Where's the Pentax love?

[c.cloudwalker]

Ritz is a sorry excuse for a camera store. Barely above BestBuys...

Don't you have any real photo store in Cincinnati? If you do, support one or it will eventually disappear.

As for Pentax, they've never been a huge player and the reasons then were not that much different then they probably are today. Except it is worse today with smaller brands disappearing faster than socks in a dryer.

Some of the contributing factors are: the switch to digital (some companies just didn't get it fast enough), the disappearance of many a real photo store, advertisement (the more you advertise, the bigger you get, the more money you have to advertise...) And then, of course, there is the snob factor.

Some years ago, the vast majority of photos would have been just as good shot with a Pentax K1000 or a Minolta SRT or a Ricoh but I knew a guy who shot his family snapshots with a Hasselblad :er:

Not much different from today really. Some people will spend a fortune on a high end Nikon or Canon body to shoot snapshots. Some will even buy a Leica to do pi**-poor work. And frankly, to each his/her own. You have money to waste, I'm glad for you.

But don't discount the snob factor. It leads people to make statements such as this: "Pentax never was a player, really. They were barely better than Minolta." and not even realize that Minolta made lenses for Leica :lmao:

I worked for 12 years as a PJ with Minolta gear when the PJ world belonged to Nikon. Strangely enough, I had no problem selling my photos.

Don't let someone else make your choice for you. Most probably it would be for the wrong reasons anyway.

 

[usayit]

The 135 has Macro printed on it.How do I use this feature?

Macro means that the lens is capable of focusing on subjects close to the front element.... Its what people use to take pictures of small beautiful things like flowers or small unfamiliar things like bugs. There's a whole subforum here dedicated to it.. check it out...

 

[usayit]

Some will even buy a Leica to do pi**-poor work. And frankly, to each his/her own. You have money to waste, I'm glad for you.

Hey!!! I take offense to that! I'm just joking.. I know what you mean.

I actually don't get along much with the Leica crowd.... the brand tends to attract luddites with more money than anything else. I got "chastised" once when I had a Voigtlander lens attached to a Leica and a Leica lens attached to an Epson.

I'd be the first to admit that Leica doesn't magically turn your work into something special.. but I enjoy it non-the-less... feel lucky actually.

 

[c.cloudwalker]

Some will even buy a Leica to do pi**-poor work. And frankly, to each his/her own. You have money to waste, I'm glad for you.

Hey!!! I take offense to that! I'm just joking.. I know what you mean.

I actually don't get along much with the Leica crowd...

And I actually don't get along much with gear heads :lmao:

I shoot photos and if a $5 or $200 camera can do the job that's just fine with me. More money in my pocket.

And I own a Leica too. A 50's screw mount model I haven't used in a very long time.

 

[Derrel]

Pentax did make some wonderful cameras..the LX was a very sophisticated pro, moduklar, professionally-oriented 35mm SLR, with the first dual electronically timed/mechanically timed shutter option (Nikon later had one in its end-of-game 35mm SLR the FM3a) in an era when a dead battery mean a shutter that was 1) inoperable or
2) usable at one speed, usually the X-synch speed, or around 1/80 or one other single speed...still even that then-amazing technical feat proved almost useless against the Nikon F3's introduction...people flocked to the Nikons of the era...I have known onl;y one,single LX owner.

At the same general time frame, Pentax has gone miniature, and made a lovely camera I owned, the MX. M for manual, a veritable clone of the Nikon FM--same match-diode metering, winder option, but smaller, in the then-current Pentax style of very small bodies, like the ME Super, MX, and although the cameras were nice, Pentax did not magically rise above the competition. At the same time period, the Pentax K1000 was considered *the* student camera. Back then, a K1000 with a 50mm f/2 Pentax lens cost $109, rising to $139 later in the 1980's. It was a VERY popular camera, and I think did the brand more harm than good, over the long,long haul.

By the early to mid-1980's Pentax's Super Program and Program Plus models were really well-designed, lovely, simple to use cameras. My then-girlfriend had one. The SUper Program was multi-modal, which at the time, was sort of Canon's forte with the Canon A-1. But Canon had been pushing very hard, with the first mass-market, network TV advertisements using tennis stars...Canon built its brand and product awareness using nightly TV ad barrages, and the AE-1 and AE-1 Program sold like crazy!!!

