Why isn't Pentax more popular?

[rick_robinson2]

I have owned and enjoyed Pentax cameras & lenses for many years. I am

at a loss on why Pentax, especially 35mm, is not more popular with

photographers. I currently own two Pentax MZ-S cameras, six prime

Pentax-FA lenses, and two Pentax-FA zoom lenses. In my opinion,

Pentax makes incredible cameras and exceptional lenses. In fact, I

own all three Pentax Limited lenses (31mm, 43mm, 77mm), which are as

good as any lenses manufactured by anyone. My cameras always perform

great and my photographs are (at least technically) perfect. In the

past, I have owned Pentax PZ and ZX cameras, achieving exceptional

results with both.

 

Yet, no one talks about Pentax. Everyone seems to own either Nikon or

Canon. I don't get it. Pentax manufactures great cameras and

exceptional lenses at very competitive prices. Yet, it does not seem

to be a very popular brand. Why isn't Pentax as popular as Canon or

Nikon???

[the_macman]

Because they haven't followed the product line expansion course of Nikon

and Canon and never really pushed for the pro market. Their marketing is

kind of weak. Nonetheless, they make great cameras and lenses. I see it as

the lesser-known gem.

[stephen hazelton]

I can think of several reasons. One is momentum; if all the pros are using Nikon or Canon, then those are the "in" cameras that others want to use. Canon and Nikon have enough high-end pro sales so that their high-end cameras are quite a step above the high-end Pentax cameras. Pentax actually has a wide range of lenses, but not as wide, or as updated, as the other two companies. Pentax lenses are cheaper in many cases, but their more exotic lenses are still expensive (and uncommon). Pentax just really hasn't pursued the pro market, and this has left them as a me-too company, rather than an industry leader (check out the latest digital SLR's from Canon, Nikon, and Pentax- Pentax is just now getting one out, the others have multiple models that have been out for a couple of years).

[Jochen_S]

I own some (older) Pentax stuff too. I believe Pentax was out of the popular or professional 35mm Market when the Nikon F4 wasn't answered by a SFX+LX mixture. As far as I know they always had "me-too" autofocus. No more benchmark technology like in the 60s and no more offer of a complete system as in the early 80s. I believe press-people are a good advertisement for any camera system for ambitious amateurs and only Leica fans know exactly what they don't need...

Be happy about the cheap lenses you'll find somewhere and enjoy your Nikon carrying neighbour being robbed...

[robert_roaldi1]

I have manual focus 35mm Pentax gear from the early 80's. I am an amateur.

 

I may be able to partly answer the question. It is understandable why pros veered towards Canon/Nikon in the past 25-30 years. They manufactured rugged weather resistant camera models and those features mean something when your livelihood depends on it. They continue to do so today. I suppose the LX and MX-S can be considered pro grade but they were playing catch-up in the marketplace with them, I believe.

 

There is no reason that I can see for amateurs to go for Canon/Nikon. When beginners ask the question, on this site and others, about what to buy, they are always given the advice to buy into a "system", whatever that means. But I think that 99% of folks will never need the esoteric bits of a pro system and that a consumer to prosumer body from C or N offers no advantage over a Pentax (or Minolta for that matter). You could pay less and get the same benefit. But we live in affluent societies where people rarely buy what they need, but instead buy what they desire. How else can you explain SUV's or high performance cars that spend most of their lives on boring freeways or sitting at red lights? There are issues of ego and brand attachment, which are baffling to me, but are real nonetheless.

 

From what I am told, I am certain that Canon AF is faster than Pentax's. To how many people do you think that really matters? And is it true of the consumer models anyway? I don't know. Camera bodies are sold on the basis of spec sheets not on the basis of which specs are important to the photographer. But I think that all modern SLR bodies are already too feature rich, regardless of brand. Unless you use them every day, there is no way to remember how to use all those features without a manual by your side. So since most people don't use the cameras much anyway, buying a brand based on functionality may be a idea whose time has passed.

[bruce_rubenstein___nyc]

In the 80's P&S cameras took away most of the casual SLR users. Pentax was always most popular in the economy/value class. Their company image was defined by the K1000; hardly anyone knew about the LX. Then they came out with the new A series of cameras and lenses a few years before AF came out; they lost a bundle on that. Their AF was lame, when they came out with an AF camera. (Even the AF control interface of the MZ-S is behind everyone else.) They did so bad in the market in the late 80's and early 90's that 3rd party lens makers didn't make lenses in Pentax AF mount. This was a killer for Pentax bcause most of their buyers don't buy expensive OEM lenses. For that matter their lens line was full of holes. Every time they come out with a new body the whole control layout is different. That is, when and if they come out with new bodies. The ZX series started to bring them back, but then they didn't introduce a new chassis in a timely manner. 3 very expensive Limited lenses may be alright for an oddball, boutique camera, but it's not a lens line for an SLR. The worst part is that of the small number of remaing serious Pentax users out there, most of them don't like/look at/buy new gear. In the end, Pentax has fought long and hard to establish themselves as a low end, entry level camera maker that you switch from when you get serious about photography. As someone who has been there and done that, it is more than a perception of their product, it's what it was like using thier products for almost 20 years. I'm much happier with my new brand after giving Pentax the boot 4 years ago.

[stemked]

It's a very valid question. I use Pentax and Nikon equipment in research labs for years; for my own hobby I MUCH prefer Pentax for a wide variety of reasons.

 

Pentax HAD control of the market with the Spotmatic. Excellent optics, advanced cameras. There was little reason to get much else.

 

Then Pentax made it's first mistake. When baynot mounts came out Pentax was a bit slow on the curve ball. I think what they came up with was brilliant, K-mount cameras that maintained the use of screw mount lenses. But by then it seems it was about that time that Nikon had the real market for pro cameras, and Pentax has been loosing market share ever since. I think Canon followed up closely with technology and what I think is some of the best ad work in the business. Even I, a life-time Pentax fan, dreamed of owning a Canon when I saw their wildlife ads in National Geographic. I begain to WANT a Canon just because I identified myself as a naturalist and it seemed to me to be a serios nature photographer you had to have a Canon. Pentax ads from the late 1970's and on (if they existed) never convinced very many that Pentax was a cool camera to own.

 

Canon and Nikon clearly now have the pro market. And I mean pro with a big P, not all the shoters I see carrying around their Canons and Nikons claiming they are pros. If I want to rent a lens, unless it is in medium format, I am going to need a Canon EOS or Nikon body. Their lens IS lens and hyberfocus technology and tilt shift lenses, completely unafforable to me, are very attractive technologies. So the word 'pro' rubs off on these cameras and suddenly a Rebel 2000 is 'cooler' to own than a MZ-S. Go figure.

 

But then when I start to think about all of this I think about what I can do that other camera owners can't. Especially true of the LX (what a dreamly little camera, eh?), but also being able to use snap focus. I think I would sell my car before giving up my 200mm macro. I hear everyone complain about problems reversing or stacking lenses; they obviously don't own Pentax bodies. Even a $150 Super Program, it offeres more than any other camera I can think of at twice the price!

 

But keeping things under the table is good. I'm still hoping some one gets rid of one of those oh 15mm f3.5 or 85mm f1.4 for $30 because it's "not a Nikon". Hasn't happened yet though.

[chuck]

Why isn't Pentax more popular<p>

I assume you are talking about 35mm SLR market. In the medium format market, Pentax has got Nikon and Canon's ass whipped so badly that there is not one Canon or Nikon MF item to be seen. :)

[dan_fromm2]

Its a US phenomenon. In the UK, Pentax gear is quite popular and is used by professionals.

 

Here, when Ehrenreich Photo-Optical was Nikon's US distributor they did a bang-up job of selling Nikon gear to working pros. Honeywell, Pentax's US distributor at the time, was much more passive.

 

In the US Canon didn't take off as professional cameras until Nikon took over EPOI. And even then they didn't flourish until Canon beat Nikon into AF.

 

And even now Pentax marketing isn't very vigorous.

 

That said, when I bought my first camera in 1970 I got a Nikkormat because I couldn't stand the Spotmatic's stop down metering. And my brother, then a working pro who was standardized on screw mount Leicas and Nikons, wanted to pool gear after I got home.

 

I seemed to be nearly the only G.I. in Germany with an SLR that wasn't a Spotmatic. I noticed that a huge fraction of my buddies with Spotmatics somehow jammed their cameras -- shutter problems, usually -- their cameras racked up a lot of time in the shop. May be sampling bias, but since then I've been leery of 35mm Pentaxes.

 

Cheers,

 

Dan

[rick_robinson2]

Chuck,

yes, I was mostly talking about 35mm. However, if Nikon or Canon had concentrated on medium format, I am sure that they would have been very competitive.

 

I really wish that Pentax would get out its digital SLR product (Pentax *ist). It may already be too late. Sometimes, Pentax reacts way too slow in developing new technology.

[alan_woolnough]

Rick,

 

I agree with Dan, that it seems to be a USA/europe thing. During the 60s and 70s in the UK, pentax was extremely popular, as was the Olympus brand {much due to the David Bailey/Olympus trip ads}. Pentax medium format has always been strong here with people ive met over the years.

[h._p.]

Dan's got it right, Pentax put their U.S. marketing with the wrong company. Canon actually did the same but realised their mistake in time to correct it. Pentax didn't.

 

In Europe, and the UK in particular, Pentax found first class marketing partners, (their UK distributors, Rank, came up with the massively successful slogan 'Just Hold a Pentax') took a huge share of the market and thereafter slanted their products to meet European requirements. On this side of the pond we wanted smaller, cheaper cameras. On the American side there was more demand for upmarket, heavy duty machines.

 

The defacto split became Nikons for the Americans and Pentaxes for the Europeans. Then Canon recovered from the dreadful mistake of the Canonflex and jumped into both markets. As tastes changed in Europe both Nikon and Canon took more and more market share from Pentax who seem to have decided to stick with the market they knew and so missed the sales opportunities that accrued to the big two from selling to the pro market. Like it or not, a lot of people want to be 'professional photographers' and will follow where they see the press pack going.

 

Pentax have produced some excellent products but just haven't sold them very well.

[the tightwad]

Most of the previous responses cover the real failing of Pentax.....

Marketing. That and the fact that people all to often buy what they

want instead of need is the one two punch that cost market share in

any business. I guess that Dale Carnige said it best" Nobody does anything unless they want to" which is what marketing does.

 

Now me I don't mind as I find grand bargains in the Pentax gear I need

when I want new pieces. As to following the Nikon or Canon crowd , or anybody else for that matter, nope not for me.

[keith_merrill]

I really hope pentax doesn't try to stay with or ahead of Nikon or Canon. I bought a pentax PZ-1P after having a MeSuper for several years. I have been shooting Pro for about five years now, I do most of my shooting on LF and and Pentax P645NII. My pentax 35mm still holds its own when I need it. I have a slew of pentax primes, I prefer no to use zooms, and for the most part, save for my 150mm f3.5, they are incredible. The 77 limited is my most loved 35mm lens and it sits on my pz most of the time. I have used a Nikon F5 and the F100 which are really good cameras, I just don't get along with them too well so I sold them. I used a nikon n70 and thought it was one of the worst cameras around, I am glad it is my sisters. The reason I stick with Pentax 35mm - simple, I love the user interface of the PZ-1p, I can use all the features without thinking about it. I think it is really one of the best manual focus cameras out there. I know it has autofocus but it blows, however it does have a focus indicator for manual focus that works well. I was thinking of the MZ-s but I am still not convinced it offers me anything special. As a photographer and a consumer I have to think long and hard about the intended purpose of my camera gear. I don't really use my 35 gear as a photojournalist or a bird specialist, preferring to work slower and more deliberate, if I was I would probably get a canon setup with some usm,is lenses and keep my pentax stuff too. I don't care if it is a "Boutique" camera, those limited lenses are very very cool in every way. I guess Leica's are Boutique cameras too, along with contax.

[al_kaplan1]

One thing nobody mentioned: MOTOR DRIVE! Nikon was early into the motor drive business, FAST motor drive, as well as 250 exposure backs, which were loved by sports photographers. Newspapers would have an assortment of long telephoto lenses in Nikon mount that photographers could use on asignment. Nikon also had fish-eye lenses before anyone else. Finally, if You ever picked up a Nikon F and compared it to a late model Nikon rangefinder camera the wind lever, rewind, shutter release, etc. were all in exactly the same place! Putting down your SP with an 85/2 to pick up your F with a 180/2.8 just felt natural!

[gib]

I guess all those Pentax Spotmatics that got sold were just a dumb mistake.....must have been....and that is why I bought two last year, so I could start using the same SLR I started out with in 1972. And those Takumar lenses well they would need a bit of polishing to make it as coke bottle bottoms...dont think so.

 

But really it doesnt really matter if you are using a pinhole or a Nikon F5, what counts is when your technical skill snuggles up to your heart, soul, mind, eye and imagination and something gets put down on film, yawn, time for bed.

 

I like my PZ-1 and my Nikon F2, FM, N8000s, and my Rolleicord V, and that funny little IIIF, as well.

[h._p.]

You're right about the motor drive, Al, and this was another of Pentax's misjudgements of the market. When they realised that a motor drive was the 'killer app' of the time they came out with the motorised Spotmatic - a large, beautiful and ultimately doomed machine because it was too expensive for their traditional market and the retention of the M42 mount meant it wasn't going to break into the American market in any large amounts.

 

The three classic Pentaxes, S1a, SV and Spotmatic were huge sellers in Europe but the K series cameras were just too little, too late to fight off Canon and Nikon's determined efforts to make their presence felt in the European professional market. Pentax made a couple of half hearted attempts to produce pro level SLRs but they clearly decided the game wasn't worth the candle and concentrated on the market they knew and were good in, mid range SLR systems.

[ron c sunshine coast,qld,a]

In the past they made good value,near world class gear.Now they seem content making good value consumer gear-but canon are about the same price in that class and have more potential upgrading PLUS more features.actually has ANYONE got much hope against canon?Nikon is only just hanging on to that top rung with some things they do better...

[steve_levine]

>>Subject: Why isn't Pentax more popular? << The same question can be asked of Minolta,Olympus,Contax,Leica R.From 1959 to the intro of the Canon F1 c early 1970's,Nikon controlled the pro market.During this time companies such as:Mamiya,Topcon,Yashica,all sold SLR cameras.But Nikon cameras were the most rugged ,industrial strength machines.It took almost 2 decades,but Canon's technology finally alowed them to catch & surpass(some say)Nikon.Now days the only pro choices are Canon or Nikon.The other companies have fallen by the wayside in sales,but not technology.

[fmueller]

Minolta introduced a camera with motor drive (3fps) and 250 exposure film back in 1970! Why isn't Minolta more popular? ;-)

[hugh_t]

Lots of good answers, I think many people want to own what the "pros" own. If the pros are using Nikon and Canon they must be the best and alot of people want what they perceive to be the best. If you are a novice and you walk into a camera store and can get a entry level Canon or Nikon for the same price as a Pentax, I think you know the route most people will take. In reality a large part of photography, from what I read on this site is about equipment, buying, and comparing and discussing your equipment is enjoyable for alot of amateur photographers (me included). Why do you think a novice photographer would drop 5k to get set up with a Leica MP and a 35 'lux, because we are taught to believe we can't get good images without "pro" equipment.

 

Thats why I think Pentax and Minolta are not as popular as Nikon and Canon, for the record I suck as a photographer but I love my N80 and 80-200 edif 2.8 and sitting at my kids soccer games and snapping away.

[art_karr]

Not mentioned: One thing I remember about the 60's [yeah, I

know if you remember the 60's you weren't there] that dictated

Nikon for people who traipsed around the world. In any country,

no matter how poor, the major city had an authorized Nikon

dealer. You could get repairs, replace attachments, get batteries.

Wasn't true for other brands. In less poor countries, every city

had a dealer.

 

I know this made a big difference for traveling pro's whose

income depended on an operational camera.

 

Art Karr

[aguilabrava]

I started taking pictures when I was 16 years old, with a Pentax Spotmatic SP and two lenses, a 50mm f/1.8 Super-Takumar and a 50mm f/4.0 Super-Macro-Takumar. I can only say good things about this camera and the two lenses, I took beautiful pictures with it and never let me down.

Then, later on I purchased a Pentax MX that I used professionally for many years, and gave me excellent results. Both cameras are still working, and I have some lenses that work perfectly too, I just don't use them anymore. I also have a Pentax K1000, and two Pentax 645 with few lenses. I would love to buy a Pentax LX used in pristine condition and a Pentax 6x7...!.

I don't think that many people know that Pentax was the first to put a "penta-prism" in their bodies, and the first that came up with "multi-coated" lenses.

I think that as many have said already, the only truly professional body they ever built in the 35mm format was the Pentax LX, and that's the reason why the lost popularity, because when you see a movie or a soccer game or a reporter from the war at Iraq, you'll see that the photographers are either carrying a Nikon or Canon. There are other great cameras like the new generation of Contax made in Japan by Kyocera that are masterpieces in built quality and craftsmanship and they use Carl Zeiss optics, but they are not popular either.

All I can say is that Pentax is a great camera maker, I highly recommend them, and they give you a lot for the money. It is really a shame that they are not up there in popularity with Nikon and Canon, because they are excellent built cameras with excellent prime optics.

[jorge_oliveira2]

I may be wrong. I may be biased.

 

But in my case, I still dislike Pentax for launching the K series and not supporting the screw-mount Spotmatic users (the k mount adapter was garbage).

 

So, they suddenly lost their biggest marketing weapon - millions of Spotmatic users.

 

Now I go on with the SP (sill works great), an Ebay used ESII (good for weakened eyes) and my wonderfull S-M-C Takumar lenses.

 

Let they keep on doing lousy marketing.

 

Jorge

[andrew_hall1]

Jorge, one can use screw mount lenses on K/KA/KAF mount bodies. Just get an <a href=http://www.bdimitrov.de/kmp/lenses/index.html#adapters>adapter</a> - they're readily available.