Joined on Sep 11, 2012


Total: 7, showing: 1 – 7
On article Photokina 2012: Interview - John Carlson of Pentax (150 comments in total)

It's easy to obsess over gear, but this is a discussion (and a site) more about gear than about the act of photography. And let's face it....many of us talk a lot more about new gear than we actually use said gear.

I'm not embarrassed to admit that I'm still using a K10D and a few DA zooms along with some older primes, and for my use they still serve me really well.

But I think the concern here is about direction Pentax is heading, and the conundrum of their current product lineup. A camera brand ecosystem is a big investment, and the current Pentax ecosystem, at least to me, doesn't seem like a good investment at this point.

Judging by the amount of comments these Pentax articles generate it seems Pentax has a passionate user base. I have hope that Pentax Japan keeps these posts on their radar, and that they take the more constructive comments to heart.

But we're a beating a dead horse at this point. I guess only time will tell....

Link | Posted on Sep 25, 2012 at 03:00 UTC as 3rd comment
On article Photokina 2012: Interview - John Carlson of Pentax (150 comments in total)
In reply to:

sorinx: K-01 - ugliest camera ever
Q - worst mirrorless system

If you do not recognize your mistakes, you cannot correct them.

The unfortunate reality is that the K-01 and the Q aren't logical products.

I personally like the design of the K-01, but it's styling is surely polarizing and would make more sense for a niche product, not as Pentax's only real entry in the mirrorless market. And of course a bulky body, slow AF, no articulating screen, and no option for an EVF beg the question "what's the point?..."

The Q is a cool little camera but the new larger sensor compacts with integral zooms are undoubtedly a more useful overall package, and the obvious buy.

Pentax should cut its losses, kill the Q and its lenses, develop a line mirrorless lenses with K mount adapter, and release a mirrorless body that actually offers the advantages of a mirrorless system. Otherwise the future doesn't look to bright for Pentax.

Link | Posted on Sep 24, 2012 at 15:19 UTC
On article Photokina 2012: Interview - John Carlson of Pentax (150 comments in total)
In reply to:

marike6: I bought a K-30 to use for travel, fun and as a backup having in mind which lenses I would buy going forward - a DA* 16-50 and 50-135. The next week, here in the US, Pentax essentially doubled the prices for ALL of their better glass, i.e., 16-50, 50-135, etc. Like a punch in the stomach, this move drained virtually all my enthusiasm for this system.

Pentax didn't show a whole lot of good will to their loyal US customers with the recent price increases. So sadly I feel my days shooting with my beloved K-30 are numbered.

Wow....I had heard that Pentax glass had gone up in price, but I just checked the prices myself. Really Pentax?

Great glass at a great price was the primary reason Pentax has appealed to me, and why I went with the brand over Nikon when purchasing my first DSLR years ago.

It's one thing to offer a motley lineup of camera bodies that, let's face it, isn't going to steal many customers from the bigger players.

But to jeopardize the loyalty of the existing user base by bumping the price of the glass significantly....that just seems foolish.

Link | Posted on Sep 20, 2012 at 14:40 UTC

Pentax seems to be pursuing the fringes of the market....the toy camera market with the Q, the medium format market with the 645, and I'm not sure what market with the K-01. Maybe going for the fringes is a good overall strategy for a scrappy company like Pentax.

But I think the Q/ K-01 are a major strategic mistake. Imagine a Q-01....APS-C, smaller than K-01 body, K adapter (without the crazy multiplier), optional EVF.

I like the Q and the K-01, they're really compelling gadgets, but to me they're not very compelling cameras. My right brain says 'yes' but my left brain says 'are you crazy?!'

A Q-01 could be just as compelling, and a better photographic tool. It would still please the Pentax faithful and undoubtedly reach a broader audience. Hindsight is 20/20, but unfortunately I think it's too late for Pentax to change course....

Link | Posted on Sep 12, 2012 at 10:59 UTC as 10th comment
In reply to:

Villamarcel: I really apprecaite the constitency of Pentax with this model.
It reminds me a german company named LEICA even if the products and the market strategy is not the same. I have the impression that they take care of their customers.

I have a feeling that this limited update is based on lack of resources more than a desire for consistency. But I'm glad that they've maintained the well considered body design of the K-5....i suppose no change is better than change for the worse. The rest of Pentax's lineup looks pretty silly in comparison to the K-5.

Link | Posted on Sep 11, 2012 at 23:40 UTC

Hopefully there is a K3 or similar coming....Pentax's lineup is currently a bit of a mess, and it seems like they've wasted a chunk of their limited resource on oddities like the Q system and the K-01. Both are cool and certainly unique, but each seems tragically flawed and self defeating.

If Pentax had introduced a single mirrorless system (compact body/ APS-C/ adapter for K-Mount/ optional viewfinder) and had/has a better update to their high end line I'd be on board. But as is, it's hard to see why I'd stay with the brand.

Maybe it's all an unfortunate outcome of Pentax's ever changing ownership.

Link | Posted on Sep 11, 2012 at 11:03 UTC as 39th comment

The K-5 is a great little camera, and I don't like change just for the sake of change, but this feels like an inadequate update. There are a few ergonomic niggles that could have been addressed, and video is still lacking. Maybe in use (focus, screen, LCD interface) this will be a convincing update, but with K-5 sitting at under $900 this seems like a tough sell.

Link | Posted on Sep 11, 2012 at 10:44 UTC as 43rd comment
Total: 7, showing: 1 – 7