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

Started 11 months ago | Discussions
Richard
Veteran MemberPosts: 4,605
Like?
Re: Cherry picking
In reply to Wheatfield, 11 months ago

Wheatfield wrote:

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’.

No I don't. I was talking about my collection.

Pentax does not offer a path to FF, nether does it have many pro level lenses. I would never own a pentax.

YOU would have to find the equivalent Canon or Nikon lenses is you want to switch. If there aren't any, then you would stay with Pentax, but my post was to try to explain why pentax if so good, has so many great features, has so many great lenses is still niche market and is not mainstream like Canon or Nikon.

I named 3 reasons why, perhaps you could enlighten us as to why Pentax is still niche market.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Richard
Veteran MemberPosts: 4,605
Like?
Re: Crop mode does not give you full frame
In reply to Leandros S, 11 months ago

Leandros S wrote:

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.

I am sorry you don't understand the Nikon mount, DX and FX all mount to the FX or full frame camera. All the lenses fit.

"just shoot and crop back later"

You don't have to do that with Nikon and it is a downside to Pentax. You can shoot the picture and print it. That is why the mount works and the sensor works. On the D800 in crop mode, a DX lens produces a 15mp image which is good enough for most people.

The lenses work fine on Nikon, Pentax as you say you would have to crop down the image to make it presentable.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
klavrack
Regular MemberPosts: 324
Like?
Re: The problems as I see it.... Pentax, or is it Ricoh
In reply to Richard, 11 months ago

Richard wrote:

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.

If this were the future, and these cameras will be a happy median between size and performance, I wonder why Pentax with its excellent primes hasn't taken more of this market segment? A very affordable K-30 with some limited primes (some are expensive, some cheap like the 35mm) is a beast of a setup and yet doesn't seem to be very mainstream.

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

The problem with Pentax is 2 things, first, no path to FF. I hear now there are rumors of a full frame. So in the past even if you considered this brand you did not know if they would produce a FF. But the rumor has it they will make one with the same sensor as the D600 yet they are going to charge $2800. The D800 is selling for $2800 right now, the Pentax will not sell.

Second... consumer confidence. Is it Pentax or.. uh... Hoya... or uh... Ricoh. So while it seems like a decent product, it has some major issues.

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

It did not cover my Nikon14-24 2.8 either nor a fisheye (there may be some 3rd party alternatives). I was not sure if any of these lenses were full frame.

IMHO, there are a lot of reasons NOT to buy this system over the Canon or Nikon if you a pro or advanced amateur.

The K300 at $570 is not a bad deal for entry level or for the masses and it has some great features that the Canons and Nikons don't have in entry level at that price, but, no migration path to FF (only rumor), more expensive lenses, less lens choice and I am not sure where this company will be in a few years so an informed buyer would be turned off. The mass mentality buyer is probably going to get a Canon or Nikon. You mention Pentax or Ricoh... they will probably say huh?

So while it has potential, I can see why it is not a major player. That does not mean it is not a good camera or choice for entry level, it just mean it will probably not sell the the masses or to the advanced amateur or pro, so it is relegated to a niche market.

Legitimate points, but if the OP is looking at the K-30/primes as a mirrorless alternative, they may not be highly relevant.  Also, some of the new lens offerings by companies like Sigma may somewhat negate the limitations/costs of Pentax-branded lens offerings.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
klavrack
Regular MemberPosts: 324
Like?
Re: Why Are Pentax with Prime Selection Grabbing Some of Mirrorless Market?
In reply to Paphios, 11 months ago

Paphios wrote:

While Pentax-Ricoh makes some nice small dSLR's and compact lenses. They suffer from a failure to market their products (at least outside of Japan) and customers have no idea where the company is heading. Better communication between Pentax-Ricoh and both potential and existing customers would help the situation immensely, but that doesn't seem to be in the company's DNA.

As a Pentaxian, I heartily agree.  We may be pretty far afield of the original discussion by now, but no harm there.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Leandros S
Contributing MemberPosts: 915Gear list
Like?
Over and out.
In reply to Richard, 11 months ago

Richard wrote:

Leandros S wrote:

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.

I am sorry you don't understand the Nikon mount, DX and FX all mount to the FX or full frame camera. All the lenses fit.

"just shoot and crop back later"

You don't have to do that with Nikon and it is a downside to Pentax. You can shoot the picture and print it. That is why the mount works and the sensor works. On the D800 in crop mode, a DX lens produces a 15mp image which is good enough for most people.

The lenses work fine on Nikon, Pentax as you say you would have to crop down the image to make it presentable.

You're failing to get the bigger point here, which is that if your intention is to shoot full frame, owning crop lenses makes no sense. I don't expect you to get this so it's over and out from me.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Richard
Veteran MemberPosts: 4,605
Like?
Last word..
In reply to Leandros S, 11 months ago

Leandros S wrote:

The lenses work fine on Nikon, Pentax as you say you would have to crop down the image to make it presentable.

You're failing to get the bigger point here, which is that if your intention is to shoot full frame, owning crop lenses makes no sense. I don't expect you to get this so it's over and out from me.

Let me quote myself.

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

You said

"That is such patent BS"

I was saying that there was no Pentax FF camera. That is not BS it is true, there are only rumors. Then you started talking about lenses.

If you buy FF lenses for your APS-c body, you can use them on FF. If you buy aps-c lenses for nikon, they will work on FF nikon.

Either way there is a migration path to FF that Pentax does not have.

Again, this discussion is based on why Pentax is not a main stream selling camera.

No migration path to FF is one possibilities, there are several others as to why pentax is not a major player.

Over and out

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Wheatfield
Senior MemberPosts: 6,297
Like?
Re: Cherry picking
In reply to Richard, 11 months ago

Richard wrote:

Wheatfield wrote:

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’.

No I don't. I was talking about my collection.

Pentax does not offer a path to FF, nether does it have many pro level lenses.

The entire LTD line is pro level. You really don't know what you are talking about.

I would never own a pentax.

Whatever. You seem pretty bitter.

YOU would have to find the equivalent Canon or Nikon lenses is you want to switch. If there aren't any, then you would stay with Pentax, but my post was to try to explain why pentax if so good, has so many great features, has so many great lenses is still niche market and is not mainstream like Canon or Nikon.

I named 3 reasons why, perhaps you could enlighten us as to why Pentax is still niche market.

I did in a previous post. Apparently your reading comprehension was missing that day. However, I can tell you why I will never own a Canon: They completely, deliberately and totally screwed their entire user base when they dropped the FD mount. I don't trust them to not do the same thing again.

Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.

I'm not especially down on Nikon, I used to use Nikon. I switched to Pentax because their lenes blew my Nikors out of the water. There really was no comparison. Add to that the smaller size (I switched when the F4 came out and I had to ask why I would want a camera nearly as big as my 6x7 that only shot a postage stamp sized image) of the cameras and lenses, and it was really a no brainer, especially since Canon had just screwed about 6 of my friends.

Nikon makes good cameras, though way to big and clunky for my taste, and decent lenses, though I still think Pentax glass is overall better.

Most of the people who run their mouths about better lens availability and upgrade paths for other brands are shooting bottom end bodies and kit zooms and will never upgrade anyway. That whole argument is specious.

Pentax has a very well rounded lens line, admittedly light in a couple of focal lengths, and due to the smaller size of their gear and weather resistance of their present body line and several lenses is a good choice for people who want to be able to go outside with their cameras and not get chased inside when it starts to rain a little bit.

-- 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
Alex Sarbu
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,338Gear list
Like?
Re: The problems as I see it.... Pentax, or is it Ricoh
In reply to Richard, 11 months ago

Richard wrote:

Rod McD wrote:

Richard wrote:

The problem with Pentax is 2 things, first, no path to FF. I hear now there are rumors of a full frame. So in the past even if you considered this brand you did not know if they would produce a FF. But the rumor has it they will make one with the same sensor as the D600 yet they are going to charge $2800. The D800 is selling for $2800 right now, the Pentax will not sell.

I'm a current Pentax user who is watching info about their probable FF. It's all rumor and conjecture but we're broadly predicting an FF in 2014. (They do of course make the pro-level 645D that FF users can upgrade to).

Do the lenses from the K30 work on the medium format? No. How many lenses does that format have, 3 or 4. Not an upgrade path but medium format.

17 lenses.

As far as price goes...... I've never seen a price quoted for the rumored FF camera. Pentax may be smaller than Canon & Nikon, but they aren't stupid. They won't sell a D600 spec'd camera with the name Pentax on it for twice the price of a similar one with the name NIKON on it.

They sell their lenses for higher price. The link I found on the rumored price. But again, it is all rumor and we don't know if it will ever materialize, but it doesn't matter, my point was I can see why this camera is not mainstream.

http://www.newschoolers.com/readnews/40981.0/Pentax-To-Announce-the-K-3-Full-Frame-DSLR-At-Photokina-

That was an April 1st joke, a bad one I must say.

The real information and rumors circling out there don't say anything about the sensor used, nor the price.

Second... consumer confidence. Is it Pentax or.. uh... Hoya... or uh... Ricoh. So while it seems like a decent product, it has some major issues.

I'm not sure that the average consumer knows who owned the company and when. Enthusiasts do, but the fact that it changed doesn't make it a "major issue". Hoya purchased it to get the medical optics division (and did keep it on sale to Ricoh). Ricoh purchased the camera division for a reason - to make cameras. The purchase by Ricoh - a huge and stable company - is seen in the Pentax Forum as an asset.

Yes, that inspires confidence... Not.

Confidence must be gained, indeed - but Ricoh is making steps in the right direction. For example, their planned re-entry in the Indian market.

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

Pentax make APSC equivalent zooms for their current line of cameras. The 50-135 f2.8 and a 16-50 f2.8.

I am using the 70-200 on an APSC 7d, they don't make this lens

They're environmentally sealed and have great optics. If Pentax do bring out an FF model, there will no doubt be FF lenses to match......

Again, they don't have an upgrade path.

It did not cover my Nikon14-24 2.8 either nor a fisheye (there may be some 3rd party alternatives). I was not sure if any of these lenses were full frame.

No-one else makes a lens like Nikon's 14-24, though Canon folk say that Canon are planning one. If you absolutely need one, go Nikon. Pentax do make a fisheye zoom.

I have Nikon and Canon. Pentax does not have a fisheye on their website.

http://www.us.ricoh-imaging.com/camera-lenses/smc_PENTAX_DA_10-17mm_F3.5-4.5_ED_(IF)_Fish-Eye

IMHO, there are a lot of reasons NOT to buy this system over the Canon or Nikon if you a pro or advanced amateur.

You may indeed get greater support from Canon & Nikon if you are a professional. I'm not sure that a non-professional buyer gets any more service than a Pentax buyer.

I think Pentax users would concede that the Nikon flash system bests theirs and that there are some other features that are better - eg if you need higher speed AF, though that gap is closing, tethering and very long (>300mm) telephoto lens options. As for advanced enthusiasts, there are plenty using Pentax. It rather depends on what you want to do - if you want a well made, small, water resistant high grade APSC DSLR with access to a range of excellent small primes, it's a great system.

