Ken Rockwell dumps on Pentax

<p>Ih his blog, everyone's bete noir Ken Rockwell surprisingly (or not) really dumped on Pentax in comparing it to other brands. <br>

He says: <br>

"Opening my <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/buy/0/Ntt/Pentax+K3+II/N/0/BI/287/KBID/1037" target="_blank">Pentax K3 II</a> and some Pentax lenses also inspired this article — in a different way.<br>

Pentax is pretty junky, like it's some sort of kid's toy or counterfeit iPod product.<br>

The packing is cheap, and the thin cardboard is dinkier than used for many of my kid's toys, and Pentax' graphics look to inspire the worst in people.<br>

Trying the K3 II, I had to laugh: autofocus sounds like its from the 1980s. They must be kidding, but it also solidifies why Nikon and Canon own the DSLR market: because they make much better cameras."</p>

<p>But is he wrong?</p>

<p>I have no idea.</p>

<p>I only use Pentax-M and earlier. All metal, babay.</p>

<p>I'm still with the Spotmatic, so have no idea if Ken hit the nail on the head or had too much hard cider for dinner. Perhaps some other Pentax K3II owners who have experience with lots of other brands could provide some comparative perspective.</p>

<ol>

<li>I can't spot the quoted posting on K.R.'s site.</li>

<li>Packaging: Its been a while since I shopped (K20D) but I spotted a lens' box. Outer material seems a single side coated sturdy cardboard stock - I'm guessing 300g-400g/sqm, the kind of stuff you can print in any press without too much hassle the inside is recycling grey / unbleached but that shouldn't harm. Outside appears 4c printed with clearcoat. unprinted currogated manila board inside.</li>

</ol>

<p>Fuji & Leica use twice as thick appealing double face currogated board. - Fuji's is product individually printed with partial UV hardened glossy clearcoat on the product picture, but the box would really benefit from being made from paper mill colored paper and printing on white below the other inks, since the corners of the box get easily destroyed as they are.<br>

Leica probably had their outer silver boxes cellophane coated and simply glue a thin label on them. Their inner boxes shine though. - Placing manual and other papers into a dedicated folder looks better than the average plastic bag too. If the linnen calendered gift box inside is of practical use can be discussed though. - for my personal taste its way too touch sensitive and less practical than the jewelry box that came with a Minox C.<br>

IMHO ideal packaging should somehow look like http://www.cryptomuseum.com/covert/camera/sniper/img/301423/003/full.jpg - not fancy at all but including a camera case. - Looking at cheapest NRCs from China this shouldn't be too hard.<br>

Upon the Pentax AF: I think "point taken"? - It was invented in the 80s.</p>

<p>I'm still using my K-5 (and PZ-1, and MX), but my initial response to reading that quotation was that I have never yet taken a picture with the box my camera came in.</p>

<p>Maybe Ken Rockwell, and Jochen, are being tongue in cheek? ;)</p>

<p>And, this is something the younger kids have cottoned onto, Christmas mornings: when the toys are pushed aside, and the boxes are the centre of play.</p>

Granted Pentax dSLR's do not have industry-leading AF, but then I'm not aware of Pentax trying to compete in the sports

shooting market, or to those who "spray and pray" for a decent shot, as opposed to creating images. On that front Pentax

has received praise from the industry and other reviewers for its innovation, optical performance, and size. The size and

ergonomics of Pentax's flagship bodies regularly receive praise. I personally would not give up my K-5 iis for any of it's

Canikon contemporaries. While far from perfect, Pentax bodies don't earn that type of derision, nor is it supported by

other knowledgable professionals and reviewers. I consider such comments and opinions an outlier, and thus take them

with no more than a grain of salt.

 

As for the product boxes, really ?? I could care less about the quality of the graphics or how thick the cardboard is. If the camera came to me out of a retail outlet and I'm taking it home, I'm not bashing it about. Any bodies I've had shipped were well secured and protected for shipping. I would rather pay less or see those dollars go into the product than some self-agrandizing graphics. I already know what I bought, I don't require flash and pomp to help me justify the purchase price.

<blockquote>

<p>It is a work of fiction, entirely the product of my own imagination. This website is my personal opinion. (..) this site is my "aggressive personal opinion," and not a "logical presentation of fact." <br>

(..)<br /><br>

Apparently the world finds my opinions very useful, but remember, they are the opinions of one man. I have a big sense of humor, and do this site to entertain you (and myself), as well as to inform and to educate. I occasionally weave fiction and satire into my stories to keep them interesting. I love a good hoax.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Source: http://www.kenrockwell.com/about.htm<br /><br>

<br>

I wouldn't read too much into his words. And even then, so what if he thinks Pentax cameras aren't worth his time? Does that affect you in any way?<br /></p>

<p> Really I am curious is he wrong? I love the old Pentax SLR's but haven't seen a Pentax DSLR recently. </p>

<p>Oops, I tried to be serious and did my best to describe alternative packagings and their flaws and thought by praising the way that Zenith is cased and cheaply boxed as "ideal", I made it clear that <em>I don't care about retail packages.</em> - They might mean $40 -50 of the camera price tag in a very worst case, but its "10 Euro or less" bags from the bargain bin that keep my photography going.</p>

<p>BeBu,<br>

He is wrong, plain and simple. Pentax has had good and bad products, they all have. The current crop of Pentax cameras are amazing instruments, a real joy to use and they help you take take marvelous images. Professionals sometimes have specific needs that are so specific, and their areas so competitive, that they may truly must have a Canon or Nikon dSLR. More often than not though most of these types of comments fall into "The Emperors New Clothes" category. If YOU can't see something wrong with brand-X images you are obviously an unsophisticated boob.<br>

Me? I love the K3 and Kiis, even my K7 (although it has a glitch from an accident). Lovely cameras, my wife has a Canon 7D which I use occasionally when I don't have access to mine, but I would not exchange bodies full-time. I PREFER the ergonomics, weight, and ease of use of my Pentax dSLRs.</p>

 

<p>Hi Folks, who cares what Kenikon Canonwell thinks. "The best camera is the one you have with you" - Chase Jarvis. Just take your Pentax gear and go out and shoot! For those who suffer from the misperception that you can't shoot sports with Pentax my humble K-5II and HD DA 70 beg to differ!</p><div></div>

<p>Here's another...</p><div></div>

<p>Last but not least...</p><div></div>

<p>Everybody has a right to their own opinion, but Ken Rockwell of all people should know by now that you can't judge a book by its cover. Maybe Pentax is not greasing his palms enough under the table...</p>

<p>Does this fall into the area of "BFD?" Look at the wonderful images produced by photographers using all the various generations of Pentax photographic systems! I agree with many who still use their older Pentax film systems; love those lenses! My only DSLR is a K200d and it works adequately for what I need. Rockwell's comments have little effect or relevance with me here.</p>

<p>That's it--I'm switching to an Acme camera system. Their boxes are to die for!</p>

<p>If the products make it to the consumer without being damaged, I think the boxes must be doing their job. <br>

I haven't done any direct comparisons to other brands but I have a camera system that I can create the images I envision with. Not sure what else I would need...</p>

<p>Obviously, Kan Rottwell had nothing better to do than find something negative to say about a product of superior design and build for the dollar than his usual brand has for a comparable price. He obviously has not used or know of the fast and efficient Pentax Hyper system, or the fact Pentax can provide SR with any lens. He speaks of the sound of the AF, which of course indicates he was using a screw-drive lens, naturally being from 1980's AF design. He fails to mention that many Nikon bodies of moderate price range cannot use such older style AF lenses and get AF at all, since they must rely on the lens having its own AF motor. They cannot AF with many lenses Nikon still sells!</p>

<p>I have been successful shooting fast action sports with a fast lens, having screw-drive AF, on a Pentax body. Although audible, I have found that screw-drive AF can be quite fast and accurate, though Nikon and Cannon are said to have better AF technology for tracking action.</p>

<p>He speaks of Pentax being toy-like, and must be referring to their more compact size, and yes that is not pleasing to everyone. Some people do prefer a larger design. Pentax entry-level bodies are generally better constructed than the flimsier, more plasticy competition.</p>

<p>All this is not to say that Nikon or Canon do not make fine cameras and equipment- of course they do. All offer certain advantages. Different designs appeal to different preferences. Rockwell was acting in a manner beneath his level of experience and maturity, if that quote is true.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>@ Duane Mills: I cannot stop revisiting this page and looking at your footbal pix! The colors just pop for me! Thanks for sharing and "no-thanks" for making lust for a lens upgrade! Maybe I just need more sunshine and a cup of coffee! LOL!</p>

<p>This is not the first time, nor will it be the last, that Ken gets wrapped around the axle on minutiae and misses the boat entirely on the really important stuff. With Ken you either love him or hate him, there seems to be very little middle ground, unless like me, you are <em>totally indifferent</em> to the guy. </p>

<p>No serious photographer, amateur or professional, should give Ken Rockwell's site the time of day. He's a fool who writes articles that are nothing more than click bait to keep revenue coming so he can take care of his "growing family". </p>