Pentax. What's the direction?

[micha_goldfine1]

<p>Hi Guys,<br /> <br /> long time since last time.<br /> <br /> I took an advance photography class and was, as usual the only Pentax user. The real pros don't even mention this brand anymore. It doesn't really matter but I was impressed with the full frame cameras from Nikon and Canon and decided that If I continue to be serious about photography I should use a full frame and not waste time and moeny buying DA glass.<br /> <br /> It's a shame as it seems that Pentax lost it's grip on the pro market being basically just an old brand name and not an actual company.<br /> <br /> If no fresh news will come from Pentax in the coming months then Adios guys, it was a pleasure but I don't see any point staying with a brand that has only one type "semi-pro" camera and very expensive and limited glass.<br /> <br /> do you agree?<br /> <br /> <br /> Mic</p>

 

[jgredline]

<blockquote>

<p>do you agree?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>no.</p>

[micha_goldfine1]

<p>OK.</p>

[andrewg_ny]

<p>Agree it was a pleasure. When was the last time these "pros" mentioned Pentax anyway?</p>

<p>What does 'serious about photography' mean to you? Are you looking for greater depth-of-field control? Exotic super-telephotos and tilt/shift primes? Pro-level autofocus for sports? Higher flash sync speed? Do you need to rent lenses?</p>

<p>You may find photographic nirvana on another system. Or you may spend 5 grand and barely notice a difference. Or the thought of greener grass may continue to itch until you scratch it, satisfy your curiosity, and free yourself from the belief that your equipment is to blame...it may be liberating?</p>

<p>There are probably few among us here who have such confidence and are so well adjusted that we don't lust over certain things that look better in other systems. I'll say that I don't think I'm better than my Pentax gear...I'm the weak spot.</p>

[michael_elenko]

<p>Sorry Micha, it sounds like you are constantly looking over your shoulder prior to pressing the shutter of your Pentax camera, and that can hurt over time.</p>

<p>I'm glad you took an advance photography class and now feel qualified to define a real pro, let alone be one. Granted, full-frame cameras from Nikon and Canon are indeed impressive, but they look like instamatics next to my friend's MF digital Hasselblad. But like so what? A professional fits the tool to the requirements of the shot. My friend exhibits his 20 feet x 35 feet prints in fine galleries. And me, all I do is shoot portraits of one of the world's most renown CEOs, and have 10,000 people line up to have their photo taken with the printed output. Good thing I pasted the word "Canon" over that low-brow Pentax in front or else I'd never execute the job, let alone get it.</p>

<p>Look, I'm not going to use the T-word here, but I am truly curious about the intention of your post. I won't comment about wannabees, but a professional is defined by their passion for photography, their ability to focus on the job (and not the rear view mirror), their delivered work, and their ability to work as a team member. Note that brands and formats are omitted from my analysis as those are not skills.</p>

<p>So, where do you fit in?</p>

<p>ME</p>

[anirbanbanerjee]

<p>Guys,<br>

Actually, Mischa has a point about the FA* lenses being very expensive -- my friend can buy a Canon 135mm/2 L lens for slightly less than $700 (it was an offer from BHPhoto India, shipped from the US). I wonder when we can have such an offer for Pentax FA*? Admittedly, it was Canon trying to lure us to EF-mount addiction, but still ...</p>

[bobcossar]

<p><strong> "do you agree?" <br /> </strong></p>

<p>No. I don't agree. Perhaps when you know more, you might not either.</p>

[micha_goldfine1]

<p>Thanks Michael for your post.<br /> <br /> So, where do you fit in?<br /> <br /> Well, I own a design studio in Sydney, Australia. I create and use various types of media in my projects including photography and video. I am not a full time photographer but photography is a symbiosis between equipment and talent specifically in the 21st century.<br /> <br /> Yes, you are right, I am constantly looking over my shoulder because the future is just a week ahead and investing in photography is a long term commitment. I would be very angry at my self if in 2- 3 years I will have expensive Pentax DA lenses and nothing to do with them on a full frame camera. we are all going to have full frame cameras soon, there is no reason whatsoever to build DSLR with cropped sensors. you will either have the 3/4 option or full frame. Pentax does not show any signs of this direction, not in there glass or cameras and Samsung is not sure at all about there camera future (I just read that in the news).<br /> <br /> Pentax being a brand not a company raises questions. that's why I am looking over my shoulders. maybe I am wrong, I am not jugging Pentax quality or bang for the buck (hate that word).<br /> <br /> just sharing thought. don't you all stand up now...</p>

 

[micha_goldfine1]

<p>"No. I don't agree. Perhaps when you know more, you might not either."<br>

thanks Bob. I think after 30 years of photography I have some knowledge. I love my Pentax toy don't get me wrong there is constantly new stuff coming out except from Pentax. and nothing beyond K20D, and very expensive primes. So, they sell cheap bodies for "semi pros" but a 35mm macro prime cost almost like the camera (prices in Australia are crazy), and that's only a DA. what will I do with it in 2-3 years?</p>

 

[mcmanamey]

<p>Well, I thought I'd let this stew for a little bit. My initial reaction was to ask 1 question:<br>

What is a "real pro"? Seriously. Is a real pro someone who "everybody" in the world knows? Or is it me, using my Pentax to create my income? Am I only "semi-pro" because I don't shoot 60 weddings a year? Am I only "semi-pro" because I refuse to spend thousands when I can do the same for hundreds? Am I now only semi-pro because I made the "mistake" of continuing to buy Pentax instead of jumping ship for Nikon? Since when is spending a load of money on equipment a requirement to call oneself pro? (And I don't happen to find $900ish for one camera a "cheap body"! I do find $5000ish to be just plain obscene.)</p>

<p>So now on to the rest of my brain workings:<br>

So now full-frame will become the new Hassy? eh. I don't think so. If I'm so worried about investing in all kinds of glass that will become obsolete with a full frame camera, I just buy FA instead of DA. Why is this so hard?</p>

<p>Now, I understand that we are looking at different price levels. After all, we're in the states and, apparently, have much lower prices on glass. Does the work you do absolutely require just the absolutely best glass? We've got "full frame" 50mm lenses that were some of the best ever made (yes, multiples of em) and didn't have to spend hundreds. Not even collectively. They're not even DA lenses. They're manual focus 50's. I'm not buying a new DA 50 (or whatever). why should I? </p>

<p>What needs do you actually have? What needs are your Pentax not meeting? If it's an inferiority complex need - then the solution is to go drop thousands of dollars switching systems, have fun, and hope you don't have buyer's remorse issues.<br>

Again, we're shooting portraits, weddings, all kinds of random things... and I have yet to see where dropping another big load of money will vastly improve what I am able to offer clients just by being "full frame" (shoot, I'll just go back to film for that. We've already got multiple film bodies that are paid for!).</p>

[andrewg_ny]

<blockquote>

<p>we are all going to have full frame cameras soon</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If you are completely convinced that serious photography will <em>require</em> this soon then Pentax is most likely not for you. Anyway, I'm living for the 'now'. Even if Pentax does release full-frame it won't make my DA equipment worthless. Hopefully its loss in value will be offset by the increased value of my M/A/F/FA equipment stash!</p>

[michael_elenko]

<p>Micha,</p>

<p>Your pronouncements about the future of photography are merely that. Again, what are your requirements for full frame photography beside what advertisements and wannabe posters tell you?</p>

<p>Again, this is all smoke Micha. I deal with reality and I invite you to escape the scare world of marketing and join me.</p>

<p>You know a signage contractor surprised me by taking a shot from my K10D and making a 50 ft x 20 ft banner from it. It looked great, or at least, to quote Mae West, "I got no complaints." Maybe i should have asked them to hold off until I could have purchased a full-frame Nikon?</p>

<p>You build web sites no? Really a 4 year old point and shoot would work pretty well. And your assumption about the uselessness of say DA lenses (how many of these do you own now by the way?) on a full-frame camera is contradicted by the functionality of existing full-frame cameras that can use crop lenses.</p>

<p>BTW, did you ever resolve how to take a good flash shot with your kit lens?</p>

<p>ME</p>

[micha_goldfine1]

<p>Thanks Michael and the rest. I really appriciate the comments.<br>

Mic</p>

[personalphotos]

<p>I agree with all the comments to your post Micha. It's not the platform. It's about 2 things. 1) does the client like the work and would they recommend you to another client? 2) are there things you can't do because the gear somehow limits you?</p>

<p>For 1 it's more about your ability and imagination. As long as whatever equipment you have will capture that. Then the brand is irrelivant.<br>

For 2 if the gear you have right now causes you to miss shots or be somehow limited, then get a second platform or switch brands.</p>

<p>I never look at the other brands spec sheets because the body is only a tool. The tool I choose captures my work and vision so why bother dreaming about some other camera body? Waste of time. Same as buying a computer and then reading all the reviews of the newest computer you should have waited one more day for.</p>

<p>It also has a lot to do with the expense you can afford or fund. I shoot with 3 bodies. 2 go on evey job with me. I would never consider going on a job with one camera. No matter how reliable. Every piece of gear has the potential to fail. To do otherwise is like driving a car without insurance. So are you prepared to buy one $5000 + body and then back it up with another $5000 + body? Saving any money yet? Are your pictures 5 times better than mine with 2 $1000 cameras?<br>

Is Pentax for everyone? Nope, clearly not. If a Sony or a Canon could do it all, then the other brands would have long since disappeared. Everyone would flock to one brand. Each has it's limits and strengths. If you shoot sports professionally, you'd be nuts to shoot Pentax. For everything else, the brand can do a fine job.<br>

What you need to do is continue to refine your skills. Produce the best work you can and forget looking at whatever could be better tomorrow. Otherwise you will never be satisfied and your pictures will never live up to expectations.</p>

[garydem]

<p>some points-<br>

-you should know your pentax history before you make statements. pentax has never been in the pro market. the closest they came was some yrs back with a model or two of film cameras. the closest the dslr came was the *istD. BUT, with these cameras pentax was aiming at the semipro or advanced amatuer not the full pro market. pentax has always aimed at a niche market that they have defined, and that niche does not include pro. the dslr we are waiting for is the k1d(?) which when it comes out(when?) is going to be the competition for the the nikon d300. not the d700 or d3x or d3.<br>

-pentax is not going to bring out a FF dslr. they have dumped all their FA(full frame lenses). this means that they have nothing to sell with the camera. and the lens roadmap does not have the full FF line of lenses anywhere on it. thye have shifted their lenses to c sensor size.<br>

-and the future of FF is by no means assured. many moths ago i stated that the FF dslr is going to become a niche market, possibily for tethered studio use. anyone who desired a major noticable increase in IQ is going to skip FF and go to MF. with MF you do not to even think about the arguement of whether the top c sensor dslr is equal to the FF dslr. but the differnce between any c sensor OR FF dslr and MF is obvious.<br>

in a very recent article in luminous landscape.com their stated view was that the FF dslr, as we know it, has hit the end of the road. there is nowhere to go at this point. the article should be read to fully understand what is being said. in it the author states something like i did; that the MF is the next logical step.<br>

-for myself, i would not use a FF dslr under any conditions. i simplly would not giveup the advantages of the c sensor dslr. not to mention all the lenses that i have purchased over the yrs will simply not work any more. to use a FF dslr properly and get what you just paid for you should be using the FF lenses. not to mention that is you have identivcsal shot scenes on with a ff and the other with a c sensor dslr then printed them at 8x10 you will not know which was which unless someone told you. the only resal use of the FF dslr is with the ultra wide angle view. but i do not shoot those. the widest i shot with film was 17mm. i have a 12-24mm zoom thatbat the 12mm setting is 18mm(equiv) so i have the sa,me wide ability that i had with film.</p>

[personalphotos]

<p>Gary, although I agree with much of what you posted. I'd dis agree with the following Pentax has never been in the pro market.</p>

<p>Maybe in the 35mm area but even that isn't true. The LX could handle what the others could do. The MX-S as well but that body was late in the film game. It was never fully excepted as other brands had promoted their platforms better. But the LX platform was fully featured.</p>

<p>In Medium Format, Pentax had what the pro wanted. Both the 645 and 6x7 bodies are some of the best in the business with lenses to match and accessories to give the Pro shooter what they wanted. There are still many that shoot these cameras today and will switch to the 645D if it really does hit the market.</p>

[garydem]

<p>peter z- iwas speaking of 35mm only. i have the me super mx and 5n in my basement is a condition as good as the day i bought them. but they and the lx were never the full allout pro camera. there is no doubt that they could be used to take pro type shots and were, but they were not built that way. not in the way the nikon Fs were.<br>

no doubt if pentax would come out with the 645d there are a lot people with all the older lenses and gear that they would be happy to use with the 645d.</p>

[michael_kuhne]

<p>In the B&H product reviews of the K20D, there are a number of contributed comments by pro photographers. Not favored for fast action shooting, but otherwise some pros in other fields of interest like the idea of very high quality at a savings, just like anyone else.</p>

<p>As to FF, it cannot be overlooked. Models are becoming more compact and less expensive. Canon just came out with an affordable upgrade of their 5D. The Nikon D700 is quite popular. Sony has their A900. There are some obvious advantages for imaging. This is format size we are speaking of, and it is always the same principles involved in terms of a larger VS a smaller format. That said, APS-C digital has achieved a remarkable degree of quality, yet you can only squeeze so many MP's into its frame without problems, then where do we go from there?.</p>

<p>APS-C is not going anywhere, and it does have its own advantages, but you cannot achieve the same results, especially in wide angle. You cannot get a relatively compact, fast, true low-distortion WA prime lens, equal to a 24mm f/1.8 FOV on FF, for APS-C!! I appreciate that fact, and frequently turn to my film cameras for this purpose! If I am wrong, show me otherwise.</p>

<p>FF is a good compromise for going to a larger format, without going to the well-over $10,000 range of MF, along with its shortcomings of lower flash sync, shutter speed, reduced FOV range, etc. MF is for much more limited specialized usage, by those few willing and able to handle its cost. Michael E's observation that a professional fits the tool to the requirements of the shot is well stated. As an effective compromise, and without those limitations imposed by MF, the best of the FF models, and perhaps even some APS-C models as well, are lately entering the same league of image quality, and for a wider application of purposes, as the classic MF cameras. I therefore believe FF has a definite appeal for those interested in the best possible image quality at this point of technology.</p>

<p> </p>

[jgredline]

<p>Micha, Did you ever buy the k20d or do u still have the k220d?</p>

[michael_kuhne]

<p>Oh, and Micha, if it puts you more at ease, Nikon has been basically doing the same as Pentax. You will see numerous APS-C lenses newly arrived, some quite expensive, along with their FF lenses, some of which are quite old. Pentax still has a number of FF lenses available, and could easily resurrect a few others where it counts, if need be. Indeed, some of their latest lenses are FF- the DA* 200mm f/2.8, and DA* 300mm f/4 for example. There are numerous others availailable from 3rd party brands.</p>

<p>As Michael E. mentioned, if you are getting the results you need to get from your equipment, there is no need for concern. Not all pros are running to FF. If they don't need what it offers, why should they buy it? I recently saw a pro at an event who was still carrying a Nikon D70 in his bag as a backup body!</p>

<p>Another thing- it will likely be a long time before we see a FF DSLR compact body. Like many, I often need easy portabilty and lightweight use along with my high quality. That is the very concept of the Limited lenses. I can get that with my K200D or K100D, and have SR with any lens. As to FF needs, I can put one of my compact Pentax film bodies and a couple of Limited lenses in a belt pouch, my Sigma 24mm f/1.8 into another belt case, and ride off on my bicycle. This means three fast, very high-quality primes providing a wide-ranging FOV. You cannot get that equivelence of setup with any digital equipment!! I love my film models. Pentax has not made them for a number of years, but they sure are useful! </p>

[tim_bradshaw1]

<p>I too hear that we're all going to have full-frame DSLRs soon. I've looked at some of them: they are typically a bit lighter and a bit smaller than my P67II. A bit. That's basically a bad joke: what is it that makes these things so huge and heavy? Is it the vast numbers of buttons that encrust them? Whatever it is that makes them whirr and click so much? May be it's something about the identikit ugly design ("yes, it's another rounded-off plastic jelly camera, lovely").</p>

<p>I guess a "pro" is going to be someone who is up to carrying one of these monsters all the time, and who doesn't mind looking a prat. Me I want something an ordinary human can carry, and which people might not notice me using. Obviously, I am a mere amateur.</p>

[duane_mills]

<p>Funny thing about "Pros" and Pentax - many of them cut their teeth with a Pentax. Just one example from my local market: "Randy Dawe" - perhaps the Pro with the highest annual earnings where I live, he was mentored by and worked side by side for the bulk of his career with internationally awarded master photographer Lorne Rostotski. I had a good chat with Randy at a JUNO Awards press conference in January as he was getting familiar with the event set up. Randy noticed my little Pentax K100D Super and FA 50mm and told me how got his start and learned his trade with a Pentax MX. It was a very humbling experience listening to how this guy with two EOS 1DS MKIII on him built his career with a Pentax, not the Pentax LX he wanted but the MX he could afford at the time.</p>

<p>Micha, over the past few months you've questioned your equipment based on what other people use or teach with. If you seriously look at the works of Ansel Adams, Henri Cartier-Bresson, or my favorite - Yousuf Karsh, you'll see that these masters have created works that will stand the tests of time with far more primitive equipment than your dslr. Ironically, despite all the advances we've seen in photographic technology over the past few decades, there have been very few images created with more modern equipment that have surpassed the standards set by these master photographers.</p>

<p>Your vision, your creativity and your soul is what will make images come to life. The equipment is merely a tool. While golfing with my daughter (who was 8 at the time) a few years ago I learned a very valuable lesson. After I badly skulled a wedge shot, she dropped a ball where mine had been and executed flawlessly, looked at me and, said "daddy, what you think is what you get". She was playing with a kids sand wedge and I was using a Professional Taylor Made RAC Wedge. The gear had nothing to do with it. Confidence, technique and the ability to visualize what you want is the key to success.</p>

[jgredline]

<p>Duane...GREAT POST!!!!!!<br>

Micha...Seriously, you should sell your Pentax and go get what ever you want. I have seen to many of these posts to try and convince anyone to stay, so just go....</p>

<p>By the way, I have also read the same thing in Canikon forums...Blame the camera, yada yada yada....</p>

[petrana_batik]

<p>It takes much more than a Full Frame DSLR to make a brand pro-related. Pentax is making a business decision not to lose money-- what's wrong with that? I have two D700's sitting on the shelve next to my K10D and K20D; On the shelf above lies my 4x5 LF kit, on the shelf below my beat up M3. Now Micha, you tell me, which tool is "the best"?<br /> None, of course. It all depends on the project.</p>

[graham_powell2]

<p>Hi Gary!<br>

In what way would you say that the Pentax LX isn't the real pro deal? It seems to me that this is a matter of that 'personal image thing' again. The corporations generally attempt to make us to believe that only Nikon and Canon could possibly be considered as being Pro. It's just a matter of shouting something loud enough for long enough, then many people will collapse under the weight of the pressure. The thing with Pentax is that they have been generally understated and tasteful in their approach to business. This has in many ways backfired and it's what has caused them to be unfortunately perceived as being unable to produce anything of true 'pro' specs.<br>

If you were to look at many pro photographers of the sixties and early seventies I think you may be surprised by how many are using 'Spotmatics'.</p>

<p>Best Wishes to All.</p>

<p>Graham.</p>