I agree but we were discussing why it is not mainstream.

Do we need to choose a mainstream brand, or one that suits our needs?

The K300 at $570 is not a bad deal for entry level or for the masses and it has some great features that the Canons and Nikons don't have in entry level at that price, but, no migration path to FF (only rumor), more expensive lenses, less lens choice and I am not sure where this company will be in a few years so an informed buyer would be turned off. The mass mentality buyer is probably going to get a Canon or Nikon. You mention Pentax or Ricoh... they will probably say huh?

K30 buyers are probably not buyers who consider an FF upgrade when buying that model. At current FF prices, I suspect people who've enough experience to know that they want FF will just buy one from the outset.

So while it has potential, I can see why it is not a major player. That does not mean it is not a good camera or choice for entry level, it just mean it will probably not sell the the masses or to the advanced amateur or pro, so it is relegated to a niche market.

"While it has potential" ????

While it has potential to be a major player, I can see why it is not. That was the point

Having a not so strong market position when the digital thing started. Late entry in the digital arena, and "milking" the *istD design too much. Being forcibly taken over by Hoya, right when they had ready an amazing new camera (the K10D). Not much investment while in Hoya's hands (who were looking to sell the unwanted Imaging Business division). Another delay introduced when they were finally sold to Ricoh.

Now, apparently Ricoh wants to become a major player, competing at the top. Potential is not enough; will and resources are also needed to make it happen.

I suspect that Pentax owners bought into the system because of its products not its placement in sales ranks. No it's not Nikon or Canon, but makes great small WR DSLRs and offers a lens range that isn't duplicated elsewhere. (And yes there are a few gaps - no-one does it all.)

I agree, it is a pretty good system and offers some good things and has some good lenses.

The OP also referred to Pentax potential for taking advantage of the interest in mirror-less cameras. Pentax Ricoh do currently make three - the Q, the GR and the GXR. They did recently make a fourth - the now discontinued APSC K01. No-one yet knows what their next step in ILC mirror-less will be.

Cheers, Rod

Alex

 Alex Sarbu's gear list:Alex Sarbu's gear list
Pentax K20D Pentax K-5 Pentax smc DA* 60-250mm F4.0 ED (IF) SDM Pentax smc DA 21mm F3.2 AL Limited Pentax smc DA 70mm F2.4 AL Limited +4 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Leandros S
Contributing MemberPosts: 915Gear list
Like?
I'll not be misrepresented
In reply to Richard, 11 months ago

Richard wrote:

Leandros S wrote:

The lenses work fine on Nikon, Pentax as you say you would have to crop down the image to make it presentable.

You're failing to get the bigger point here, which is that if your intention is to shoot full frame, owning crop lenses makes no sense. I don't expect you to get this so it's over and out from me.

Let me quote myself.

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

You said

"That is such patent BS"

I was saying that there was no Pentax FF camera. That is not BS it is true, there are only rumors. Then you started talking about lenses.

This notion of an "upgrade path" is as old as it is wrong. I've explained the maths, and others have provided examples, but you are stubbornly refusing to evaluate the new info we have given you. You are not likely to lose money by investing in a Pentax APS-C system, then selling it all when you want full frame. With Canikon, you'll be buying expensive and probably repair-prone lenses (see headline article in DPR News/Roger Cicala), some of which you'll also have to sell unless you're not actually serious about full frame (i.e. using them in crop mode, which puts you back at APS-C in image quality and resolution terms). I would advise against buying a full frame camera if you don't want to take full frame pictures. Does that sound simple enough? Not for you, I'm guessing.

Additionally, the lenses Pentax makes explicitly for APS-C are smaller, lighter, and some of the main choices are weather-sealed as well. So in size and weight terms, Pentax lenses actually have some of the advantages usually only encountered in FT and mirrorless systems - although the crop factor difference still applies! The offering of EF-S and DX lenses is much less comprehensive by comparison.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Richard
Veteran MemberPosts: 4,605
Like?
Re: Cherry picking
In reply to Wheatfield, 11 months ago

Wheatfield wrote:

The entire LTD line is pro level. You really don't know what you are talking about.

Sure I do, I said in a previous post, the lenses I had could not be replaced by Pentax, they are pro level lenses.

I would never own a pentax.

Whatever. You seem pretty bitter.

Not really, I make a statement and people want to argue who don't know what they are talking about. I have shot with many pro photographers, most in the sports area, you don't see them shooting pentax. Watch the olypics, you will see mostly Canon, some Nikon, no Pentax.

I named 3 reasons why, perhaps you could enlighten us as to why Pentax is still niche market.

I did in a previous post.

You did say... "For the past 30 years they have been late to market and always somewhat behind technologically." That is a pretty good reason not to buy pentax

Late or non existent, No FF, it is not late, it doesn't exist. Yes and I agree they are behind so why would someone buy old technology. People don't trust them. But for me, other than path to FF, the biggest problem is I could not replace my lenses, Pentax does not have fast Pro glass in comparison to canon.

Apparently your reading comprehension was missing that day. However, I can tell you why I will never own a Canon: They completely, deliberately and totally screwed their entire user base when they dropped the FD mount.

You sound bitter.

I don't trust them to not do the same thing again.

It could happen... to any camera manufacture but most like Canon have adapters to hook old lenses and other brands to their cameras.

Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.

I'm not especially down on Nikon, I used to use Nikon. I switched to Pentax because their lenes blew my Nikors out of the water. There really was no comparison. Add to that the smaller size (I switched when the F4 came out and I had to ask why I would want a camera nearly as big as my 6x7 that only shot a postage stamp sized image) of the cameras and lenses, and it was really a no brainer, especially since Canon had just screwed about 6 of my friends.

Except they are behind like you said and have no FF, and do not have a lens selection like Canon like I said. I agree, I don't like the big pro bodys but Canon and Nikon offer semi pro like the 5d3,7d or the D800,D300.

Most of the people who run their mouths about better lens availability and upgrade paths for other brands are shooting bottom end bodies and kit zooms and will never upgrade anyway. That whole argument is specious.

They don't have replacement lenses for me for my most used lenses 70-200 2.8, 400 2.8, 85 1.2 14-24 2.8. The 100mm 2.8 macro is $300 more in pentax (I could buy the Canon new IS version which is about the same price, but I don't need IS and I don't use that lens much so spending hundreds of dollars more does not make sense. I reviewed the prices, their lenses are more expensive and they don't have a FF camera to migrate to, you have to go to another brand so if I start with Canon APS-C and buy FF lenses, I have a migration path, same with Nikon

Pentax has a very well rounded lens line, admittedly light in a couple of focal lengths,

Yes, in the areas pros use, fast glass and telephoto.

and due to the smaller size of their gear and weather resistance of their present body line and several lenses is a good choice for people who want to be able to go outside with their cameras and not get chased inside when it starts to rain a little bit.

Perhaps, but if it was so good, why is it still niche market? The reasons I stated are valid. But you said, being behind in technology would be another good reason not to buy Pentax. And people aren't.

It is still relegated to niche market. I am glad the brand exists. Having choice is a good option. But personally the lack of lenses and that I don't want to be behind in technology or have to wait for Pentax to come out with new stuff, and they don't have FF is enough for me not to buy it and it would appear may other people. I hope Pentax can get it together. It is good they make a medium format camera, but it has too few lenses and it is too big for me. FF and APS-C are already big enough.

-- 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
Alex Sarbu
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,338Gear list
Like?
Re: Cherry picking
In reply to Richard, 11 months ago

Richard wrote:

Wheatfield wrote:

The entire LTD line is pro level. You really don't know what you are talking about.

Sure I do, I said in a previous post, the lenses I had could not be replaced by Pentax, they are pro level lenses.

And you can't find Canon or Nikon Limiteds

Since we have different preferences, maybe it's good that not every brand would try to emulate perfectly all the others?

I would never own a pentax.

Whatever. You seem pretty bitter.

Not really, I make a statement and people want to argue who don't know what they are talking about. I have shot with many pro photographers, most in the sports area, you don't see them shooting pentax. Watch the olypics, you will see mostly Canon, some Nikon, no Pentax.

While I agree that Pentax is not strong for certain usages, let's not reduce the market to sports shooting. Statements such as yours should be properly qualified with usage and requirements.

Besides, "never own a Pentax"? Not even if they would have a full range of "pro" cameras and lenses?

I named 3 reasons why, perhaps you could enlighten us as to why Pentax is still niche market.

I did in a previous post.

You did say... "For the past 30 years they have been late to market and always somewhat behind technologically." That is a pretty good reason not to buy pentax

Except they aren't.

Late or non existent, No FF, it is not late, it doesn't exist. Yes and I agree they are behind so why would someone buy old technology. People don't trust them. But for me, other than path to FF, the biggest problem is I could not replace my lenses, Pentax does not have fast Pro glass in comparison to canon.

Apparently your reading comprehension was missing that day. However, I can tell you why I will never own a Canon: They completely, deliberately and totally screwed their entire user base when they dropped the FD mount.

You sound bitter.

I don't trust them to not do the same thing again.

It could happen... to any camera manufacture but most like Canon have adapters to hook old lenses and other brands to their cameras.

Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.

I'm not especially down on Nikon, I used to use Nikon. I switched to Pentax because their lenes blew my Nikors out of the water. There really was no comparison. Add to that the smaller size (I switched when the F4 came out and I had to ask why I would want a camera nearly as big as my 6x7 that only shot a postage stamp sized image) of the cameras and lenses, and it was really a no brainer, especially since Canon had just screwed about 6 of my friends.

Except they are behind like you said and have no FF, and do not have a lens selection like Canon like I said. I agree, I don't like the big pro bodys but Canon and Nikon offer semi pro like the 5d3,7d or the D800,D300.

How many people are actually buying FF cameras, compared with the APS-C user base? Most would be perfectly happy with an APS-C only system...

Yet some Canikon users are overusing the "upgrade path" cliche to scare people away from buying Pentax. Indeed, one should think if he would want to buy a FF kit in the future and if so, avoiding Pentax would be a rational choice (for now). But most of the times, the answer is no.

Most of the people who run their mouths about better lens availability and upgrade paths for other brands are shooting bottom end bodies and kit zooms and will never upgrade anyway. That whole argument is specious.

They don't have replacement lenses for me for my most used lenses 70-200 2.8, 400 2.8, 85 1.2 14-24 2.8. The 100mm 2.8 macro is $300 more in pentax (I could buy the Canon new IS version which is about the same price, but I don't need IS and I don't use that lens much so spending hundreds of dollars more does not make sense. I reviewed the prices, their lenses are more expensive and they don't have a FF camera to migrate to, you have to go to another brand so if I start with Canon APS-C and buy FF lenses, I have a migration path, same with Nikon

How about a stabilized f/1.4 prime? I surely can get that from Canon, cheap... right? 

Pentax has a very well rounded lens line, admittedly light in a couple of focal lengths,

Yes, in the areas pros use, fast glass and telephoto.

and due to the smaller size of their gear and weather resistance of their present body line and several lenses is a good choice for people who want to be able to go outside with their cameras and not get chased inside when it starts to rain a little bit.

Perhaps, but if it was so good, why is it still niche market? The reasons I stated are valid. But you said, being behind in technology would be another good reason not to buy Pentax. And people aren't.

Except they aren't behind in technology. You're clinging to a statement which was talking about the past.

It is still relegated to niche market. I am glad the brand exists. Having choice is a good option. But personally the lack of lenses and that I don't want to be behind in technology or have to wait for Pentax to come out with new stuff, and they don't have FF is enough for me not to buy it and it would appear may other people. I hope Pentax can get it together. It is good they make a medium format camera, but it has too few lenses and it is too big for me. FF and APS-C are already big enough.

The thread was not about you, nor about sports shooters. It was about small, quality primes - the opposite of those pro monster lenses - and their ability to affect a market which is all about compactness.

-- 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’.

Alex

 Alex Sarbu's gear list:Alex Sarbu's gear list
Pentax K20D Pentax K-5 Pentax smc DA* 60-250mm F4.0 ED (IF) SDM Pentax smc DA 21mm F3.2 AL Limited Pentax smc DA 70mm F2.4 AL Limited +4 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Richard
Veteran MemberPosts: 4,605
Like?
Re: Cherry picking
In reply to Alex Sarbu, 11 months ago

Alex Sarbu wrote:


Since we have different preferences, maybe it's good that not every brand would try to emulate perfectly all the others?

I agree

I would never own a pentax.

Whatever. You seem pretty bitter.

Not really, I make a statement and people want to argue who don't know what they are talking about. I have shot with many pro photographers, most in the sports area, you don't see them shooting pentax. Watch the olypics, you will see mostly Canon, some Nikon, no Pentax.

While I agree that Pentax is not strong for certain usages, let's not reduce the market to sports shooting. Statements such as yours should be properly qualified with usage and requirements.

Besides, "never own a Pentax"? Not even if they would have a full range of "pro" cameras and lenses?

Never own it in the current config of no FF. I agree if they had competitive models at near or better yet, lower prices. I would for sure consider Pentax.

I named 3 reasons why, perhaps you could enlighten us as to why Pentax is still niche market.

I did in a previous post.

You did say... "For the past 30 years they have been late to market and always somewhat behind technologically." That is a pretty good reason not to buy pentax

Except they aren't.

I would agree with you. I don't think they are behind in tech. In camera IS is a pretty modern concept neither Canon or Nikon have. Thus my question as to why they are not mainstream


Except they are behind like you said and have no FF, and do not have a lens selection like Canon like I said. I agree, I don't like the big pro bodys but Canon and Nikon offer semi pro like the 5d3,7d or the D800,D300.

How many people are actually buying FF cameras, compared with the APS-C user base? Most would be perfectly happy with an APS-C only system...

The only reason people do not buy FF is because of cost. It is the reason APS-c exists. FF back when it first came out was too expensive for the average person. As the price drops more people are getting FF, it is the natural progression, it would not exist if the price of a FF cameras were $1500

Yet some Canikon users are overusing the "upgrade path" cliche to scare people away from buying Pentax.

I think as the price of FF comes down, it becomes and even more persuasive argument

Indeed, one should think if he would want to buy a FF kit in the future and if so, avoiding Pentax would be a rational choice (for now). But most of the times, the answer is no.

Right now the D600 is $1999. If it dropped to $1499, why would anyone consider an APS-C. Unless they are entry level wanting a Rebel 650 which is at 700 dollars with a lens. It was not long ago that lowest priced FF DSLRs were $3300 the price of the original 5d.

Most of the people who run their mouths about better lens availability and upgrade paths for other brands are shooting bottom end bodies and kit zooms and will never upgrade anyway. That whole argument is specious.

They don't have replacement lenses for me for my most used lenses 70-200 2.8, 400 2.8, 85 1.2 14-24 2.8. The 100mm 2.8 macro is $300 more in pentax (I could buy the Canon new IS version which is about the same price, but I don't need IS and I don't use that lens much so spending hundreds of dollars more does not make sense. I reviewed the prices, their lenses are more expensive and they don't have a FF camera to migrate to, you have to go to another brand so if I start with Canon APS-C and buy FF lenses, I have a migration path, same with Nikon

How about a stabilized f/1.4 prime? I surely can get that from Canon, cheap... right?

At F1.4 I don't need it stabilized. The shutter speed would be fast enough in most light situations. But don't get me wrong. I don't dismiss that feature. For me it would make slow cheap glass more attractive, not fast glass. For hand held with IS you are able to get sharp pics in low light which is an advantage for someone on a budget. Thing is, when you look at most similar glass that has IS in the Canon, it is high end glass than the price difference is usually small.

But lets say you compare the Pentax 55-300 to the Nikon 55-300, the Nikon has VR yet at Adorama, they are the same price so you even on the low end you are not gaining much. Slow glass telephotos is really where IS is needed.

Pentax has a very well rounded lens line, admittedly light in a couple of focal lengths,

Yes, in the areas pros use, fast glass and telephoto.

and due to the smaller size of their gear and weather resistance of their present body line and several lenses is a good choice for people who want to be able to go outside with their cameras and not get chased inside when it starts to rain a little bit.

Perhaps, but if it was so good, why is it still niche market? The reasons I stated are valid. But you said, being behind in technology would be another good reason not to buy Pentax. And people aren't.

Except they aren't behind in technology. You're clinging to a statement which was talking about the past.

I am not, this is some other guy.

It is still relegated to niche market. I am glad the brand exists. Having choice is a good option. But personally the lack of lenses and that I don't want to be behind in technology or have to wait for Pentax to come out with new stuff, and they don't have FF is enough for me not to buy it and it would appear may other people. I hope Pentax can get it together. It is good they make a medium format camera, but it has too few lenses and it is too big for me. FF and APS-C are already big enough.

The thread was not about you, nor about sports shooters. It was about small, quality primes - the opposite of those pro monster lenses - and their ability to affect a market which is all about compactness.

-- 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’.

Alex

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Richard
Veteran MemberPosts: 4,605
Like?
I thought you were over and out...
In reply to Leandros S, 11 months ago

Leandros S wrote:

Richard wrote:

Leandros S wrote:

The lenses work fine on Nikon, Pentax as you say you would have to crop down the image to make it presentable.

You're failing to get the bigger point here, which is that if your intention is to shoot full frame, owning crop lenses makes no sense. I don't expect you to get this so it's over and out from me.

Let me quote myself.

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

You said

"That is such patent BS"

I was saying that there was no Pentax FF camera. That is not BS it is true, there are only rumors. Then you started talking about lenses.

This notion of an "upgrade path" is as old as it is wrong.

No it is not. Many, not all of Canon and Nikon lenses fit both cameras, if you have these lenses, it is an upgrade path.

I've explained the maths, and others have provided examples, but you are stubbornly refusing to evaluate the new info we have given you.

Your new math cannot overcome facts. Nikon and Canon have upgrade paths to FF.

You are not likely to lose money by investing in a Pentax APS-C system, then selling it all when you want full frame.

If you have the right lenses, you lose nothing.

With Canikon, you'll be buying expensive and probably repair-prone lenses (see headline article in DPR News/Roger Cicala),

I have never had a problem with Canon or Nikon glass. you are making things up.

some of which you'll also have to sell unless you're not actually serious about full frame (i.e. using them in crop mode, which puts you back at APS-C in image quality and resolution terms). I would advise against buying a full frame camera if you don't want to take full frame pictures. Does that sound simple enough? Not for you, I'm guessing.

No of course, this is a fabrication. You don't know what you are talking about.

Additionally, the lenses Pentax makes explicitly for APS-C are smaller, lighter, and some of the main choices are weather-sealed as well. So in size and weight terms, Pentax lenses actually have some of the advantages usually only encountered in FT and mirrorless systems - although the crop factor difference still applies! The offering of EF-S and DX lenses is much less comprehensive by comparison.

You avoid the problem. They don't have an upgrade path to FF, because they don't make a FF regardless of the lenses. Are you over and out now?

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
audiobomber
Veteran MemberPosts: 4,051Gear list
Like?
Re: Cherry picking
In reply to Richard, 11 months ago

Richard wrote:

Right now the D600 is $1999. If it dropped to $1499, why would anyone consider an APS-C. Unless they are entry level wanting a Rebel 650 which is at 700 dollars with a lens. It was not long ago that lowest priced FF DSLRs were $3300 the price of the original 5d.

Here's a reason:

http://camerasize.com/compare/#373,378

-- 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?
Oh you value IQ so little.
In reply to audiobomber, 11 months ago

The Penax is 20mm shorter, 10mm narrower and 100 grams lighter. You would choose inferior IQ, DOF control, better high ISO noise over a small size difference. I think that is crazy.

Now if you told me you bought the Pentax because it was half the price of the FF, I would say ok, I can see the trade off but if the units are near the same price I think a tiny difference in size like the one in your link is not a good reason to choose it.

If you showed me a pockatable camera, I could see why you might want that over a FF too. That is not crazy.

audiobomber wrote:

Richard wrote:

Right now the D600 is $1999. If it dropped to $1499, why would anyone consider an APS-C. Unless they are entry level wanting a Rebel 650 which is at 700 dollars with a lens. It was not long ago that lowest priced FF DSLRs were $3300 the price of the original 5d.

Here's a reason:

http://camerasize.com/compare/#373,378

-- hide signature --

Dan

You are using size as your only point

http://j.mp/16NPNKF

The canon is almost half the weight, much smaller. So obviously it must be the better choice using your logic right?

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
audiobomber
Veteran MemberPosts: 4,051Gear list
Like?
Re: Oh you value IQ so little.
In reply to Richard, 11 months ago

Richard wrote:

The Penax is 20mm shorter, 10mm narrower and 100 grams lighter. You would choose inferior IQ, DOF control, better high ISO noise over a small size difference. I think that is crazy.

Now if you told me you bought the Pentax because it was half the price of the FF, I would say ok, I can see the trade off but if the units are near the same price I think a tiny difference in size like the one in your link is not a good reason to choose it.

If you showed me a pockatable camera, I could see why you might want that over a FF too. That is not crazy.

audiobomber wrote:

Richard wrote:

Right now the D600 is $1999. If it dropped to $1499, why would anyone consider an APS-C. Unless they are entry level wanting a Rebel 650 which is at 700 dollars with a lens. It was not long ago that lowest priced FF DSLRs were $3300 the price of the original 5d.

Here's a reason:

http://camerasize.com/compare/#373,378

-- hide signature --

Dan

You are using size as your only point

http://j.mp/16NPNKF

The canon is almost half the weight, much smaller. So obviously it must be the better choice using your logic right?

