• News about Products and Latest Company Direction • Summaries of Reported Problems and Potential Issues • Technical Articles on Photographic Gear and Technologies
Is that nomination a joke? The KP is quite a downgrade from the K-3. The RAW buffer is useless 8 RAWs small.
The shutter downgrades from 8.3/s to 7, the life expectancy went down from 200 to 100k.
No top shoulder display any longer, slower USB (2.0 not 3.0), only one card slot (where the K-3 had two), no GPS built in any longer, body structure more plastic rather than metal, and battery life only ~420 shots rather than ~720.
All of that is a pretty embarrasing downgrade, a non-remarkable camera, where all the downgrades indicate that it was designed primarily for being cheap in production costs :(
I don't even recall that there is ever a K-70. When I look at what Sony has done with their A7/A9... I wonder why Pentax could not have done the same thing. Canon and Nikon have a massive DSLR market. Releasing a killer mirrorless would cannibalise their existing market. But Pentax does not have a DSLR market to write home about. Why couldn't they be bold and do something different? Their offerings will always be overshadowed by Canon and Nikon if they keep on producing similar products. There might be niche features here and there. Are these enough to keep the brand going? I stopped buying new Pentax camera body since K5. Judging by the way they keep making "me-too" products as a distant (very distant) 3rd place in the market, Pentax will not be able to make anymore money from me on their DSLR offerings. Just ranting because I like Pentax and have been shooting it for a few years. I wish Pentax could have been like Sony more.
I think it depends :) I think it would make some more sense to me, if Sony will buy the DSLR business of Nikon. Because they complement each other well. Nikon for DSLRs and Lens making, Sony for DSLMs and sensor making. But more imprtatnly Sony would gain an interesting customer base, many guys who are used to spend a lot on gear, and Sony could utilize this by building a bridge for the Nikon user community towards DSLM, by developing a whole range of next-gen "Sonykon" bodies.
Why not the same for Pentax? The Nikon market is probably still big enough that this strategy could pay off. But the Pentax market ist just far too small by now, to reward such a strategy with enough new sales volumes.
Actually AFAIK Sony buying Olympus is "alternative news" aka fake. Sony bought Olympus shares (11.5%), but subsequently sold half of it; and the two companies formed a medical joint venture. Sony is not even Olympus' largest shareholder.
Sony buying Nikon doesn't make an ounce of sense; what are you hoping for, to spend their money for solving Nikon's problems instead of developing their own E-mount system? Really?
And, of course, the Pentax brand is fine. We had enough of companies "saving" Pentax, thanks but no, thanks!
Correct. If Sony would invest in Pentax, this would be equivalent to Sony just flushing down money in the toilet ;) Nobody needs that, neither Sony nor another brand.
Probably not even Chinese investors will be interested to buy just the brand name, because it doesn't have much brand value any longer these days.
I think pentax will leave in peace and silence, whenever the Ricoh board of directors finally pulls the plug due to losses and a lack of an outlook.
The flaship of its core segment APS-C, the K-3II, just creeps in the dust, with a sales rank of only #200 at Amazon.com. Nobody want's to buy this stuff. I expect a business closure announcement from the Ricoh board, during the course of the next months, latest 2018.
That the DSLR business is coming to an end, is not something speculative for the future. It is something we witness today. Everytime I look at the Amazon.com DSLR sales ranking, there's a new all-time-low
But maybe, that Pentax camera is not going away all together. The medium format may do it a bit longer, on its very low level.
At lest this is what I would have thought a couple of months ago But then I remember the post of RiceHigh here, where he had an A-B comparison shot between the pentax d645, and a Canon DSLR with a canon lens. The Canon did win clearly over the Pentax. Pentax had an ugly greenish color cast, and was less sharp. Because I don't have Canon, I don't know the model, but I think it wasn't even their 50 megapixel.
Anyway, that showed me, that the fake medium format (those with small sensors hardly bigger than full frame such as the D645), that will probably come to an end as well. Pushed off the cliff by advances in fullframe resolution and lenses (also thanks to Sigma Art of course).
I just re-checked. It was a shootout between -- the 645D with 45mm F2.8 (which is new ~$1100, used ~$450) - versus - -- Sony A7R (36 MP) with Canon EF35mm F2 (used-only ~$200)
where the Sony/Canon pairing evidently won the pixel-peeping (with regards to resolution), despite being much cheaper. For non-pixel peepers, they should be regarded as fully equivalent. Shoot-outs like theses make it evident, that "fake" medium format (small sensors) may not have a bright future, because it can't justify its high price any longer.
Those photographers which are after "big bokeh" are much better of with full frame, because there are lenses of f/1.2 or even faster, whereas the fullframe sensor is only slightly smaller than fake medium format.
True medium format (i.e. sensors of size 35x40mm) (e.g. at Hasselblad) will probably survive better though in their niche, because only at this sensor size, the "medium format look" is actually delivered.
You're amusing. Amazon.com, so it's the U.S. market? They're selling more than 3 DSLRs for each MILC, that market is dominated by DSLRs.
Yeah, you found some "test" with a convenient result, probably skipping others if they'd tell a different story. So what? It's not even about a current product; and you're not confident enough to give a link. IMHO, the only FF camera challenging the medium format is the Pentax K-1, in pixel shift resolution.
Pentax should offer only three cameras. A crop, a FF and a MF. Concentrate resources to produce one very good MARKETABLE camera in each segment. The priority from my perspective: 1. High end crop. Would be a high frame rate sports camera with AF comparable to the competitors offering. 2. Updated 645z (larger sensor) 3. 2nd iteration of k1 (refinement) Any lesser camera in any of the formats is a money loser for Pentax. The lower end cameras don't bring in new customers. Their existing customers recommending Pentax would be a better route, I am asked in just about every group event that I attend with a Pentax kit "Why I shoot Pentax?". They ask because I am the novelty. I could say "because I only shoot with the best gear available" but I won't lie unless I am paid to do it. Pentax does not support their customer base so I don't advertise for Pentax. The answer to why I maintain a Pentax kit is that "I have been collecting their glass since the mid 70's." I stopped collecting Pentax glass 15-20 years ago. I'm a collector not a seller so I still own a lot of their high end vintage glass. Pentax is DOOMED. On a long enough time line we are all DOOMED.
Logging you in...
ToetSFX · 412 weeks ago
TheApertureDemon · 412 weeks ago
Clarifx · 412 weeks ago
The RAW buffer is useless 8 RAWs small.
The shutter downgrades from 8.3/s to 7, the life expectancy went down from 200 to 100k.
No top shoulder display any longer, slower USB (2.0 not 3.0), only one card slot (where the K-3 had two), no GPS built in any longer, body structure more plastic rather than metal, and battery life only ~420 shots rather than ~720.
All of that is a pretty embarrasing downgrade, a non-remarkable camera, where all the downgrades indicate that it was designed primarily for being cheap in production costs :(
RiceHigh 110p · 411 weeks ago
A reader · 411 weeks ago
RiceHigh 110p · 411 weeks ago
A reader · 397 weeks ago
ToetSFX · 411 weeks ago
RiceHigh 110p · 411 weeks ago
Clarifx · 411 weeks ago
I think it would make some more sense to me, if Sony will buy the DSLR business of Nikon.
Because they complement each other well. Nikon for DSLRs and Lens making, Sony for DSLMs and sensor making. But more imprtatnly Sony would gain an interesting customer base, many guys who are used to spend a lot on gear, and Sony could utilize this by building a bridge for the Nikon user community towards DSLM, by developing a whole range of next-gen "Sonykon" bodies.
Why not the same for Pentax?
The Nikon market is probably still big enough that this strategy could pay off.
But the Pentax market ist just far too small by now, to reward such a strategy with enough new sales volumes.
