Pentax are beginning to 'P' me off!

<p>Bill, I understand your frustration. I think everyone in this forum has some issue(s) with their Pentax camera. I know I do. The problem is, there is no perfect system out there; I've researched all the other brands, and none of them can give me everything I want, so I stay with Pentax for now, and probably for a long time.</p>

<p>As for changing platforms, Pentax said the K-7 was standalone camera not intended to be a K20D successor. They've been very reticent about what's coming up, so there may be a K30D in the works, sharing the same body as the K10/20D. Then again, maybe not, especially seeing how well the K-7 has been received.</p>

<p>As for your predicament, I suggest you do what you said: research, count your dollars, do the numbers, then see what comes out the other end. Just don't think you won't have any problems with Canikon, because you will. They'll just be a different set of problems :-)</p>

<blockquote>

<p>They've been very <strong>reticent</strong> about what's coming up</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Please, it is hard enough reading the various posts and then you make me break out Websters dictionary to look up these big words ;-) so lets keep it simple. :)</p>

<p>Ha ha ha, sorry Javier. I hope you can exculpate me... :-p</p>

<p>Roger: How do you turn off the double check focus?</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Just don't think you won't have any problems with Canikon, because you will. They'll just be a different set of problems :-)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I learned from one of my IBM consultants that we don't have problems, we have <em>opportunities</em>!</p>

<p>Complex machines have their quirks, it's what gives them "personality." Once you learn how to keep everyone happy, why change? It's like being married for 20 years and dumping your wife for an 18 year old. If you couldn't figure out how to make one woman happy after 20 years, what makes you think a new one will be any different?</p>

<p>You're apparently from the film days. I just bought a K7 for what I used to spend in less than a year on film and processing. Forget about the cost of slide holders and filing cabinets. The way I look at it, buying the latest and greatest body and accessories every 2 years is costing me less now in the digital era than my hobby used to in the days of film. The expensive part of the system is the lenses. Pentax does more than just about any other manufacturer to ensure backwards compatibility with their lenses. I guess you must be glad that you weren't a Canon shooter prior to 1987 when they ditched their entire line to start over with the EOS system.</p>

<p>I find it quite interesting the comments made by the Canon users about the AF ability of Pentax, especially as it would seem they have not tried the K-7. The K-7 is both fast and accurate.<br>

As Bruce Johnson states, the fact that we used to spend more on film and eveloping costs in two years than the cost of a camera body and the price of rechargeable batteries every two years, then I think the argument is rather a moot one. Also, <strong>every manufacturer</strong> expects their users to basically update their camera every 2 or so years and is therefore not specific to Pentax but is a fact of life in the digital age. Also, battery technology is always being upgraded, so Pentax will also try to make the most of the new technology there so that they get the best out of the K-7. I see nothing wrong with that and for God's sake, a new battery is the least of the pricing issues.<br>

Bruce's other point is also very valid: "I guess you must be glad that you weren't a Canon shooter prior to 1987 when they ditched their entire line to start over with the EOS system." So, seeing as Pentax's old glass is still comaptible with <strong>every Pentax DSLR and can therefore use them on every new Pentax DSLR that you have </strong>you should be thankful that with all that money saved on having to upgrade your glass you shouldn't quibble about the cost of a few rechargeable batteries and a battery grip for the K-7.<br>

Trent Whaley also makes a good point: "I'm not sure what all the fuss is about. You are not forced to upgrade just because a new model came out. If the new model does not do significantly more that's important to you, keep using your old model."<br>

With all the above in mind, how much do you think that you will save by actually changing systems? I think you will be looking at false economy and actually spending <strong>much more</strong> by shifting to another system.<br>

My suggestion is to go out and try the K-7 and if you like it buy it and I am sure you won't be disappointed. The K-7 is a superb camera and worth every penny, IMO. A real photographer's camera. If you don't, then stick with the K10D as it won't cost you anything and therefore nothing to complain about.<br>

Have you read the reviews of the K-7 by the respected websites, like Imaging Resources and DP Review? They have all given the K-7 glowing reviews that stack up against the other manufacturers very well. After all, the K-7 <strong>does have</strong> a magnesium body as you requested.<br>

I really do think you are being a little unfair to Pentax. They are in a rebuilding stage and they are getting on top of things, maybe a little slower than we would like, but I am <strong>very</strong> satisfied with the brand and they have covered all bases as far as I am concerned. I do not find it an issue to purchase a new body every year or so as the body and grip and a few rechargeable batteries costs me <strong><em>way less</em></strong> than the film and processing did all those years ago.</p>

<p>I don't really think that the situation is going to get much better for Bill if he switches to another manufacturer. But, I'd ask: what's really wrong with the equipment you have?</p>

<p>Some people are constantly dissatisfied; everything always seems to be "No good," "Not good enough." If you let that line of thinking get ahold of you, you'll just accelerate the Gain Train. </p>

<p>You could give some people Saddam Hussein's golden toilet, and they'd complain that it wasn't platinum. </p>

<p>Regardless of what you do (it is, after all, your stuff), focus more on utility and you'll be happier, doing more with less. Brand name's immaterial.</p>

<p>I think that shooting with a DSLR -- and upgrading every couple of years -- can sometimes <strong><em>feel</em> </strong> more expensive than shooting film, even though it isn't. Spending $1500-$2000 in one fell swoop <strong><em>feels</em> </strong> a lot worse than spending $20-$40 a week on film and processing... which, of course, equates to $1500-$2000 a year. Buying a K-7 at $1299 (plus a few hundred extra for a grip, extra battery, etc) and keeping it for two years means that it is costing you about $750-$1000 a year... a <strong><em>significant</em> </strong> savings when compared with what you'd spend on film and processing! If you keep it for three or four years and shoot a very high volume of photos, even better.</p>

I haven't spent anywhere near $2000 on film this year or, for that matter, this life (so far). Now this is partly because I have a digital camera as well that I use preferentially when I don't know ahead of time what I'm photographing (no one told me digital or analog was an either-or proposition) but, for real? The K20 + software + hardware is easily the most expensive kit I own. I sure as heck am not going to upgrade it every two years.

<p>Assuming $7 for a roll of professional grade film and $10-$15 for high quality processing (develop only + contact sheet), that puts you at around $20 to shoot one roll of film. (I didn't include printing costs because they're basically the same whether you shoot digital or film.) If you do that once a week, that's $1000 a year; twice a week, $2000 a year; etc. It adds up. If you're the type of person who can make a single roll of film last a month or more, then obviously your cost to shoot film is going to be a lot less.</p>

<p>For professionals who shoot a lot of images, digital is <em>by far</em> the less expensive option. I'm <em>not </em> a professional, and in my film days I typically never shot more than one roll a week, but even with volume that low, digital was still a cost savings.</p>

<p>"I sure as heck am not going to upgrade it every two years." Nobody said you had to! All I said is that even if you <em>choose</em> to upgrade it every two years, you're still saving money compared to what you'd spend to shoot a roll or two of film every week. If you can hang onto it for three, four, or five years, your savings increases dramatically.</p>

I typically explore photographic opportunities with digital and revisit the promising ones with film, to "finalize" them (I prefer film as a medium). I have E6 developed professionally for $7 and C41 at Costco for ... what? Less than $2, I think. I’m not going to claim the cost of film is an insignificant expense in my photography but it is certainly less than many others, gas, for instance, to get where the pictures are waiting. It’ll be cheaper still for me to shoot film when I start bulk-loading B&W and developing it at home. Now obviously cheap isn’t free, and it’s correct to say memory is cheaper than film, all else being equal (ha!) And, yes, if every time I felt like shooting a roll of film I banked $10 instead, I’d be rich, eventually.

<p>

But come on, isn’t all that just a little pie in the sky, especially on this site where half the posts are about shopping? Does the price of memory really determine the cost of ownership of digital or the economic choices digital camera buffs make? Something is driving the upgrade market, I sincerely doubt it’s the low cost of memory compared to film! Consider this: I bought a K20, Canon P&S, and 67II, in that order. The way I practice photography, it'd have been substantially cheaper for me to get a P&S and 67II and pass on the K20. I can buy a lot of film for the price of a K20 [+ software + in my case computer hardware], more film than I normally use in the time many people who argue digital is cheaper will upgrade from K20 to K7.

<p>

For me, film works and is economical. For me. I'd probably shoot it if it wasn't, but whatever :-)

<p>I wouldn't have spent that much money on film either, <strong>but</strong> I wouldn't have anywhere near as many great shots that I was proud of as I do with digital. Digital processing has allowed me the freedom to explore my hobby and get <strong>immediate </strong>results which has then taught me what I was doing wrong rather than wait days to find out I stuffed up. I would never have taken 20 or 30 shots of the one subject experimenting and waiting for the right light or whatever when using film, but now I can do it with complete impunity and get the shot I wanted. The immediate of digital capture results are what has taught me my craft better than anything in film. For me, paying about $1,500 every year to 18 months is no big deal because my photography works now like it never did with film.</p>

 

<p>Bill, I too have that Tokina 28-70mm f/2.6 lens. A very fine zoom lens, indeed a workhorse, built like a battleship. I have had it for at least 10 years. It is great on my PZ-1p too, for which I originally bought it. </p>

<p>I never owned a K10D, but I have found that with my K20D and K200D, my newer Sigma 24-60mm f/2.8 has significantly faster AF for action shooting. I sometimes shoot college indoor roller hockey, a very challenging fast-moving sport to follow and shoot. I really noticed the difference in the number of sharp shots from the Sigma compared to what I'd been getting with the Tokina. The Tokina is engineered with very fine manual focus precision and feel, however. I acquired this Sigma lens last year, and have been very happy with its performance. I find it to be sharp, even at wide aperture. It also provides some wide angle on a DSLR, unlike the 28mm lens. I always shoot hockey using AF-C setting. Being that this lens was discontinued, I got a great deal on a closeout price. Maybe you could still find one around.</p>

<p>One way to upgrade at minimal cost, is to do so at the end of product run. Especially true with Pentax. Their closeout prices have been extraordinarily low. There have been those who bought a K10D about 8-10 monthes into its run at a great price reduction, shot it like crazy for a couple of years, then recently got a new K20D at closeout for a very low price, and upon selling their K10D had not parted with much $$ at all for the new camera!! If not caring much about the video, and a few other new K7 features, or the smaller size, the K20D presents quite an incredible value now upon nailing a purchase of a left-over new body. There are a number of updates, such as user noise reduction control, customizing camera to lens focus characteristics, and more. If you have the battery grip for the K10D it is the same one. Javier has had both the K10D and K20D at the same time. He says using the grip, and a good lens for AF, the AF is somewhat faster with the K20D over the K10D. I am not saying hey this is the thing for you to do, but it IS a way to upgrade at minimum cost with the deals now around, if interested.</p>

<p>I like my present cameras so much, I may wait out the K7 to see what comes later. I really get fine image quality, and what I now have should last me a long time. The K20D is a great camera.</p>

<p>If you need a wider zoom at a reasonable price, the Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 enjoyes a good reputation, and may focus as fast. </p>

<p>BTW, Javier says the FPS shooting rate with the K20D and grip is faster too. At least 4 FPS with fresh batteries in both. The new K7 is up over 5 FPS. The next model or so may be yet higher. Yes, Pentax is slow when it comes to a few upgrades, but in other ways quite innovative in a useful way. You know- the SV and TAV modes, the RAW button, the fast and efficient Hyper system, etc. etc. Not just bells and whistles. </p>

<p>I also have the MZ-S, a beautifully-made camera. The K-7 build concept rather reminds me of it.</p>

<p>This upgrade discussion reminds me of the PC desktop/laptop industry and the inferiority complex that comes from not having the latest and greatest OS, the fastest processor, the largest amount of RAM, the biggest HD, the largest monitor, etc. The amount of money and productivity lost every time an 'upgrade' is announced must be astronomical. Sometimes going backwards makes more sense. My K10D still produces sharp crisp images, some of which are better than those from my K20D. I'd like a K30D someday but I'm willing to wait for the improvements that will help me not just provide an 'upgrade.' Still, I'm happy that Pentax makes cameras for us photographers.</p>

<p>Bill, It looks like you've been reading my mind! The next time I upgrade (in 2 or 3 years) it probably won't be a Pentax. I like many many things about Pentax cameras, but they don't seem stable. For what I do currently, the k10d works great, and coming from film, I have no problem with the noise level at 1600, given that the right steps are used to reduce it.<br>

It seems that shooting with the digital cameras, I always have to adjust the exposure. When I shot slide film, I just relied on the meter in the camera and the pictures always came out good. Now, I have to always add +.5-+1 stop of exposure comp. to get a normal exposed picture. I shot a reception for a friend a while back, and the whole thing was underexposed even though I had the exposure comp. set to +2. A friend had a Canon 30d with him and all his were turning out with correct exposure, and he had no exposure comp. turned on. <br>

About the K20d, In my brief use of it, it was way slower than the k10d. The buffer on the k20 takes about 3 shots longer to fill up, and when full the k20 continues at about .75 fps while the k10 keeps going at about 1.5fps. So, the k10d shoots more pictures in a given amount of time compared to the k20d. The one I tried had the battery grip, and it still had lower fps than the k10d. For the complete speed test, <a href="http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/K20D/K20DA6.HTM">look here.</a><br>

So, unless Pentax really comes out with something better in the next 5 years, I'll be sinking about $3500 into a D700 with a 24-70mm 2.8 lens. At the rate that I'm making from the k10, it will be about 2 years. :-)</p>

<p>-Jon</p>

<p>A lot of these complaints -- changing batteries, grips, & flash technologies -- are shared by all D-SLR makers. I'd go so far as to say it's more the exception than the rule that grips/batteries are usable between different models. And all the camera-makers have been transitioning away from off-the-film TTL to pre-flash TTL flash automation technology. And differences in AF and noise performance between <em>competing </em> bodies are rather subtle. The 7 years behind sounds like hyperbole to me. If the actual complaint is that Pentax doesn't offer bodies that compete with the higher-end bodies from Canon/Nikon, that's another story.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>"I shot a reception for a friend a while back, and the whole thing was underexposed even though I had the exposure comp. set to +2."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This sounds like there's something else going on.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>About the K20d, In my brief use of it, it was way slower than the k10d.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The K20D feels slightly snappier to me in some ways (menu navigation, review, etc.) but it's clear that some of these upgrades only partially mitigated the additional load of 14mp rather than 10mp files. And Pentax has never officially claimed that use of the battery grip is intended to improve performance.</p>

<p>Andrew D700 full frame Nikon uses same grip that Nikon D300 aps-c crop format uses: Sames batteries and same grip. How cool it that?</p>

<p>For me, its a turn off that K-7 uses a different battery and charger than my K20D uses. If I bought K-7 and carried K20D I'd have to carry both chargers and incompatible batteries. Its also a turn off that Pentax makes AA dslrs as they come with no charger and no rechargable batteries. A hidden added cost to purchase. I know many here love AA power so its a personal preference. You can't please all the people all the time kind of thing.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Lindy, agree--it is nice when the accessories are shared but I'm saying it's the exception rather than the rule. I don't think Nikon bends over backwards to keep these accessories common for more than two generations of bodies--I think they (and other makers incl. Pentax) do it when it suits them--to save them development & production costs--not necessarily to save their customers money. In general I don't think any of them much want to compromise on the grip/body combo for that reason alone. I'm also not a huge fan of the continued AA support in-body as I think it makes the bodies bigger, heavier, and lower-performing than they need to. I'd think they *could* make an insert to hold a Li-Ion battery that would fit in the same cavity as 4AA's but they probably don't think people are willing to pay for something like that or that it would pick up many new customers. At least the K-7 grip allows either Li-Ion or AA's. I imagine that Pentax changed batteries for K-7 mostly to support the increased use of Live view and video. </p>

<p>I believe Pentax has started splurging for disposable Lithium AA's with their AA-consuming bodies, unlike the just-about worthless alkalines that were bundled with my *ist DS2. :-)</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>"I believe Pentax has started splurging for disposable Lithium AA's with their AA-consuming bodies, unlike the just-about worthless alkalines that were bundled with my *ist DS2. :-)"</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>This is true. My mother's K2000 came with a set of Energizer lithiums, and they're still going strong 10 months later! Granted, she doesn't use the camera as much as most members of this forum would. But they really do last a long time. I've started using lithiums in my K100D and I'm absolutely amazed at how long they last and how well they perform (or more accurately, how well the camera performs when powered by them). Seeing as how I almost never use the flash, I suspect that I can probably get well over 2000 shots with a set of lithiums. And they're not terribly expensive if you buy them when they're on sale (which happens frequently at places like Target and Walmart). I bought my last set of Energizer lithiums when they were on sale at Target, and the package came with a peel-off $1 off coupon; the final price ended up being not much more than a set of Duracell alkalines.</p>

<p>Funny, I've been tempted, by the K20D specifically, to sell my Canon gear (including a 5D) and go with Pentax in my professional work. I have images made with the K100D and K20D which I adore. I made it a point, a mission, to grab one of the last few K100D's out there because of the sensor. I LOVE that 6mp thingy from Sony. Every time I get a great picture coming up on my screensaver at home I check what took it, and it's nearly always one of the 6mp sensor cameras I've owned (including the *istD) or the K20D, and of those, most are shot with the 40mm DA pancake lens.</p>

<p>Flash woes? Pentax has built-in wireless capability. Canon doesn't. You need to buy Canon's expensive flashes or a specialized transmitter to do wireless. I much prefer Pentax in that regard. A couple of 360FGZ's and you're good to go in a LOT of lighting situations.</p>

<p>Bill, </p>

<p>Keep in mind Pentax cannot grow if all they do is design products for legacy customers. The also have to think about people that have never owned a Pentax which is a market several hundred times larger. I they do not constantly keep up with technology, then Canon, Nikon, Sony, Olympus will get those new customers.</p>

<p>How much does a battery grip cost? It goes with the camera when you sell it again. Battery grips wear too and need to be replaced occasionally.</p>

<p >I still don’t seem to be getting my issue across to most. Lindy seems to get it a bit.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >It’s not the money. A new Pentax body would still cost me money. It’s about having a system to work with. When Pentax created their LX system they went with it and supported it for years. I was able to buy my 2^nd LX, which was almost identical to my first, 7 years later. It worked with everything I bought earlier.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Even when I bought my *istD, it at least worked with the flashes I bought for my PZ series cameras. When I bought the K10D everything had changed. Nothing, except the release I bought for the *istD works with the K10D. I like the K10D. I like the *istD. I do not like having to carry 2 different kinds of batteries, 2 different battery chargers, 2 different battery grips, they don’t feel the same and the controls are in different places.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >This was not the case when I boughtt the Z1p to go along with the PZ1. They used the same battery, same grip, same flash, etc…</p>

<p > </p>

<p >I can’t see what advantage it is for the manufacturer to change things up like this. What possible gain do they make by making the K7D a totally different camera than they have ever had before. I see the *istD, K10D, K20D, K7D all as being the top camera’s in the Pentax line at the time they came out. I saw huge improvement from the *istD to the K10D. What was wrong with the K10D/K20D platform?</p>

<p > </p>

<p >The EOS-1D has been around for many years in various forms. You can count on it. There have been several models introduced, but they are compatible. Even Nikon are more consistent with the top of the line cameras than Pentax, and that’s saying a lot.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Anyway, maybe I’m just a dinosaur.</p>

<p > <br>

Anyway, thanks everyone for your thoughts.</p>

<p>If you decide to leave Pentax your 600mm f4 is valuable item. Maybe $6000 to $6500. I handled a FA 600mm f4 Pentax for sale locally a couple years ago and was surprised how heavy it is. If I recall correctly its some 4+ pounds more weight than 600mm f4 IS Eos, & the Eos has added weight of Image stabilization unit built in the lens.</p>

<p>Canon gets alot of grief for abandoning their manual focus mount "FD". But I think cutting with the past in 1987 gave them an advantage that only in past year Nikon has been able to neutralize. Canon isn't compatible with 1970-1994 FD but its quite compatible with Eos 1987 thru 2009. I own both Canon & Nikon dslrs. I love full frame for ultrawide captures so I own both 5D and D700. Each has had big price increases this year. For sports, weddings I'd say get D700. For landscapes I choose Canon. Then again 14-24mm 2.8 Nikon is a stunning optic for landscapes too. My bigger lens kit is Canon made and I have no complaints. Its fun to chat with owners who use same gear at Mesa Verde, Maroon Bells, Yellowstone, Grand Tetons, ect. I've yet to see a Pentax owner at a National Park. 4% dslr market share makes Pentax pretty darn scarce in my National Park visits. I prefer to buy my Canon and Nikon glass new for warranties and such. Old eos lenses like 400 2.8 haven't had usm motors available now for a decade so its best to buy new glass, from my prespective. Nikon gives 5 year warranties on their glass sold in USA.</p>

<p><br />I still own Pentax primarily as a platform for using my older manual focus K Mount lenses. You are at a unique cross road. You can add a couple grand to your kit on a K-7 and grip or cash out, recoup some gear costs and build new system. I like both Nikon and Canon. If I had to trim my 3 brands down to two I'd keep Canikon gears. You've got alot or reading to do Bill. Lucky for you, the longer you wait for K-7 the more affordable it becomes so Pentax K-7 could still be a choice for you due to best bang for buck. My prediction based on observing the dslr pricing past is K-7 in April 2010 $700 or 1c less.</p>

<p>If not you've likely got a treasure trove of Pentax gear and Pentaxians love paying well for Pentax best goodies from the past.</p>