I said size is one reason. After all, size is the only raison d'etre for MILC to even exist. The difference in size for the bodies I linked is huge. The K-5 II has comparable or better features (better sealing, metal body) and a much lower price than even cheap FF's. Don't pretend the D600 ($2000) is near the cost of K-5 II ($1000) or D7100 ($1200).

I don't want a FF DSLR. All cameras are compromises. APS-C is the sweet spot for me, in cost, features and performance.

-- 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?
Re: Oh you value IQ so little.
In reply to audiobomber, 11 months ago

audiobomber wrote:


You are using size as your only point

http://j.mp/16NPNKF

The canon is almost half the weight, much smaller. So obviously it must be the better choice using your logic right?

I said size is one reason. After all, size is the only raison d'etre for MILC to even exist. The difference in size for the bodies I linked is huge.

Not as huge a difference as the Canon SL1 which is much smaller.

The K-5 II has comparable or better features (better sealing, metal body) and a much lower price than even cheap FF's. Don't pretend the D600 ($2000) is near the cost of K-5 II ($1000)

I didn't say that. I said as prices come down on FF, less people will want APSC. APSC did not exist for size difference, it was cost.

I don't want a FF DSLR. All cameras are compromises. APS-C is the sweet spot for me, in cost, features and performance.

But if they made a FF in the SL1 body for less money you would buy it right? So would I, but I agree it is all compromise, as FF comes down in price the differences become very much smaller.

-- hide signature --

Dan

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Alex Sarbu
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,338Gear list
Like?
Re: Cherry picking
In reply to Richard, 11 months ago

Richard wrote:

Alex Sarbu wrote:

Since we have different preferences, maybe it's good that not every brand would try to emulate perfectly all the others?

I agree

I would never own a pentax.

Whatever. You seem pretty bitter.

Not really, I make a statement and people want to argue who don't know what they are talking about. I have shot with many pro photographers, most in the sports area, you don't see them shooting pentax. Watch the olypics, you will see mostly Canon, some Nikon, no Pentax.

While I agree that Pentax is not strong for certain usages, let's not reduce the market to sports shooting. Statements such as yours should be properly qualified with usage and requirements.

Besides, "never own a Pentax"? Not even if they would have a full range of "pro" cameras and lenses?

Never own it in the current config of no FF. I agree if they had competitive models at near or better yet, lower prices. I would for sure consider Pentax.

Good to hear that.

I named 3 reasons why, perhaps you could enlighten us as to why Pentax is still niche market.

I did in a previous post.

You did say... "For the past 30 years they have been late to market and always somewhat behind technologically." That is a pretty good reason not to buy pentax

Except they aren't.

I would agree with you. I don't think they are behind in tech. In camera IS is a pretty modern concept neither Canon or Nikon have. Thus my question as to why they are not mainstream

It has nothing to do with their current products.

Except they are behind like you said and have no FF, and do not have a lens selection like Canon like I said. I agree, I don't like the big pro bodys but Canon and Nikon offer semi pro like the 5d3,7d or the D800,D300.

How many people are actually buying FF cameras, compared with the APS-C user base? Most would be perfectly happy with an APS-C only system...

The only reason people do not buy FF is because of cost. It is the reason APS-c exists. FF back when it first came out was too expensive for the average person. As the price drops more people are getting FF, it is the natural progression, it would not exist if the price of a FF cameras were $1500

Since the market for sub-$1500 IL cameras is huge compared with the more expensive ones, you should rethink this.

Yet some Canikon users are overusing the "upgrade path" cliche to scare people away from buying Pentax.

I think as the price of FF comes down, it becomes and even more persuasive argument

Another cliche; the FF prices are pretty much constant since the A850.

Indeed, one should think if he would want to buy a FF kit in the future and if so, avoiding Pentax would be a rational choice (for now). But most of the times, the answer is no.

Right now the D600 is $1999. If it dropped to $1499, why would anyone consider an APS-C. Unless they are entry level wanting a Rebel 650 which is at 700 dollars with a lens. It was not long ago that lowest priced FF DSLRs were $3300 the price of the original 5d.

Ifit does. Until then, it's all talk

Most people are not willing (or able) to spend that much only on the camera. Of course, I would be happy to have a K-5-class FF camera for $1500 (if this price point will be reached, Pentax surely will have FF products - to protect their margins)

Most of the people who run their mouths about better lens availability and upgrade paths for other brands are shooting bottom end bodies and kit zooms and will never upgrade anyway. That whole argument is specious.

They don't have replacement lenses for me for my most used lenses 70-200 2.8, 400 2.8, 85 1.2 14-24 2.8. The 100mm 2.8 macro is $300 more in pentax (I could buy the Canon new IS version which is about the same price, but I don't need IS and I don't use that lens much so spending hundreds of dollars more does not make sense. I reviewed the prices, their lenses are more expensive and they don't have a FF camera to migrate to, you have to go to another brand so if I start with Canon APS-C and buy FF lenses, I have a migration path, same with Nikon

How about a stabilized f/1.4 prime? I surely can get that from Canon, cheap... right?

At F1.4 I don't need it stabilized. The shutter speed would be fast enough in most light situations. But don't get me wrong. I don't dismiss that feature. For me it would make slow cheap glass more attractive, not fast glass. For hand held with IS you are able to get sharp pics in low light which is an advantage for someone on a budget. Thing is, when you look at most similar glass that has IS in the Canon, it is high end glass than the price difference is usually small.

I would say it makes the slow cheap glass usable; but you can also use it on the better, faster lenses. How about f/5.6 with poor-ish optical performance vs. tack sharp at f/2.8 and maximum performance at f/4?

But lets say you compare the Pentax 55-300 to the Nikon 55-300, the Nikon has VR yet at Adorama, they are the same price so you even on the low end you are not gaining much. Slow glass telephotos is really where IS is needed.

Cherry picking, again? My turn: I want a stabilized 35mm lens, not extremely fast (I'm not into paper thin DOF) but compact, top-notch optics and with excellent close-up capabilities. And I want one of the old generation 70-200 f/2.8 Sigma/Tamron lenses, optically good and much cheaper than the new OS versions; it would be nice if they were somehow stabilized by the camera.

Pentax has a very well rounded lens line, admittedly light in a couple of focal lengths,

Yes, in the areas pros use, fast glass and telephoto.

and due to the smaller size of their gear and weather resistance of their present body line and several lenses is a good choice for people who want to be able to go outside with their cameras and not get chased inside when it starts to rain a little bit.

Perhaps, but if it was so good, why is it still niche market? The reasons I stated are valid. But you said, being behind in technology would be another good reason not to buy Pentax. And people aren't.

Except they aren't behind in technology. You're clinging to a statement which was talking about the past.

I am not, this is some other guy.

But you repeated it 3 times.

It is still relegated to niche market. I am glad the brand exists. Having choice is a good option. But personally the lack of lenses and that I don't want to be behind in technology or have to wait for Pentax to come out with new stuff, and they don't have FF is enough for me not to buy it and it would appear may other people. I hope Pentax can get it together. It is good they make a medium format camera, but it has too few lenses and it is too big for me. FF and APS-C are already big enough.

The thread was not about you, nor about sports shooters. It was about small, quality primes - the opposite of those pro monster lenses - and their ability to affect a market which is all about compactness.

-- 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’.

Alex

Alex

 Alex Sarbu's gear list:Alex Sarbu's gear list
Pentax K20D Pentax K-5 Pentax smc DA* 60-250mm F4.0 ED (IF) SDM Pentax smc DA 21mm F3.2 AL Limited Pentax smc DA 70mm F2.4 AL Limited +4 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Alex Sarbu
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,338Gear list
Like?
Re: Oh you value IQ so little.
In reply to Richard, 11 months ago

Richard wrote:

audiobomber wrote:

You are using size as your only point

http://j.mp/16NPNKF

The canon is almost half the weight, much smaller. So obviously it must be the better choice using your logic right?

I said size is one reason. After all, size is the only raison d'etre for MILC to even exist. The difference in size for the bodies I linked is huge.

Not as huge a difference as the Canon SL1 which is much smaller.

The best "test" is to grab the cameras and see for yourself. The much smaller and lighter Canon entry-level build comes at a price.

The K-5 II has comparable or better features (better sealing, metal body) and a much lower price than even cheap FF's. Don't pretend the D600 ($2000) is near the cost of K-5 II ($1000)

I didn't say that. I said as prices come down on FF, less people will want APSC. APSC did not exist for size difference, it was cost.

Sony A850: $2000 MSRP.

I don't want a FF DSLR. All cameras are compromises. APS-C is the sweet spot for me, in cost, features and performance.

But if they made a FF in the SL1 body for less money you would buy it right? So would I, but I agree it is all compromise, as FF comes down in price the differences become very much smaller.

I wouldn't touch it with a 10-foot pole.

I could buy a properly built camera, though. You see, I'm spoiled by Pentax - in build quality and ergonomics. And I can put the camera, my biggest lens - the 60-250 and 3 DA Limiteds (because I don't have more) in a LowePro Nova1. No need to go smaller

-- hide signature --

Dan

Alex

 Alex Sarbu's gear list:Alex Sarbu's gear list
Pentax K20D Pentax K-5 Pentax smc DA* 60-250mm F4.0 ED (IF) SDM Pentax smc DA 21mm F3.2 AL Limited Pentax smc DA 70mm F2.4 AL Limited +4 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Richard
Veteran MemberPosts: 4,605
Like?
Re: Oh you value IQ so little.
In reply to Alex Sarbu, 11 months ago

Alex Sarbu wrote:

Not as huge a difference as the Canon SL1 which is much smaller.

The best "test" is to grab the cameras and see for yourself. The much smaller and lighter Canon entry-level build comes at a price.

Already have, that camera is much smaller and almost half the weight.

The K-5 II has comparable or better features (better sealing, metal body) and a much lower price than even cheap FF's. Don't pretend the D600 ($2000) is near the cost of K-5 II ($1000)

I didn't say that. I said as prices come down on FF, less people will want APSC. APSC did not exist for size difference, it was cost.

Sony A850: $2000 MSRP.

Still it is not down to 1499. That is where I think the magic number is, it may be lower like 1399 but will will see when they get down that low I think APSc will start going away, unless they add features like pro level AF FPS will it survive.

I don't want a FF DSLR. All cameras are compromises. APS-C is the sweet spot for me, in cost, features and performance.

But if they made a FF in the SL1 body for less money you would buy it right? So would I, but I agree it is all compromise, as FF comes down in price the differences become very much smaller.

I wouldn't touch it with a 10-foot pole.

Doesn't matter what you and I touch, it is the masses and as prices come down, that is what they will buy.

I could buy a properly built camera, though. You see, I'm spoiled by Pentax - in build quality and ergonomics. And I can put the camera, my biggest lens - the 60-250 and 3 DA Limiteds (because I don't have more) in a LowePro Nova1. No need to go smaller

I am spoiled by Canon and Nikon, best lenses, best system and I don't have to half step getting a Pentax.

-- hide signature --

Dan

Alex

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads