Is Pentax a reasonable choice?

Discussion in 'Pentax' started by Peabody, Jan 15, 2010.

  1. Peabody

    Peabody Guest

    I've been doing a lot of research on DSLRs, entry level and the next
    step up, and on paper the best value appears to be the Pentax K-x.
    $550 at Amazon for the kit. The dpreview review was absolutely
    glowing, including a statement that if you want better low-light
    performance, you'll have to go full frame. Overall, they liked it
    at least as well as the D5000 and T1i, and all for materially less
    money.

    And I guess an additional advantage would be the availability of the
    older Pentax lenses at low cost.

    But I keep seeing comments to the effect that Pentax may be on
    death's door. Is that the consensus opinion? Well if they go
    under, there would be the issue of warranty, but I assume you would
    still be able to get repairs done somewhere. And the cameras
    wouldn't immediately stop taking pictures. :)

    Actually, as long as somebody else buys them, a la Sony and
    Konica/Minolta, it might not matter, at least for a while.
     
    Peabody, Jan 15, 2010
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Peabody

    Peabody Guest

    Floyd L. Davidson says...

    > The advantages of Canon and Nikon are that they will
    > have anything. Whatever you decide to go for in the
    > future, they'll be there.


    Yes, I see what you're saying. Pentax may never sell a full
    frame camera, even if they survive. So if I ever wanted to
    make that change, I would be out whatever I had paid for the
    Pentax glass.

    But that might also be true of Canon or Nikon glass to the
    extent I had bought DX glass. Well, the kit lens at least
    would certainly be DX.

    Of course there might be other advances for crop sensor
    cameras that Pentax didn't participate in for whatever
    reason, and I would have to start over in that case, or do
    without.

    Well, maybe Kodak will buy Pentax in the next week or two
    and solve this problem. :)

    I'll say this though - I know two people who shoot Pentax,
    and they absolutely love their cameras. One shoots a K10.
    Not sure about the other.
     
    Peabody, Jan 15, 2010
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Peabody

    Bruce Guest

    On Fri, 15 Jan 2010 12:21:18 -0600, Peabody
    <> wrote:
    >I've been doing a lot of research on DSLRs, entry level and the next
    >step up, and on paper the best value appears to be the Pentax K-x.
    >$550 at Amazon for the kit. The dpreview review was absolutely
    >glowing, including a statement that if you want better low-light
    >performance, you'll have to go full frame. Overall, they liked it
    >at least as well as the D5000 and T1i, and all for materially less
    >money.
    >
    >And I guess an additional advantage would be the availability of the
    >older Pentax lenses at low cost.
    >
    >But I keep seeing comments to the effect that Pentax may be on
    >death's door. Is that the consensus opinion? Well if they go
    >under, there would be the issue of warranty, but I assume you would
    >still be able to get repairs done somewhere. And the cameras
    >wouldn't immediately stop taking pictures. :)
    >
    >Actually, as long as somebody else buys them, a la Sony and
    >Konica/Minolta, it might not matter, at least for a while.



    As a former Pentax SLR user, film and digital, I am sad to see that
    Pentax has declined into its current state. Pentax has already been
    taken over, by Hoya, and that has not been good for Pentax, nor for
    Pentax users.

    There has not been enough investment in the DSLR line. The current
    line-up is poor, with the top model K-7 being comprehensively beaten
    by Canon and Nikon. Pentax briefly made a strong showing with the
    K10D but that was immediately followed by the disastrous partnership
    with Samsung, which is now at an end. Pentax is desperately looking
    for a new partner to co-develop new DSLRs - and possibly something to
    compete with Micro Four Thirds and the new Samsung NX series - but it
    is very difficult to see where such a partner might come from. A
    partnership with Kodak might be the kiss of death. :-(

    The current Pentax lens line-up is also poor, with all the newer
    lenses being re-badged Tokina products, Tokina being another member of
    the Hoya group. The Pentax "signature" is absent. Even the few
    "Limited Edition" lenses that are carried over from pre-Hoya days lack
    the Pentax signature.

    Pentax' market share has been hard hit by Sony. Sony has expensively
    bought market share, making huge losses in the process. The much
    smaller Pentax has not been able to compete. Sony has recently scaled
    back investment in the Alpha DSLR range, and has curtailed lens
    development, but it is quite possible that Sony will continue to pump
    in some money while Pentax withers on the vine and dies off.

    Therefore I would not recommend that someone buying a new DSLR and
    lenses should choose Pentax. The DSLRs are crying out for more
    development and the new lenses are nothing special. There is no
    credible road map for Pentax' future development, and with no partner
    on the horizon, Pentax DSLR production may not be with us for much
    longer.

    The same may be true of Sony, whose ambitious targets for market share
    are proving impossible to meet. The Alpha line of DSLRs and lenses
    has been haemorrhaging very large amounts of cash for a couple of
    years now, and break-even looks as far away as it did two years ago.
    I think Sony will continue for a while yet, all the time hoping that
    Pentax will fail and that Alpha's market share will therefore improve.
    It is quite a gamble, and the chances of Sony being around in, say,
    five years, are probably no better than 50/50.

    So I hate to be boring, but either Nikon or Canon would probably be a
    more sensible choice of brand.
     
    Bruce, Jan 16, 2010
    #3
  4. Peabody

    LOL! Guest

    On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 00:12:47 -0000, "OG" <> wrote:

    >
    >"Peabody" <> wrote in message
    >news:00cc8152$0$26788$...
    >> I've been doing a lot of research on DSLRs, entry level and the next
    >> step up, and on paper the best value appears to be the Pentax K-x.
    >> $550 at Amazon for the kit. The dpreview review was absolutely
    >> glowing, including a statement that if you want better low-light
    >> performance, you'll have to go full frame. Overall, they liked it
    >> at least as well as the D5000 and T1i, and all for materially less
    >> money.
    >>
    >> And I guess an additional advantage would be the availability of the
    >> older Pentax lenses at low cost.
    >>
    >> But I keep seeing comments to the effect that Pentax may be on
    >> death's door. Is that the consensus opinion? Well if they go
    >> under, there would be the issue of warranty, but I assume you would
    >> still be able to get repairs done somewhere. And the cameras
    >> wouldn't immediately stop taking pictures. :)
    >>

    >
    >Indeed, you'll still have the camera and all those lenses available,
    >including what is possibly one of the finest ever affordable close focus
    >lenses in the 100mm f4 macro.
    >


    And then you won't be able to get your whole macro subject in focus nor be
    able to do hand-held available-light macro-photography due to using the
    worst camera design possible for macro-photography--the dSLR.
     
    LOL!, Jan 16, 2010
    #4
  5. Peabody

    Peter Irwin Guest

    LOL! <> wrote:
    >
    > And then you won't be able to get your whole macro subject in focus nor be
    > able to do hand-held available-light macro-photography due to using the
    > worst camera design possible for macro-photography--the dSLR.


    No, that's a common intuitive error. large format has no disadvantage
    for photomacrography other than longer exposure times for a given ISO
    speed due to the smaller apertures needed. Since the sensitivity of
    digital cameras scales with sensor size, there won't be an exposure
    time penalty for the larger sensor.

    Peter
    --
     
    Peter Irwin, Jan 16, 2010
    #5
  6. Peabody

    LOL! Guest

    On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 06:23:13 +0000 (UTC), Peter Irwin <>
    wrote:

    >LOL! <> wrote:
    >>
    >> And then you won't be able to get your whole macro subject in focus nor be
    >> able to do hand-held available-light macro-photography due to using the
    >> worst camera design possible for macro-photography--the dSLR.

    >
    >No, that's a common intuitive error. large format has no disadvantage
    >for photomacrography other than longer exposure times for a given ISO
    >speed due to the smaller apertures needed. Since the sensitivity of
    >digital cameras scales with sensor size, there won't be an exposure
    >time penalty for the larger sensor.
    >
    >Peter


    Sounds good in theory, doesn't it! Now if only you useless trolls had
    actual cameras to test your theories you'd realize, like the rest of the
    thinking world already does, that you're nothing but useless trolls.

    LOL!!!!!!
     
    LOL!, Jan 16, 2010
    #6
  7. Peabody

    Ray Fischer Guest

    LOL! <> wrote:
    >On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 06:23:13 +0000 (UTC), Peter Irwin <>
    >wrote:
    >
    >>LOL! <> wrote:
    >>>
    >>> And then you won't be able to get your whole macro subject in focus nor be
    >>> able to do hand-held available-light macro-photography due to using the
    >>> worst camera design possible for macro-photography--the dSLR.

    >>
    >>No, that's a common intuitive error. large format has no disadvantage
    >>for photomacrography other than longer exposure times for a given ISO
    >>speed due to the smaller apertures needed. Since the sensitivity of
    >>digital cameras scales with sensor size, there won't be an exposure
    >>time penalty for the larger sensor.
    >>
    >>Peter

    >
    >Sounds good in theory, doesn't it! Now if only you useless trolls had


    Go away, asshole troll.

    --
    Ray Fischer
     
    Ray Fischer, Jan 16, 2010
    #7
  8. Peabody

    Peter Chant Guest

    Paul wrote:


    > As you said, there's also the question of Pentax's continued viability.
    > Pretty hard to say what's going to happen in the long term, but I think
    > it's safe to say that Canon and Nikon, among others, are better off
    > financially right now than Pentax, and that's not likely to change soon.


    Self fulfilling prophecy.

    (For info I have a K20d).

    --
    http://www.petezilla.co.uk
     
    Peter Chant, Jan 16, 2010
    #8
  9. Peabody

    SMS Guest

    Peabody wrote:

    > Actually, as long as somebody else buys them, a la Sony and
    > Konica/Minolta, it might not matter, at least for a while.


    I suppose that Samsung may pick up Pentax, like Sony did for
    Konica/Minolta but I would not count on it.

    Just get all the lenses you're likely to ever need, and realize that
    future servicing will be a problem, that there is no upgrade path to
    full frame or even "prosumer" and that if and when you do want to move
    up to Canon or Nikon the Pentax equipment will have very poor resale value.

    Personally, I would not try to save $100 or $200 by going the Pentax
    route, if you're even saving that much.

    Sony seems to be making a go of it in SLRs, with their market share now
    greater than Pentax, Olympus, Panasonic, Samsung, Fujifilm, Sigma,
    Leica, combined, but they are still a very very distant third to Canon
    and Nikon (though both Nikon and Canon have lost market share to Sony).

    Probably not room for more than three players in this market considering
    the huge product development costs.
     
    SMS, Jan 16, 2010
    #9
  10. Peabody

    LOL! Guest

    On Sun, 17 Jan 2010 07:49:55 +1100, "Pete D" <> wrote:

    >
    >"LOL!" <> wrote in message
    >news:...
    >> On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 06:23:13 +0000 (UTC), Peter Irwin <>
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >>>LOL! <> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>> And then you won't be able to get your whole macro subject in focus nor
    >>>> be
    >>>> able to do hand-held available-light macro-photography due to using the
    >>>> worst camera design possible for macro-photography--the dSLR.
    >>>
    >>>No, that's a common intuitive error. large format has no disadvantage
    >>>for photomacrography other than longer exposure times for a given ISO
    >>>speed due to the smaller apertures needed. Since the sensitivity of
    >>>digital cameras scales with sensor size, there won't be an exposure
    >>>time penalty for the larger sensor.
    >>>
    >>>Peter

    >>
    >> Sounds good in theory, doesn't it! Now if only you useless trolls had
    >> actual cameras to test your theories you'd realize, like the rest of the
    >> thinking world already does, that you're nothing but useless trolls.
    >>
    >> LOL!!!!!!
    >>

    >
    >Yes hilarious but do you have some examples of how your photos have come
    >out?
    >
    >Thanks.
    >


    Let us offer the hungry and desperate troll another tidbit for his paltry
    meals in life ...

    Examples? Many many thousands! When you've made a large part of your career
    and income on macro-photography all of your life you have to know what you
    are doing and do it well with the right equipment. I've even posted links
    to some of my lesser test-shots to this newsgroup just to prove to the
    ignorant and inexperienced DSLR-Trolls like you just how very wrong you
    are. It's so easy.

    Did you miss them? Too bad.

    LOL!
     
    LOL!, Jan 16, 2010
    #10
  11. Peabody

    Bruce Guest

    On Sun, 17 Jan 2010 10:29:42 +0100, Alfred Molon
    <> wrote:

    >In article <>, docnews2011
    >@gmail.com says...
    >> So I hate to be boring, but either Nikon or Canon would probably be a
    >> more sensible choice of brand.

    >
    >What I don't like about Nikon or Canon is that their DSLRs do not have
    >in-body IS. Why are these companies stubbornly refusing to add this
    >feature?



    Because in-body IS cannot perform as well as in-lens IS? Because
    in-body IS cannot show the effect of IS in the viewfinder?

    Both these factors are of interest to professionals and advanced
    amateurs. But not to you, obviously.
     
    Bruce, Jan 17, 2010
    #11
  12. On Sun, 17 Jan 2010 10:20:24 +0000, Bruce wrote:

    >>What I don't like about Nikon or Canon is that their DSLRs do not have
    >>in-body IS. Why are these companies stubbornly refusing to add this
    >>feature?

    >
    >
    > Because in-body IS cannot perform as well as in-lens IS?


    But it performs better than no IS at all. A lot of lenses from both
    manufacturers don't have IS or an IS alternative. And if you have to buy
    the IS version of every lens you want, it's going to be a lot more
    expensive than in-body IS.

    > Because in-body IS cannot show the effect of IS in the viewfinder?


    Only in an optical viewfinder. An EVF or other live view mode shows the
    effect perfectly.

    --
    Regards, Robert http://www.arumes.com
     
    Robert Spanjaard, Jan 17, 2010
    #12
  13. Peabody

    nospam Guest

    In article <acd89$4b52ec3e$546accd9$>,
    Robert Spanjaard <> wrote:

    > And if you have to buy
    > the IS version of every lens you want, it's going to be a lot more
    > expensive than in-body IS.


    lenses last longer than bodies. if you buy in-camera stabilization
    you'll be buying it multiple times each time you get a new camera.
     
    nospam, Jan 17, 2010
    #13
  14. On Sun, 17 Jan 2010 03:22:51 -0800, nospam wrote:

    >> And if you have to buy
    >> the IS version of every lens you want, it's going to be a lot more
    >> expensive than in-body IS.

    >
    > lenses last longer than bodies. if you buy in-camera stabilization
    > you'll be buying it multiple times each time you get a new camera.


    I'm still using my first body (EOS 10D) with seven lenses. If all my
    bodies last this long, it'll take at least 45 years before I reach my
    seventh body.
    I know some people can't stand it when their body isn't the newest model,
    but bodies can last a long time when you concentrate on photography
    instead of technology.

    --
    Regards, Robert http://www.arumes.com
     
    Robert Spanjaard, Jan 17, 2010
    #14
  15. nospam <> wrote:
    > In article <acd89$4b52ec3e$546accd9$>,
    > Robert Spanjaard <> wrote:


    >> And if you have to buy
    >> the IS version of every lens you want, it's going to be a lot more
    >> expensive than in-body IS.


    > lenses last longer than bodies. if you buy in-camera stabilization
    > you'll be buying it multiple times each time you get a new camera.


    Not only that, but both kinds of image stabilisation keep being
    improved. Suppose after several years you'd like to upgrade to get the
    extra stop or two of the latest image stabilisation technology. If
    your IS in the lenses you'll have to buy a complete new set of lenses!
    But if it's in the body you don't have to buy anything, because you
    got it already the last time you upgraded your body to get a better
    sensor or whatever :)

    --
    Chris Malcolm
     
    Chris Malcolm, Jan 17, 2010
    #15
  16. Peabody

    Bruce Guest

    On Sun, 17 Jan 2010 16:55:27 +0100, Alfred Molon
    <> wrote:

    >In article <>, docnews2011
    >@gmail.com says...
    >> Because in-body IS cannot perform as well as in-lens IS?

    >
    >Up to 5 five stops of gain (with in-body IS) is not bad, wouldn't you
    >agree?



    I agree that you will believe almost anything. ;-)
     
    Bruce, Jan 17, 2010
    #16
  17. Peabody

    Bruce Guest

    On Sun, 17 Jan 2010 17:03:56 +0100, Alfred Molon
    <> wrote:

    >Besides Nikon and Canon are companies aspiring to be the technology
    >leaders in this field. Technology leaders who don't offer IS in their
    >camera bodies.
    >
    >By the way, these companies were also laggards in introducing sensor-
    >shift sensor cleaning in their bodies, as if dirty sensors didn't
    >matter.
    >
    >Nikon and Canon are quite advanced in some areas, but in other areas
    >they are very backwards.



    Professionals and serious amateurs are less likely to be taken in by
    the, bells, whistles, buttons and other unnecessary features that seem
    to impress snapshooters. When something is both necessary and proven,
    that's the time to put it on high end cameras, not before.

    Given that Olympus and Panasonic have so little to offer in terms of
    image quality, especially at high ISOs, they are almost obliged to
    offer features that impress their inexperienced amateur customers.
     
    Bruce, Jan 17, 2010
    #17
  18. On 1/17/10 PDT 10:15 AM, Alfred Molon wrote:
    > A sensor cleaning system is an essential feature, unless you think that
    > having dust spots all over the images is ok.


    Absurd statement. With care, you don't get dust.

    If you do, a manual cleaning is within range of most amateurs.

    -
    lsmft
     
    John McWilliams, Jan 17, 2010
    #18
  19. Peabody

    Bruce Guest

    On Sun, 17 Jan 2010 19:15:35 +0100, Alfred Molon
    <> wrote:
    >
    >A sensor cleaning system is an essential feature



    I didn't say it isn't.
     
    Bruce, Jan 17, 2010
    #19
  20. On Sun, 17 Jan 2010 19:15:35 +0100, Alfred Molon wrote:

    > A sensor cleaning system is an essential feature, unless you think that
    > having dust spots all over the images is ok.


    Ofcourse. But a manual cleaning toolkit is a system as well.

    --
    Regards, Robert http://www.arumes.com
     
    Robert Spanjaard, Jan 17, 2010
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. D L Singer

    Venue(s) for reasonable discussion

    D L Singer, Aug 6, 2003, in forum: 35mm Cameras
    Replies:
    15
    Views:
    355
    Al Denelsbeck
    Aug 8, 2003
  2. Christi Conley

    Looking for a reasonable source

    Christi Conley, Apr 5, 2004, in forum: Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    331
    John O.
    Apr 6, 2004
  3. What's a Reasonable...

    , Jan 27, 2005, in forum: Photography
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    321
  4. Scott Coutts

    Wanted: 300D in Melbourne, in stock and for a reasonable price.

    Scott Coutts, Oct 24, 2003, in forum: Australia Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    209
    Gurrie
    Oct 25, 2003
  5. Rowan Crowe
    Replies:
    10
    Views:
    375
    redbears
    May 27, 2004
Loading...

Share This Page