The Flagship/Pro Cameras from Pentax

steephill wrote:

Was the Pentax 67. Even the 645 was considered an enthusiastic amateur's model. The LX was the only 35mm body which was marketed as "pro" and had a full range of accessories to back that up.

I agree, the LX was the camera that brought me to Pentax.  I bailed on Canon and looked at Nikon, but the LX won me over from the other brands top models.

None of the APS-C DSLRs so far deserve to be described as pro kit because of the lack of a true pro service from dealers backed by Pentax, not to mention the lack of specialist lenses e.g. TS. The pro centres marketing pitch from a few years ago fell far short of what any working pro is used to from Canon or Nikon.

The level of support at major sporting events et al, is very important.  You can make the best camera, but you need the kind of support you mention to win over the folks who make a living with their cameras.

The 645D and Z are the best digital candidates for a pro label. Which of course brings us to the discussion about what pro means anyway. Many amateurs seem to think it means blazing fast fps and AF, neither of which is of much concern for studio or landscape work.

It could be worse though, at least Pentax doesn't call anything "prosumer" - an idiotic and meaningless description if ever there was one.

Pentax seem to brand themselves as a Field Camera in recent years.  So their FF, with suitable lenses, should appeal to the landscape and outdoor photographer, whether you make a living with your camera or not.