ToetSFX · 411 weeks ago
Kunzite · 409 weeks ago
Sony bought Olympus shares (11.5%), but subsequently sold half of it; and the two companies formed a medical joint venture. Sony is not even Olympus' largest shareholder.
Sony buying Nikon doesn't make an ounce of sense; what are you hoping for, to spend their money for solving Nikon's problems instead of developing their own E-mount system? Really?
And, of course, the Pentax brand is fine. We had enough of companies "saving" Pentax, thanks but no, thanks!
Clarifx · 408 weeks ago
Probably not even Chinese investors will be interested to buy just the brand name, because it doesn't have much brand value any longer these days.
I think pentax will leave in peace and silence, whenever the Ricoh board of directors finally pulls the plug due to losses and a lack of an outlook.
The flaship of its core segment APS-C, the K-3II, just creeps in the dust, with a sales rank of only #200 at Amazon.com. Nobody want's to buy this stuff. I expect a business closure announcement from the Ricoh board, during the course of the next months, latest 2018.
Kunzite · 408 weeks ago
People wishing Pentax to disappear (and posting FUD on the Internet) is nothing new. Pentax is still here, and will continue to do so.
Clarifx · 408 weeks ago
But maybe, that Pentax camera is not going away all together. The medium format may do it a bit longer, on its very low level.
At lest this is what I would have thought a couple of months ago
But then I remember the post of RiceHigh here, where he had an A-B comparison shot between the pentax d645, and a Canon DSLR with a canon lens.
The Canon did win clearly over the Pentax. Pentax had an ugly greenish color cast, and was less sharp.
Because I don't have Canon, I don't know the model, but I think it wasn't even their 50 megapixel.
Anyway, that showed me, that the fake medium format (those with small sensors hardly bigger than full frame such as the D645), that will probably come to an end as well. Pushed off the cliff by advances in fullframe resolution and lenses (also thanks to Sigma Art of course).
Clarifx · 408 weeks ago
-- the 645D with 45mm F2.8 (which is new ~$1100, used ~$450)
- versus -
-- Sony A7R (36 MP) with Canon EF35mm F2 (used-only ~$200)
where the Sony/Canon pairing evidently won the pixel-peeping (with regards to resolution), despite being much cheaper. For non-pixel peepers, they should be regarded as fully equivalent.
Shoot-outs like theses make it evident, that "fake" medium format (small sensors) may not have a bright future, because it can't justify its high price any longer.
Those photographers which are after "big bokeh" are much better of with full frame, because there are lenses of f/1.2 or even faster, whereas the fullframe sensor is only slightly smaller than fake medium format.
True medium format (i.e. sensors of size 35x40mm) (e.g. at Hasselblad) will probably survive better though in their niche, because only at this sensor size, the "medium format look" is actually delivered.
Clarifx · 408 weeks ago
Kunzite · 407 weeks ago
Yeah, you found some "test" with a convenient result, probably skipping others if they'd tell a different story. So what? It's not even about a current product; and you're not confident enough to give a link.
IMHO, the only FF camera challenging the medium format is the Pentax K-1, in pixel shift resolution.
pfool · 411 weeks ago
The priority from my perspective:
1. High end crop. Would be a high frame rate sports camera with AF comparable to the competitors offering.
2. Updated 645z (larger sensor)
3. 2nd iteration of k1 (refinement)
Any lesser camera in any of the formats is a money loser for Pentax. The lower end cameras don't bring in new customers. Their existing customers recommending Pentax would be a better route, I am asked in just about every group event that I attend with a Pentax kit "Why I shoot Pentax?". They ask because I am the novelty. I could say "because I only shoot with the best gear available" but I won't lie unless I am paid to do it. Pentax does not support their customer base so I don't advertise for Pentax.
The answer to why I maintain a Pentax kit is that "I have been collecting their glass since the mid 70's." I stopped collecting Pentax glass 15-20 years ago. I'm a collector not a seller so I still own a lot of their high end vintage glass.
Pentax is DOOMED.
On a long enough time line we are all DOOMED.