1984 was *the* year of the 35mm film SLR...more were sold that year than any year since, until I think it was 2009 when the low-end Nikon and Canon d-slr's sold well. By 1984, Canon's emergence as a 35mm SLR company was in full swing, and Nikon twiddled its thumbs with no TV advertising whatsoever, and Pentax did likewise. Canon continued to gain traction in the market with the T90 and its electronik platsik fantastik New Dawn of EOS futuristic looks, then they dumped their entire user base and the FD mount, and went EOS around 1986/87. Nikon fumbled the transition to autofocus--Nikon users did not WANT AF, and said so...Minolta had a viable,workable AF system,and actually lead the AF race for a while...Pentax's offerings in the early AF days were anemic, and their brand stagnated...Pentax left the 1980's gasping...Olympus, another decent player in 35mm SLR cameras with the wonderful OM-1, OM-2, and later OM-4, lost traction as well. Minolta later lost traction, despite making wonderfully user-friendly, great cameras: the Minolta Maxxum 9 was one of the finest pro 35mm SLR's ever built, by any company...but it never could compete with the top Nikon or Canon pro bodies, despite being arguable better in 8 out of 10 metrics.

Pentax's K-mount was a nice thing they had going in their favor. Their bodies were simple to use, and nice. They had a pro flagship, the LX, and the nice MX, and later great consumer 35's like the Super Program, but they had before this also foundered with nice but unsuccessful cameras in the late 1970's. The camera itself changed markedly in the late 1980's, when Autofocus suddenly appeared. Canon's meteoric rise in the mid- to late-1970's with the AE-1 and the TV advertising nightly really is what changed the camera biz, IMHO. Canon's TV marketing was very effective, and it featured the sound of an auto-winder. People really wanted and liked that new winder sound. The best way to describe it was icebox versus refrigerator: the new Canon ads emphasized modernity, a new era, and simulated, on-screen, great photos being shot, just like they do today with the Rebels and the NFL Football ads on TV. When AF hit, Canon was again,primed to repeat the AE-1 success--Advertising,advertising,advertising,and decent AF in the early EOS bodies.

Nikon had been first, in 1959 with the first "system" camera. Pentax's offerings of the mid-1950's were pretty simple by comparison. Canon foundered through the 1960's, but finally figured it out by the late 1970's, and developed worldwide brand awareness via television and the AE-1. The other Japanese companies never did do much TV advertising, and they lost the race. Brand awareness meant Nikon and Canon and then whoever you preferred if you did not like one of the Big Two's offerings...Olympus, Minolta,and Pentax had small but loyal followings, but the transition to autofocus in the late 1980's and early 1990's is when everybody but Nikon and Canon just slowly began to slip farther and farther behind the leaders, like in a 5,000 meter race...the marginal players like Ricoh and Miranda and Petri and Mamiya/Sekor--they all went by the wayside, out of the 35mm market for good,from top to bottom...

Pentax is now owned by THK, the consortium of Tokina Hoya Kenko...there is speculation that Pentax might be allowed to bleed money for another two years or three, and then closed down. Pentax is a revered brand in Japan. Buying then gutting and closing down a company is bad business practice in Japan, but with a long enough period of absorbing heavy losses, most feel that the THK ownership could close out Pentax without too much loss of honor for making the call to DNR it. It's sad, usayit's comment about, "If they had just promoted the 645D in 2006," is the story of Pentax....if only, what if, but would they have, etc.,etc. Pentax had some hits along the way...it was big in Europe in the Spotmatic days as a "professional" camera, but alas, the Spotmatic era of the late 60's and early 70's was probably the high point for Pentax, and they have been on a long,slow, downhill course, unable to transition to new eras like the AF era, or the digital transition, until it has been WAYYYYYY too late,and the leaders have already been established. I'm already committed to a digital SLR,and so are other shooters. Pentax has arrived a day late...the K-X is a fine cameras, but the mount and system commitments have already been made by the majority of shooters who are in the market "already".

Pentax has always been a good brand, but that is not enough. Marketing and distribution channel systems are what Canon and Nikon have, and that leads to shelf space at retail. Pentax has almost zero pull with retail giants.

 

[itsbudda]

Perhaps if they still made the K1000 people would still buy. I disagree with the statement they've been out of the market since 71. The K mount was a little late and that may well have f***ed them, but it had the benefit of further technology for the time. Also newer Pentax's compatability with their old lenses is much better than nikon. After they came out with the K mount and marketed it as a universal mount I'm sure their lens sales went crazy after Ricoh and Chinon started making k mount cameras. Also they weren't exactly dead in the water either. The ME F was a total failure but it was nothing if not ambitious. Or take into for instance the Pentax LX, which is likely one of the best manual focus SLRs ever. It's on metering was revolutionary. And ever since the M series, pentax has been churning out some seriously compact excellent cameras.

I agree Olympus doesn't get as much love as it should either. The new PEN is stupid awesome.
And to use the macro feature you simply focus into the macro range.

 

[Mishel]

It seems that now it is the best time to by film DSLRs, very cheap prices (just kiddin). I think that Pentax are legging behind because they still haven't released a FF camera. I love their pancake wideangle lenses and I think they deserve more attention. But in business, the more money you have, to more you can advertise and therefore you finally get a large advantage over your competitors.

 

[itsbudda]

That's true they'd benefit from a full frame offering. They supposedly were working on one for release late this year but I've not heard anything more about it.

 

[c.cloudwalker]

Pentax never really interested the pro market and hobbyists don't usually spend the kind of money FF requires. Considering the way the economy is going and the fact that the middle class is shrinking world wide, which means their disposable income is shrinking, I'm not sure bringing out a FF body now would do much for Pentax.

 

[Josh66]

It seems that now it is the best time to by film DSLRs, very cheap prices (just kiddin).

I can't tell if this is part of the "(just kidding)", or if that was only for the low prices part...

You do know what the 'D' stands for, right?


Hopefully that was a joke, lol. Apologies if it was.

 

[Mishel]

Yep, "Digital", my mistake.

 

[Idahophoto]

Yeah, Pentax is a great brand with some great lenses, Some I believe to be far better than Nikon or Canon, but they just dont market very well so they are often forgotten. This holds true with Olympus also though Olympus does seem to be doing a bit better these days it still has a long road ahead of it.Ah, Minolta I loved them my first real SLR was the 7xi, I really need to buy another one as I miss that camera. Was not the best one even back in the day but has strong sentimental value to me now. As for Sony, just say no lol they can fall right on there face.

 

[ismael]

I've been a happy Pentax user for over 2 decades. Film and DSLR.
I'm the only Pentaxian in my local club and that has never been an issue.
Frankly, I've been hearing the "Pentax will die in the next year or so" argument since 1990. Yet they keep on going with very capable products.
Quality products at attractive price points that compare very favorable with Canikon and others.
Depending on what you need (or want) it is an alternative as long as you do your homework and don't let marketing do it for you.
Why Pentax doesn't advertise or has retail presence? I have no idea and would love to know......

 

[Petraio Prime]

Ritz is a sorry excuse for a camera store. Barely above BestBuys...

Don't you have any real photo store in Cincinnati? If you do, support one or it will eventually disappear.

As for Pentax, they've never been a huge player and the reasons then were not that much different then they probably are today. Except it is worse today with smaller brands disappearing faster than socks in a dryer.

Some of the contributing factors are: the switch to digital (some companies just didn't get it fast enough), the disappearance of many a real photo store, advertisement (the more you advertise, the bigger you get, the more money you have to advertise...) And then, of course, there is the snob factor.

Some years ago, the vast majority of photos would have been just as good shot with a Pentax K1000 or a Minolta SRT or a Ricoh but I knew a guy who shot his family snapshots with a Hasselblad :er:

Not much different from today really. Some people will spend a fortune on a high end Nikon or Canon body to shoot snapshots. Some will even buy a Leica to do pi**-poor work. And frankly, to each his/her own. You have money to waste, I'm glad for you.

But don't discount the snob factor. It leads people to make statements such as this: "Pentax never was a player, really. They were barely better than Minolta." and not even realize that Minolta made lenses for Leica :lmao:

I worked for 12 years as a PJ with Minolta gear when the PJ world belonged to Nikon. Strangely enough, I had no problem selling my photos.

Don't let someone else make your choice for you. Most probably it would be for the wrong reasons anyway.

I made that statement and I know Minolta made lenses for Leica. They were not the same quality as the regular Minolta quality, and the rejection rate was high. Leica reconsidered this eventually and the firms went their separate ways. It was a temporary expedient to add a 24mm, 16mm fisheye, and 70-200 zoom to the line.

The truth is that Pentax was hardly better than Minolta (speaking of the bodies). The Spotmatic screw-mount camera was still the basic Pentax camera in 1975!

Pentax Spotmatic - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Idahophoto]

I have actually thought about getting a Pentax to play around with. I used one a guy had at a workshop and loved it. In fact I liked it better in many ways to my Nikon I was using at the time and thought it to be the better deal even over Canon similar offerings. Trouble is there backing is very small, and I don't see it improving anytime soon. Now I hear the might just go away altogether. I sure hope that's not the case. I still miss Minolta and think having them help keep Nikon and Canon on there toes.