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

Started Aug 10, 2013 | Discussions thread
Alex Sarbu Veteran Member • Posts: 9,102
Re: Cherry picking

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 Sarbu's gear list:Alex Sarbu's gear list
Pentax K-5 IIs Pentax K-1 Pentax smc DA 21mm F3.2 AL Limited Pentax smc DA 70mm F2.4 AL Limited Pentax smc DA 35mm F2.8 Macro Limited +7 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow