 920Gear list
Like?
Re: Canon primes...
In reply to Richard, Aug 12, 2013

Richard wrote:

Leandros S wrote:

Richard wrote:

Nikon and Canon have fast glass, which the Pentax does not have.

What? There's a 31mm f/1.8, 43mm f/1.9, 50mm f/1.4, 55mm f/1.4, 77mm f/1.8, 200mm f/2.8, 300mm f/4 and 560mm f/5.6. If you want a fast standard zoom, Sigma's 18-35 1.8 will be available shortly, plus much of the rest of Sigma's line-up. So what on Earth could you be talking about?

You must not know Canons lineup 17 4 TSE, 24 3.5 TSE, 45 2.5 TSE, 24 1.4, 35 1.4, 50 1.2, 50 1.4, 50 1.2, 85 1.8, 180 3.5 macro, 200 1.8, 200 2.0, 300 2.8, 400 2.8, 500 4, 600 4, 800 5.6, 1200 5.6

I wasn't aware that a 24 3.5 was considered "fast", so your list cannot be considered equivalent to mine. The rest of what you've tried to say in defence is besides the point, since your original statement was "Nikon and Canon have fast glass, which the (sic) Pentax does not have.", rather than "Nikon and Canon's lens line-up differs from Pentax'.", which seems to be the point you're now trying to defend, and which is the only point that could possibly be defendable here.

Those Sigma lens you talk about, many of them work on Canon and Nikon FF cameras as well.

How does that support your claim? That's right, it doesn't.

They are full frame lenses. I don't know if or how many full frame lenses Pentax makes, they don't specify it.

So you went out on speculation and got caught out, b/c those test results are available if you bother to google.

Just in this comparison, Pentax does not have fast glass in comparison to Canon and has a lot of fast glass that Pentax does not have, which was my statement of fact, you have said nothing to change that.

That was not your original statement, but even if it had been, the reciprocal is also true: Pentax has some fast glass that Canon does not have. Now what?

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Leandros S
Contributing MemberPosts: 920Gear list
Like?
Crop mode does not give you full frame
In reply to Richard, Aug 12, 2013

Yes, I know about crop mode, and I could make the same argument about Pentax - just shoot and crop back later - there's not going to be a new mount, it will all still be K mount, so all current lenses will fit. The amount of vignetting will vary. If your argument is about full frame, stop mentioning crop mode. If you're going to use crop mode, stick with a cheaper crop mode (APS-C) body.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
lester11
Regular MemberPosts: 386Gear list
Like?
No one has mentioned QA
In reply to REShultz, Aug 12, 2013

I got into the K-5 when I couldn't play with my Panny GH2 'cos it was raining.  While I really did notice the increased size and weight, I was happy with almost everything else.  Pentax ergonomics was really something else, the green button was special, the control over the auto ISO ramp terrific, image quality excellent, great range of lenses (on paper).  Then after a couple of months, my zoom started to get dust inside, the Pentax WR 18-135, it's a WR... huh?  I bought the Pentax 540 top-of-the-line flash gun, it failed on the fourth shutter press...  whoa?  I bought the DA* 55 prime, it was soft in the corners... Argh!  I backed out of Pentax 'cos I lost all confidence that, when I bought something, it would just work.  Sad, really, I loved the kit when it did work.

-- hide signature --

Lester

 lester11's gear list:lester11's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-ZS30 Olympus PEN E-PL3 Olympus OM-D E-M5 Olympus E-M1 Panasonic Leica D Summilux Asph 25mm F1.4 +13 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Midwest
Forum ProPosts: 13,133
Like?
Re: The problems as I see it.... Pentax, or is it Ricoh
In reply to Richard, Aug 12, 2013

Funny anagram:

Ricoh Pentax = China Export

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Gary Martin
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,020Gear list
Like?
No Retro
In reply to REShultz, Aug 12, 2013

Sorry, but Pentax is completely lacking in retro styling, which is very important to modern photography. If my camera doesn't look like a Leica wannabe, how am I supposed to fee like HCB?

 Gary Martin's gear list:Gary Martin's gear list
Pentax K-01 Pentax K-30 Pentax smc DA 15mm F4 ED AL Limited Pentax smc FA 50mm F1.4 Pentax smc DA 21mm F3.2 AL Limited +3 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Dennis
Forum ProPosts: 13,239
Like?
Non sequitur
In reply to REShultz, Aug 12, 2013

REShultz wrote:

I've read numerous times in the past few days that smaller DSLRs are the future because they 1) are some of the best performers and 2) have low entry prices.

We've never, at least in my lifetime, had one kind of camera, so it's unreasonable to think that any type of camera is "the future".  (I suppose it's entirely reasonable to say that cell phone cameras are the future in the sense that the vast majority of photos will be taken with them; they're already the present and that's not going to change ... but when looking at DSLRs and competing cameras, we're looking at a segment of the market that's always been in the minority - consumers were shooting Instamatics and 110 and disposables and 35mm point & shoots in years gone by).

