Why aren't you shooting Pentax?

Eddzz!!

Eddzz!!

Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,120
Name
Eddy
Edit My Images
Yes
Canon or Nikon - for many that's all it comes down to. I for one shoot Canon. My friends shoot Canon and it's what they recommended when I developed an interest in photography. I had access to their cameras, I tried them out and I liked them. Pentax never even crossed my mind! Why?

The once highly acclaimed manufacturer of the SLR had faded into almost nothingness upon the dawn of the digital age but they're still here and they're by no means lagging behind when it comes to camera technology. As digitalcamereview showed us just last year, Pentax are still capable of competing with the big boys and not only on the image quality front... The cost of a Pentax system are some of the cheapest around with bodies and lenses coming in at prices far below those that Canon and Nikon have to offer. Pentax also offer features in their cameras that you would have to pay top-dollar for in a Canon/Nikon equivalent including: extremely low noise at high ISO, enhanced weather sealing and advanced auto-focusing systems. Pentax also use their own in-camera image stabilisation, a feature which in turn helps to keeps the cost of lenses down. If you think the lack of a full-frame option is the deciding factor here, think again (see the link) - Pentax have made a point of sticking with their APS-C format sensors and for good reason; as I'm sure a lot of you will already know, it turns out that FF is not the be-all and end-all when it comes to IQ.

So it really does beg the question - why aren't more of us shooting a Pentax system? Discuss.
 
It might be that with Pentax perceived to be 'catching up' people have already invested in canon or Nikon systems. It takes a massive shift to bother changing systems mid stream.
 
Its because they were lagging behind when DSLRs originally came on the scene - I used to shoot pentax for film , with three bodies (An MZS, anMZ6 and an MZ30) and a full set of lenses - but when I made the switch to digital there wasn't a credible option in pentax DSLR - the only option being the original *ist which was both expensive and out performed by the canon options.

so when some of the gear got trashed in an accident ( I rolled over a floating hide and killed the MZS and the 170-500 ) I sold the rest of the gear and made the jump to canon.

If I were making the change now I'd probably have stuck with pentax for reasons of economy and not having to change all the lenses , however for the same reason pentax would have to come out with something pretty earth shattering to justify me making the jump back when I am heavily invested in canon lenses
 
I do shoot Pentax (K-5II and a large selection of lenses) but they were late to the party (digital) and buried their head in the sand preferring to stick with film. By the time they realised their mistake Canon and Nikon had the market sewn up and as Stevie says, it cost's a lot of money to shift over.

To say their lens prices are far below Canikons is not correct either, their DA* range (on a par with Canons L lenses) can cost just as much and even their normal range prices are in the same sort of ballpark now. They also lack a clear upgrade path (FF) and to be truthful the AF tracking is not earth shatteringly fast when compared to other makes.

But after all that, I much prefer to shoot with my Pentax gear, the 7D comes out rarely (when I need fast AF) but mostly it's the K-5II along with a DA 17-70mm and DA* 60-250mm f4 that goes in my bag. I do wish they would hurry up and make a 100-400mm of some description though, every other system has one ... but then they only released a 1.4x teleconverter a few months ago (their first for digital) which shows how quickly they move.
 
Last edited:
The Pentax 645d does look like an amazing machine and a 'cheap' way into digital medium format but there seems to be issues surround IQ with certain lenses bad CA etc.

A good studio machine but is it worth it?
 
Stevie- said:
The Pentax 645d does look like an amazing machine and a 'cheap' way into digital medium format but there seems to be issues surround IQ with certain lenses bad CA etc.

A good studio machine but is it worth it?
Click to expand...

how does its price compare to getting a digital back for say a mamiya 645
 
big soft moose said:
how does its price compare to getting a digital back for say a mamiya 645
Click to expand...


Couldn't tell you to be honest! I'm of the digital generation and haven't come through from a proper film background.

It might be a disservice but you can 'cobble' together a digital packaged from the excellent film bodies and lenses. I think you can get digital backs Second hand 3/4k.

In comparison to a hasselblad system the Pentax is less expensive.
 
For me it is about not having full-sized body (their biggest APS-C body is roughly equivalent to Nikon D7xxx class), full-frame option and not enough options in tele lenses (their only long lens in production is DA* 300/4 ED which is just not enough).
 
you can get sigma and tamron in pentax k as well though
 
When I came back into photography in the AF age, I ended up with Nikon since of the shortlisted cameras, the F65 fitted me best. Can't remember what model Pentax was in the mix but it didn't fit as well. Could be tempted by a 645 digital outfit but since I'm going the lighter/smaller route, it's an unlikely move TBH!
 
You find a lens that can beat a Pentax DA* 50-135 f2.8 and I won't believe you.. In my strictly DSLR days I moved from Canon FF to Pentax based on the lens. outstanding quality.

Pentax are not behind on the DSLR front they just cannot break through the marketing barrier, Pentax DSLRs offer more than the comparative rivals.

Where I did have gripes with Pentax was with flash work, they seem to be struggling TTL wise and I had 4 flashes including the top of the range Pentax 540 but I always but it always took more thought to get a comparable shot.
 
Well I'm the one guy that DOES shoot Pentax, heck I'm even a moderator over at Pentaxforums, the biggest Pentaxy forum out there. As a system it's perfectly ok - perhaps it even has the edge in crap weather because of its weather sealing. It's got a nice APSC lineup. It's also nice that you can fit any of about a billion vintage lenses onto it. It's a great tinkerer's brand, DIY brand.

On the minus side, some parts of the overall system are behind other companies, modern lens choice can be limited (ie 3rd party companies won't always do a Pentax version) and there are some things that you should just use another brand for (ironically, extreme macro, my thing). But beyond that heck it's just a camera brand, who cares about brand as long as you can make it do a nice pic for you.
 
strumstrum said:
Pentax are not behind on the DSLR front they just cannot break through the marketing barrier,
.
Click to expand...

No Full frame model available ? - that's quite a serios lag behind not only canikon but also sony .
 
Canon and Nikon also had an easy seemless transfer from film to digital, the lenses are all compatible so if you had a bunch of L glass, you don't need to change but get a new body.

If you get into photography, either Canon and Nikon gives you a clear upgrade path on both cropped or FF. User base is huge, 3rd party lenses support galore, 2nd hand used market aplenty.

Great bodies, great glass, lots of people to buy and sell lenses with, or swap lenses at meets if that's your thing. More specialised glass.

Why would anyone go Pentax?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: ST4
I'd maybe get their 645Z, but their DSLR line of cameras and lenses doesn't interest me at all. They don't seem to make the lenses that I want to shoot and the used market seems very small.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ST4
strumstrum said:
take the comparable rival models from all brands and Pentax win hands down
Click to expand...

not really - it wins hands down for certain characteristics for certain people ... as I said before I'm not seeing anything in the current pentax range which would give me a compelling reason to swap from canon
 
I don't shoot pentax because when I started on the DSLR route they had just entered that market so had no suitable offerings. I still don't shoot pentax because they have nothing that can sway me away from my current lineup.
 
Eddzz!! said:
So it really does beg the question - why aren't more of us shooting a Pentax system? Discuss.
Click to expand...
Probably because most who are new to the DSLR format can't see past the marketing of Canon and Nikon.

Once you've committed and built up a collection of lenses, then it can be expensive to switch.

Additionally there are loads of people out there that think buying FF will lead to them taking better photos. Unfortunately, for most they are the limitation and not their APS-C gear (and no slight intended to the "moose". I haven't looked at his work, but from previous posts I believe him to be quite accomplished)
 
strumstrum said:
that is always the arguement but I guess you could turn it around and say NIkon/Canon/Sony serious lag behind RE medium format.

take the comparable rival models from all brands and Pentax win hands down
Click to expand...

I'd happily own a 645 system except it is far too expensive for me. That leaves me with 35mm digital; couldn't care less about APS-C as it is a step down.
 
They used to say "Nobody got fired for buying IBM." The photographic equivalent is "Nobody got fired for buying Canikon". You can buy Canikon knowing that:
- the equipment will either be market leading or there about.
- you're buying in to an ecosystem that offers just about everything you might need in the future (budget, pro, lenses with any combination of length and aperture, a full flash setup, etc)
- lots of people shoot Canikon, which means some of your friends do (share tips, swap and borrow)
- lots of people shoot Canikon, which means it's easy to rent bits
- lots of people shoot Canikon, which means a decent market of second-hand when you're after something
- lots of people shoot Canikon, which means you can be confident that it'll be going strong in ten years time.

The problem Pentax have is that even if they offer better tech at a lower price, it's harder for them (or anyone else trying to unseat Canikon) to match the above points. It's a market share chicken-and-egg problem. IMO one of the reasons the other brands leapt on the mirrorless concept is that it gave them a sufficient technological differentiator to combat Canikon's market share advantage.
 
Last edited:
I've tried a k100D and k-x for my stuff - manual focus. The menu system was very out dated but my real beef was with metering when using m42 lenses, which proved to be at least a couple of stops out. Plus I couldn't mount my beloved Contax glass.

What I did like was the ability to use aa batteries!!!

Obviously these reasons are specific to me :)
 
Blythman said:
Additionally there are loads of people out there that think buying FF will lead to them taking better photos. Unfortunately, for most they are the limitation and not their APS-C gear (and no slight intended to the "moose". I haven't looked at his work, but from previous posts I believe him to be quite accomplished)
Click to expand...

I dunno about that :o

however my dubious prowess aside my thinking was that without a full frame option or indeed a press/sports camera option like the 1D series , pentax aren't going to attract that many pro users to their DSLR range - and without the pro users they won't also break through in the marketing area to convince people new to photography to use them, because a lot of people starting out are influenced by what their 'heroes ' use
 
I don't shoot Pentax because when i bought my film slr years ago I tried a few and it was the Canon 30e I preferred. My first dslr was a Canon 300d, I could use the couple of lenses I already had so it kept the 'cost of entry' as low as possible. Since then Canon models have offered everything I've needed. If I was to switch after using 4 different Canon dslr's over the past 10 years then it'd have to be for a very good reason as I'd also have to go through the process of selling all of my lenses/accessories as well.
 
Pentax HAS to offer better tech at lower price. I mean what else is there going for them?

As a newbie, totally blank slate with no gear. You compare them all on a piece of paper and Pentax will always come up best bang for buck. It's how they entice you in, it's the only tactic.

Always. It goes for Sony too, you get IS in body for a start (but lets not going into that, especially about if IS is better inbody or in lens...).

Anyway, the point is, on paper, as a newbie, these other brands has to offer that because if they offer the same as Canon or Nikon, no one would buy Pentax. It's only after you buy into Pentax, 2 years later and you know a bit more about photography, and sees a photo online that you like which you want to recreate and want this lens but they don't do it...that's when you come unstuck.
 
No FF is what puts me off.... MF however, well that would depend on the lenses available to be honest! :)
 
i just ended up with sony stuff mostly by chance, got some old pentax stuff.
imo pentax should try and do more with mf, maybe do mf body with ff sensor to lower costs and make a gateway
 
I do use Pentax, and while the lack of a full-frame model is a pain (principally because it gets dragged up every time someone suggests buying a Pentax camera), the one thing always overlooked is the sheer joy to be obtained from one of the bodies in the last couple of years coupled with a set of limited lenses. Small, well built, excellent image quality and a layout that clearly was designed by a photographer and not a generic engineer. They are just nice cameras - the only alternative for me would be one of the Fuji's (I currently have an x100), but the investment required to get an equivalent quality setup to my current Pentax one is just not feasible at the moment, even with the excellent deals Fuji regularly offer.
 
I went with whatever was cheapest when I ditched bridge cams for dslr. And at the time it was actually a Sony A200. And from there on to a D200 that I got for a steal. There wasn't anything Pentax on the used market otherwise I'd have looked into them more and then made a decision. But, cheap was how I started, and after trying the Nikon for a while, I knew I'd stick with in future.
 
Well, I'm a new (re) entrant to the DSLR world, as of a few months ago, and I chose Pentax. Why?

I wasn't going to. I had an old/broken Fuji S2 Pro with a couple of cheap Nikon lenses and a reasonable Sigma 28-70/2.8. I presumed Nikon was the only sensible option. I asked on a couple of forums (one non-brand specific and one Nikon subforum) and was actually recommended to look at Pentax. Why? Because I mentioned, half-jokingly, that it'd be great to be able to take my cheap camera out into the hills when I'm walking/scrambling.

I was in a slightly unusual position: 1) I didn't have enough investment in a system to mean changing was too expensive. 2) I had needs which really did suit the Pentax offering. 3) I had just enough understanding to ask the question and not be swayed too much by marketing, but instead what I really wanted.

The lack of FF upgrade was/is a potential issue, but I'll deal with that as and when. I can't imagine I'm going to become such a good photographer that I'll ever NEED a FF camera. And if I do, I can always sell a kidney and buy a medium format. Although by then my kidneys and other vital organs might not be worth too much ;)

Would I recommend the system to others? Depends what they want. I think it's quite possible to build a pretty cheap and perfectly adequate Pentax system for a few hundred £ all in. That isn't what I've done, but it's possible using an older body. A couple of the cheap kit lenses are surprisingly ok - they won't win any sharpness competitions but they're surprisingly reasonable performers. Pentax also seems to have the "aspiring amateur" range pretty well stocked between its Limited and DA* ranges of lenses. It certainly lacks above that, until you get to MF anyway.
 
Last edited:
I use a Pentax. My first SLR was a Spotmatic and I bought, and still have, a KX in about 1976 just after the K mount was introduced, so when I wanted a DSLR, Pentax was, for me, the place to start.

I read loads of reviews and comments on lots of cameras and eventually narrowed my choice to a D7000 or a K5. The K5 just felt right and along with in-camera stabalisation, that every Pentax K mount lens from 1975 onwards fits, the weather sealing and at the time the K5 was cheaper, so it was the one for me.

Have to agree with the comments above about Pentax being very lacking in getting their act together. They were major innovators in SLRs in the 1950s, the impact of the Spotmatic was so great that the mount became generally known an the Pentax Screw mount, even though they did not invent it, but it looks as if they just let other manufacturers catch up and overtake them.

Dave
 
Because Pentax do not have a D700.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top