Where's the Pentax love?

[c.cloudwalker]

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.

So, what you are telling us is that Leica, the ultimate company in the photo world (according to you) chose to work with a sub-par company to make some of its lenses... Interesting. I've said it before and I will say it again: if I was Leica, I would shut you up. You are not helping them in any way. Quite the opposite.

Your posts are sometimes quite ridiculous but you don't know it because you think you are a god. Sorry, they (and your photos) tell us otherwise.

 

[Petraio Prime]

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.

So, what you are telling us is that Leica, the ultimate company in the photo world (according to you) chose to work with a sub-par company to make some of its lenses... Interesting. I've said it before and I will say it again: if I was Leica, I would shut you up. You are not helping them in any way. Quite the opposite.

Your posts are sometimes quite ridiculous but you don't know it because you think you are a god. Sorry, they (and your photos) tell us otherwise.

There was some controversy about it. It was stopgap measure to get some new lenses into the line quickly.It's no secret, and the consensus is that it was perhaps not the smartest move.

The only lens to stay for any length of time was the 24mm. It was produced entirely in-house after Minolta dropped it from their line. The fisheye was dropped and Leica designed several zooms of their own.

The lenses were made to Leica's specifications, and were of higher quality than Minolta's regular production.

You have not seen my photos.

 

[usayit]

* Minolta / Leica collaboration.

There was a collaboration between the two companies. Early R bodies were basically Minolta bodies, rebranded as Leica, with a Leica -R mount swapped in. This allowed Leica to focus on glass manufacturing AND gain entry to the SLR market. There was also collaboration with the design of the smaller (lower line) of M-mount equipped rangefinders; the Leica/Minolta CL and CLE. As for lenses, as far as I know.. only a few R-system lenses were manufactured by Minolta according to Leica specifications/design. From what I've been told, they were not well received by the Leica shooters.

What idiot people who try to use this as an argument against the Leica branding do not understand is that Leica has always and continues to be a small run company. This is who they are what they are... hand built products much similar to hand built watchmakers. This EXTREMELY limits their manufacturing capability (focuses their workforce on quality).

This is the same reason why they teamed up with Minolta to enter into the SLR market.

This is the same reason why they teamed up with Kodak to enter into the digital SLR market.

This is the same reason why they continue to have a working relationship with Panasonic.

(Oh.. its the same reason why the waiting list for the M9 is long long long... they are focused on the S2 perhaps?)


* Pentax quality

Anyone who says that Pentax hasn't built a high quality product in the years past is also an ignorant fool.. and i doubt they have ever dealt with their products in the years past. What Pentax doesn't do well... is marketing.. planning.. running a competitive business. They went downhill starting in the early 80s. The Pentax LX is probably the highest quality SLR I have ever held in my hands... its a little jewel work of art... The KX, MX are also high quality. Even the aperture only version of the ME (for the regular consumer) was a well built camera. All of those cameras are still functioning in my collection. The ME-F was a recognition that Autofocus was the future (mine still works) but it was so badly executed because they refused to do a ground up development (another terrible decision). Minolta took the lead in AF soon after they purchased the autofocus rights from.. that's right.. Leica. Oh btw.. my Minolta 7000 has plastics that are literally melting/degrading.

Oh.. I haven't even mentioned the tank like 6x7/67 MF SLR either...

 

[usayit]

Oh.. I saw recently chinese built cameras with the innards and outward look of the old Spotmatics and K1000. Up close, you can tell the quality shortcuts with plastic parts and cheaper materials for the upper and bottom plates. I just thought it was neat.

 

[Green Li]

It mostly has to do with marketing and brand perception. Nikon has had "THE NAME" forever and is instantly recognizable as a quality product. Canon hasn't been around in cameras as long as Nikon but has made itself a name in cameras. Also, a major problem at a Ritz camera - it's a chain and they are mandated by the corporation to be as profitable as they can; most likely a small independent camera shop will have them if they carry Pentax.

Pentax is a name that has been around a long time was known as a quality product but doesn't seem to market itself and have a following the way Canon and Nikon do. I believe most people do not research their purchases and buy on what they see or hear. I'll relate a story about my son and Pentax ... I was interested in Pentax but didn't like my local dealer and when I told my son I was interested in it his response was something like 'Why would you buy anything other than Nikon' ... brand recognition.

marketing can sell bad products, but good products cannot sell themselves.

 

[Petraio Prime]

* Minolta / Leica collaboration.

There was a collaboration between the two companies. Early R bodies were basically Minolta bodies, rebranded as Leica, with a Leica -R mount swapped in. This allowed Leica to focus on glass manufacturing AND gain entry to the SLR market. There was also collaboration with the design of the smaller (lower line) of M-mount equipped rangefinders; the Leica/Minolta CL and CLE. As for lenses, as far as I know.. only a few R-system lenses were manufactured by Minolta according to Leica specifications/design. From what I've been told, they were not well received by the Leica shooters.

What idiot people who try to use this as an argument against the Leica branding do not understand is that Leica has always and continues to be a small run company. This is who they are what they are... hand built products much similar to hand built watchmakers. This EXTREMELY limits their manufacturing capability (focuses their workforce on quality).

This is the same reason why they teamed up with Minolta to enter into the SLR market.

This is the same reason why they teamed up with Kodak to enter into the digital SLR market.

This is the same reason why they continue to have a working relationship with Panasonic.

(Oh.. its the same reason why the waiting list for the M9 is long long long... they are focused on the S2 perhaps?)


* Pentax quality

Anyone who says that Pentax hasn't built a high quality product in the years past is also an ignorant fool.. and i doubt they have ever dealt with their products in the years past. What Pentax doesn't do well... is marketing.. planning.. running a competitive business. They went downhill starting in the early 80s. The Pentax LX is probably the highest quality SLR I have ever held in my hands... its a little jewel work of art... The KX, MX are also high quality. Even the aperture only version of the ME (for the regular consumer) was a well built camera. All of those cameras are still functioning in my collection. The ME-F was a recognition that Autofocus was the future (mine still works) but it was so badly executed because they refused to do a ground up development (another terrible decision). Minolta took the lead in AF soon after they purchased the autofocus rights from.. that's right.. Leica. Oh btw.. my Minolta 7000 has plastics that are literally melting/degrading.

Oh.. I haven't even mentioned the tank like 6x7/67 MF SLR either...

Oh I never said Pentax were not well built, but they were not up to Nikon F or Leicaflex standards. They were above Minolta and Canon, but not by a significant degree. I am talking Spotmatic era.

 

[Derrel]

Pentax never could seem to get a leg up on Canon,Nikon, or Olympus. Minolta had a few advantages over Pentax, but managed to squander what advantages they did have, and not too long ago, abandoned the camera and lens-making business entirely, selling their assets to Sony Corp. One of the sad facts about mass marketing is that mass consumption is required to stay healthy,and in business over a long time period. Pentax had a good position back in the Spotmatic era, but by the early 1970's, was in decline, for various reasons. By the early 1980's, Pentax was simply unable, or unwilling, to compete on the big stage, against Canon and Nikon. The quality of Pentax products has seldom been an issue, but they are simply NOT a big enough player to have a large fan and customer base,and it seems that they lost out wayyyy back in the 1970's, when Canon and Nikon made big plays for the serious amateur and professional segments.
Unlike Canon and Nikon, Pentax also had medium format systems, plural, to produce and market, and perhaps they lacked the needed focus and specialization to really put all the eggs into the 35mm SLR basket, the way Canon and Nikon did.

Many camera brands of the 1960's and 1970's are simply gone now--Topcon, Miranda, Minolta, Kowa, Bronica, Rollei, Petri, Ricoh, Yashica, Yashica/Contax (aka Kyocera),
Fuji, and others....dead...just not making 35mm or MF cameras any longer...there simply is not that much room in this industry...

 

[Petraio Prime]

Pentax never could seem to get a leg up on Canon,Nikon, or Olympus. Minolta had a few advantages over Pentax, but managed to squander what advantages they did have, and not too long ago, abandoned the camera and lens-making business entirely, selling their assets to Sony Corp. One of the sad facts about mass marketing is that mass consumption is required to stay healthy,and in business over a long time period. Pentax had a good position back in the Spotmatic era, but by the early 1970's, was in decline, for various reasons. By the early 1980's, Pentax was simply unable, or unwilling, to compete on the big stage, against Canon and Nikon. The quality of Pentax products has seldom been an issue, but they are simply NOT a big enough player to have a large fan and customer base,and it seems that they lost out wayyyy back in the 1970's, when Canon and Nikon made big plays for the serious amateur and professional segments.
Unlike Canon and Nikon, Pentax also had medium format systems, plural, to produce and market, and perhaps they lacked the needed focus and specialization to really put all the eggs into the 35mm SLR basket, the way Canon and Nikon did.

Many camera brands of the 1960's and 1970's are simply gone now--Topcon, Miranda, Minolta, Kowa, Bronica, Rollei, Petri, Ricoh, Yashica, Yashica/Contax (aka Kyocera),
Fuji, and others....dead...just not making 35mm or MF cameras any longer...there simply is not that much room in this industry...

To a certain extent it is luck. By any measure, Topcon had the most brilliant designs, easily outclassing Nikon in the mid-60s.

 

[Derrel]

To a certain extent it is luck. By any measure, Topcon had the most brilliant designs, easily outclassing Nikon in the mid-60s.

Yes, agreed. It's like the way the Contax rangefinder cameras easily outclassed the Leica IIIc and IIIf and IIIg models for over a decade. The Contax rangefinders were better-designed and better-featured than any Leica from the mid-1930's until,well, 1953, when the M-3 premiered. Nikon REALLY earned its stripes when Korean War photographers shot amazing quality photographs on 35mm rangefinder cameras using the then realtively new "Nikkor" lenses made by Nippon Kogaku (aka Nikon) in Japan...the rise of Nikon is in huge part, what spelled the death to Leica as the premier PJ/news/miniature format camera....perhaps that's why you're so,so anti-Nikon...

In the same period that Leica's designs were being eclipsed by the COntax cameras, the Canon company had contracted Nippon Kogaku (Nikon) to manufacture all the lenses for Canon cameras. For about a decade, the first Canon cameras were sold with NIKKOR lenses, made by Nikon...

But, as Zeiss and Topcon proved, having arguably "better" products is no guarantee of success. Leica outlasted Zeiss, and Nikon is still active, while Topcon is as dead as Red Skelton.

Kind of like the way Betamax tape was "better", easily better, than the VHS tape system, but VHS was a runaway success, and Betamax was a joke...

 

[magkelly]

I'm a total Pentax snob and I proudly admit it. I've never met a Pentax camera yet that I didn't like and immediately covet upon introduction. The K-7 is the DSLR I ultimately want, but I'd settle for the the new K-x, no problem, and likely will as the K-7 is a bit out of my league financially. At a price point that's often well under $500 with a decent kit lens it's a heck of a bargain if you ask me!

I've actually examined quite a few of the latest Nikons and Canons on the shelves locally, and actually buying that K-x when the time comes is actually going to mean taking a trip to a place that actually has a store that sells them or buying online. I really don't want to do the latter and might have to settle for a Nikon if it came down to it, but honestly I'd much rather have that K-x than any Nikon I've ever played with.

Three reasons:

1. I have a 50 year old Pentax camera in my bag that is solid as a rock and that still works, even the light meter.

2. Because Pentax made so many really great ones there are some really fine old lenses (I <3 Takumars!!!) out there that I can use with either of my cameras that will do the job and that I don't have to go out and spend small fortune for. Fact, Pentax cameras have more backwards capable lenses out there than just about any other brand out there. That's a HUGE plus when you don't have major $$$ to drop on a whole kit of digital lenses.

3. Have you SEEN the K-x? It's the freakin New Beetle of consumer DSLR's and it's a GREAT camera! It's also selling very well supposedly for a camera that you usually have to special order online to get your hands on. No matter what color you're into basic black or candy apple red it's looking like a surprise hit for Pentax and if this is where they're going to?

I think Pentax will survive just fine and that Canon and Nikon just may have cause to actually sweat a bit over their success in future. They may be a bit behind, but I think they are bent on catching up, at least in the consumer DSLR market.

 

[Petraio Prime]

To a certain extent it is luck. By any measure, Topcon had the most brilliant designs, easily outclassing Nikon in the mid-60s.

Yes, agreed. It's like the way the Contax rangefinder cameras easily outclassed the Leica IIIc and IIIf and IIIg models for over a decade. The Contax rangefinders were better-designed and better-featured than any Leica from the mid-1930's until,well, 1953, when the M-3 premiered. Nikon REALLY earned its stripes when Korean War photographers shot amazing quality photographs on 35mm rangefinder cameras using the then realtively new "Nikkor" lenses made by Nippon Kogaku (aka Nikon) in Japan...the rise of Nikon is in huge part, what spelled the death to Leica as the premier PJ/news/miniature format camera....perhaps that's why you're so,so anti-Nikon...

In the same period that Leica's designs were being eclipsed by the COntax cameras, the Canon company had contracted Nippon Kogaku (Nikon) to manufacture all the lenses for Canon cameras. For about a decade, the first Canon cameras were sold with NIKKOR lenses, made by Nikon...

But, as Zeiss and Topcon proved, having arguably "better" products is no guarantee of success. Leica outlasted Zeiss, and Nikon is still active, while Topcon is as dead as Red Skelton.

Kind of like the way Betamax tape was "better", easily better, than the VHS tape system, but VHS was a runaway success, and Betamax was a joke...

I have no grudge against Nikon in re: Leica.

It just irks me that they succeeded when better designs were out there. It's all luck and timing. Being first is a very important factor. People like the familiar and hate change.

People tend to look down upon those who just create a "me too" product. After a while, if you don't have anything that really distinguishes you, you end up as a footnote to history. Topcon is a perfect example.

 

[c.cloudwalker]

What idiot people who try to use this as an argument against the Leica...

If that was directed at me, thank you, but I do not use this against Leica. I use it for Minolta. And against the snobs

Hobbyists can afford to be snobs. Pros will make the magic happen with what they have. And for me, it happened with Minolta gear for the first 12 years of my career. Or until I went into the studio and started shooting a Hasselblad most of the time.

Hobbyists also don't need to come up with salable photos which makes it much easier to talk about equipment quality while taking snapshots. And if you throw hating pros into the mix, it's even more of a joke.