This setup seems like a perfect compromise. If it isn't selling, that suggests that there really are two markets out there-- one for DSLRs and one for mirrorless--

The low sales figures for one particular camera suggests no such thing. I haven't read through this thread, but I'm willing to bet that by now, people have come up with dozens of reasons why Pentax cameras do not sell well.

and that we might want to stop prognosticating the end of either system.

Well, that's a good idea simply because there are millions of camera buyers out there with different budets, priorities and needs, and no one type of camera is "the future". Not full frame, not micro 4/3, not the iPhone. They all have the potential to thrive and most of them will, along with some things we haven't seen yet. I imagine even the doom & gloomers & fan boys know this, but are so used to reading Ken Rockwell that they can't help but express themselves in gross generalizations !

- Dennis

-- hide signature --
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Wheatfield
Senior MemberPosts: 6,297
Like?
Re: Cherry picking
In reply to Richard, Aug 12, 2013

Richard wrote:

I have not found that to be true at all, perhaps post your lens line up and I will check that.

Here you go:

15mm f/4 LTD, 21mm f/2.4 LTD, 31mm f/1.8 LTD, 35mm f/2.8 LTD macro, 43mm f/1.9 LTD, 70mm f/2.4LTD, 77mm f/1.8LTD, 100mm f/2.8 Macro WR, 60-250f/4.

Please note that you will need to find a set of replacement lenses that are sized like the Pentax Limited lenses and have similar build (metal barrels rather than plastic, and no bigger than the Pentax lenses), and all will have to be image stabilized.

I'm waiting.

-- hide signature --

Always remember, whenever you declare someone the dumbest person on Earth, someone else will stare at their screen intently, cross their arms and say ‘Challenge accepted’.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Richard
Veteran MemberPosts: 4,605
Like?
Re: Canon primes...
In reply to Leandros S, Aug 12, 2013

Leandros S wrote:

Richard wrote:

Leandros S wrote:

Richard wrote:

Nikon and Canon have fast glass, which the Pentax does not have.

What? There's a 31mm f/1.8, 43mm f/1.9, 50mm f/1.4, 55mm f/1.4, 77mm f/1.8, 200mm f/2.8, 300mm f/4 and 560mm f/5.6. If you want a fast standard zoom, Sigma's 18-35 1.8 will be available shortly, plus much of the rest of Sigma's line-up. So what on Earth could you be talking about?

You must not know Canons lineup 17 4 TSE, 24 3.5 TSE, 45 2.5 TSE, 24 1.4, 35 1.4, 50 1.2, 50 1.4, 50 1.2, 85 1.8, 180 3.5 macro, 200 1.8, 200 2.0, 300 2.8, 400 2.8, 500 4, 600 4, 800 5.6, 1200 5.6

I wasn't aware that a 24 3.5 was considered "fast", so your list cannot be considered equivalent to mine.

You are correct, my list is not equivalent, it is superior. F2.5 to F4 is fast for a tilt shift lens, which as far as I can tell Pentax does not make. F3.5 for a 180mm macro is pretty fast and something Pentax does not make either.

The rest of what you've tried to say in defence is besides the point, since your original statement was "Nikon and Canon have fast glass, which the (sic) Pentax does not have.", rather than "Nikon and Canon's lens line-up differs from Pentax'.", which seems to be the point you're now trying to defend, and which is the only point that could possibly be defendable here.

It is not besides the point. Pentax does not have the lens lineup and is missing many fast primes, I could have included full frame lenses as well.

Those Sigma lens you talk about, many of them work on Canon and Nikon FF cameras as well.

How does that support your claim? That's right, it doesn't.

No, because my claim was already completely supported.

They are full frame lenses. I don't know if or how many full frame lenses Pentax makes, they don't specify it.

So you went out on speculation and got caught out, b/c those test results are available if you bother to google.

Doesn't matter, my point was, Pentax does not have the lens lineup nor as much fast glass as Canon does.

Just in this comparison, Pentax does not have fast glass in comparison to Canon and has a lot of fast glass that Pentax does not have, which was my statement of fact, you have said nothing to change that.

That was not your original statement, but even if it had been, the reciprocal is also true: Pentax has some fast glass that Canon does not have. Now what?

Yes, it was part of the original post. If you bothered to read it, my original post was why Pentax was niche market and not mainstream like Canon or Nikon.

One of those reasons is Pentax does not have the fast primes or the lens lineup Canon or Nikon has.

Nikons lineup is not as big and Canons but its advantage is that DX lenses work on FX cameras which means all the lenses work on FF cameras which gives it an advantage.

My post was not inteded to bash Pentax which you are taking offence. It was to explain why Pentax is still stuck in the niche market when it has a pretty good camera and lens offering (but as proven here, not as good as Canon or Nikon.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads