Whatever happened to Pentax?

aniramca RemoveThis @gmail.com wrote:
> On Mar 11, 12:14 pm, "Jeremy" <jer... RemoveThis @nospam.net> wrote:
>> "Dudley Hanks" <hanks.dud... RemoveThis @gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:nWCAj.74916$w57.63673@edtnps90...
>>
>>> Back in the '60s, '70s and even into the '80s Pentax was right up there
>>> with Canon and Nikon. But, today, it seems like the company doesn't even
>>> get honourable mention in the brand wars. What happened?
>> They did what most of the other camera manufacturers did--they began sucking
>> the build quality out of their bodies and lenses. At least Nikon maintained
>> a high-end line for professionals. Pentax lost it whan they discontinued
>> the LX without first creating a replacement model.
>>
>> When I compare the build quality of my "A" lenses to my SMC Takumars, I just
>> shake my head in disbelief. The Spotmatic-F and the ES-II were the high
>> water marks for Pentax. Once they migrated to the K Mount, things went
>> downhill. I have a P3n and a P30t which I use as my knockaround cameras.
>> They are made in China, they are so light that they feel like they're just
>> made of air, but they take good photos. Trouble is, they feel like toys,
>> relative to my older Pentax gear.
>>
>> Many (most?) of today's photographers don't remember what was out there in
>> the early 70s, and thus do not know what they are missing.
>>
>> I would argue that--for advanced amateurs especially--cameras and lenses
>> need to provide some tactile gratification in addition to just recording
>> images. If they feel like toys, the brand will be perceived as another
>> also-ran.
>>
>> Now, with Pentax mass-producing digital ameras in Vietnam, the problem will
>> only become worse. Cameras are becoming commodities rather than specialized
>> optical tools. Robotic assembly lines stamp them out as though they were
>> cookie cutters.
>>
>> Remember when audiophiles spent thousands on top-notch turntables and
>> cartridges, in order to get that high end sound? Now a cheap CD Walkman can
>> outperform many of those old analog setups--and audiophile sound is
>> available to Everyman, at low prices. I suspect that consumer/advanced
>> amateur gear is headed in the same direction. Cheap, disposable & plastic .
>> . .
>
> Did Pentax almost go under last year? If I am not mistaken, Hoya (the
> makers of filter lens) planned to buy Pentax in 2006/2007. But I heard
> that the deal did not fall through. Can someone confirm?

Hoya bought Pentax.

>
> I saw an early development for a 6x4.5 format for digital Pentax
> camera a few years ago (was it in Photokina?), but I don't know if
> that was going anywhere either.
>

AFAIK, they were almost ready to bring it to market. Had gone so far as
to give a tentative "date" of spring 2007.

Then Hoya bought Pentax.

The 645D "on hold"/cancellation announcement followed rapidly on the
Hoya takeover.

It's still not clear if the project is completely dead, or just on an
extended hiatus. I lean toward the former, and hope for the latter.

> However, when I look around on opinions on the camera websites, people
> who own/buy a Pentax digital cameras appear to like their camera.
> Either the popular 2 leading camera makers are too over-rated, or
> Pentax enthusiasts do not want to tell anybody that they have problems
> with their cameras.
>

Pentax gives you a lot of bang for your buck.

The K10D matches up pretty good against the Nikon D200 ... doesn't have
quite the continuous shooting speed & buffer size, but does give you
image stabilization in the camera so you can (mostly) use your existing
Pentax lenses.

Pentax doesn't get a lot of second level support. Tamron, Tokina, &
Sigma make some good lenses for Nikon & Canon - even for Sony and
Olympus, that just aren't available in Pentax mount.

Pentax doesn't really have a "PRO"-level DSLR, but you can do just about
anything Nikon's non-"PRO" cameras will let you do. And Pentax's
currently available selection of lenses leaves a lot to be desired (in
my opinion - YMMV).

Can't speak about Canon, since the canonista's attitude turned me off &
I haven't looked at anything since the A1. And I ain't goin' to, so save
your breath.

I currently *USE* the following Pentax cameras - K1000, LX, PZ1P,
*ist-D, K10D.

> In the old days, I still remember the famous Asahi Pentax Spotmatix
> SLR, as well as the Pentax 6x7 camera. I hope that the company is
> making a come back with their K10D, and K20D models.
>

The K10D is an excellent camera. The K20D looks to be a significant
improvement on an already great camera.
 >> Stay informed about: Whatever happened to Pentax? 

Pudentame wrote:
> David J. Littleboy wrote:
>> "Pudentame" <no.one.RemoveThis@no.were.invalid> wrote:
>>> I don't know if the market is really there for medium format digital,
>>> since all the MF digital I know of on the market are actually crop
>>> sensors, none of them actually 6x4.5, 6x6, or 6x7.
>>
>> (Note that the actuall MF frame sizes are 42x56, 56x56, and 56x70mm.)
>>
>> The current "cropped" MF digital sensors are 36x48, which is exactly
>> twice the area of "FF", and so does have a theoretical advantage. It
>> also turns out that MF lenses are razor sharp on 5D density digital
>> sensors, so 24MP and higher images that are painfully sharp corner to
>> corner are a piece of cake for MF digital. Anything 24MP and over in
>> FF is going to be a stretch for even the best Nikkor or Canon lenses
>> at anything other than f/8 or f/11.

>>
>
> There's also the cost. Medium Format film was affordable, medium format
> digital not so much, with digital backs selling upwards of $10K,
> although, IIRC, the Pentax 645D was planned to come on the market around
> $4K.
>
> Medium format film thrived because even rank amateurs could afford it. I
> don't know if we'll see medium format digital get there.

We will, as to affordability, at least. Marketability is possibly a
bigger question. I'd sure like one at less than $3,000, but not a back,
and integrated design.

--
john mcwilliams
 >> Stay informed about: Whatever happened to Pentax? 

Dudley Hanks wrote:
>
> Back in the '60s, '70s and even into the '80s Pentax was right up there with
> Canon and Nikon. But, today, it seems like the company doesn't even get
> honourable mention in the brand wars. What happened?
>
> As for myself, the last few times I've gone to buy a camera, I was
> purchasing a compact that both my wife and I would be using. She likes an
> optical view-finder while I use the LCD. This more-or-less ruled out
> Pentax, since I couldn't find a Pentax with an optical finder at any of the
> local camera shops.
>
> I still have an old Pentax P3 film SLR that shoots great shots, and I pull
> it out every now and then. I can't think of any reason why the quality of
> Pentax film cameras should not have carried over into the digital world.
>
> What about the rest of you? Any ideas on why Pentax has sort of faded into
> the background?
>
> Pondering,
> Dudley


Hello, Dudley:

Pentax is alive and well, and providing the most competition to Canon and
Nikon, in the current (amateur) DSLR market.


Cordially,
John Turco <jtur.DeleteThis@concentric.net>
 >> Stay informed about: Whatever happened to Pentax? 

John McWilliams wrote:
> Pudentame wrote:
>> David J. Littleboy wrote:
>>> "Pudentame" <no.one.DeleteThis@no.were.invalid> wrote:
>>>> I don't know if the market is really there for medium format
>>>> digital, since all the MF digital I know of on the market are
>>>> actually crop sensors, none of them actually 6x4.5, 6x6, or 6x7.
>>>
>>> (Note that the actuall MF frame sizes are 42x56, 56x56, and 56x70mm.)
>>>
>>> The current "cropped" MF digital sensors are 36x48, which is exactly
>>> twice the area of "FF", and so does have a theoretical advantage. It
>>> also turns out that MF lenses are razor sharp on 5D density digital
>>> sensors, so 24MP and higher images that are painfully sharp corner to
>>> corner are a piece of cake for MF digital. Anything 24MP and over in
>>> FF is going to be a stretch for even the best Nikkor or Canon lenses
>>> at anything other than f/8 or f/11.
>>
>> There's also the cost. Medium Format film was affordable, medium
>> format digital not so much, with digital backs selling upwards of
>> $10K, although, IIRC, the Pentax 645D was planned to come on the
>> market around $4K.
>>
>> Medium format film thrived because even rank amateurs could afford it.
>> I don't know if we'll see medium format digital get there.
>
> We will, as to affordability, at least.

Not with the current technology any time soon though. Big sensors cost
big bucks and the future cost savings is in miniaturization. But you
never know, I was reading about OLED technology that can make large high
res monitors on paper thin, high dynamic range, low energy use materials
that can roll up like a sheet of paper; maybe something like that will
come along for image sensor technology. If it did, we'd be back at
square one where you'd need a big klunky outfit to get a limited
expensive choice of lenses, painfully slow exposures & vanishingly
shallow depths of field. But that could be fun if the latest sensor
could be printed out on an inkjet for $40.

> Marketability is possibly a
> bigger question. I'd sure like one at less than $3,000, but not a back,
> and integrated design.
>
 >> Stay informed about: Whatever happened to Pentax? 

Paul Furman wrote:
> John McWilliams wrote:
>> Pudentame wrote:
>>> David J. Littleboy wrote:
>>>> "Pudentame" <no.one RemoveThis @no.were.invalid> wrote:
>>>>> I don't know if the market is really there for medium format
>>>>> digital, since all the MF digital I know of on the market are
>>>>> actually crop sensors, none of them actually 6x4.5, 6x6, or 6x7.
>>>>
>>>> (Note that the actuall MF frame sizes are 42x56, 56x56, and 56x70mm.)
>>>>
>>>> The current "cropped" MF digital sensors are 36x48, which is exactly
>>>> twice the area of "FF", and so does have a theoretical advantage. It
>>>> also turns out that MF lenses are razor sharp on 5D density digital
>>>> sensors, so 24MP and higher images that are painfully sharp corner
>>>> to corner are a piece of cake for MF digital. Anything 24MP and over
>>>> in FF is going to be a stretch for even the best Nikkor or Canon
>>>> lenses at anything other than f/8 or f/11.
>>>
>>> There's also the cost. Medium Format film was affordable, medium
>>> format digital not so much, with digital backs selling upwards of
>>> $10K, although, IIRC, the Pentax 645D was planned to come on the
>>> market around $4K.
>>>
>>> Medium format film thrived because even rank amateurs could afford
>>> it. I don't know if we'll see medium format digital get there.
>>
>> We will, as to affordability, at least.
>
> Not with the current technology any time soon though.

I didn't imply either!

> Big sensors cost
> big bucks and the future cost savings is in miniaturization. But you
> never know, I was reading about OLED technology that can make large high
> res monitors on paper thin, high dynamic range, low energy use materials
> that can roll up like a sheet of paper; maybe something like that will
> come along for image sensor technology. If it did, we'd be back at
> square one where you'd need a big klunky outfit to get a limited
> expensive choice of lenses, painfully slow exposures & vanishingly
> shallow depths of field. But that could be fun if the latest sensor
> could be printed out on an inkjet for $40.
>
>> Marketability is possibly a bigger question. I'd sure like one at less
>> than $3,000, but not a back, and integrated design.

I do believe it will become a market issue once the technology and cost
reductions have been achieved.

--
john mcwilliams
 >> Stay informed about: Whatever happened to Pentax? 

"Peter" <peternew.TakeThisOut@nospamoptonline.net> wrote in message
news:47d59c98$0$13871$8f2e0ebb@news.shared-secrets.com...
> "Noons" <wizofoz2k.TakeThisOut@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
> news:7163c1fa-1808-446b-8312-b5fc050ee624@s12g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>> On Mar 10, 12:39 pm, "David J. Littleboy" <davi....TakeThisOut@gol.com> wrote:
>>
>>> the area of "FF", and so does have a theoretical advantage. It also
>>> turns
>>> out that MF lenses are razor sharp on 5D density digital sensors, so
>>> 24MP
>>> and higher images that are painfully sharp corner to corner are a piece
>>> of
>>> cake for MF digital. Anything 24MP and over in FF is going to be a
>>> stretch
>>> for even the best Nikkor or Canon lenses at anything other than f/8 or
>>> f/11.
>>
>> and at that density and stop-down, one will likely start to hit
>> diffraction limits anyway...
>
>
> Nobody needs more than 64k of memory - Bill Gates

He never said that.
 >> Stay informed about: Whatever happened to Pentax? 

No, he said it.

Ryan Robbins napsal(a):
> "Peter" <peternew RemoveThis @nospamoptonline.net> wrote in message
> news:47d59c98$0$13871$8f2e0ebb@news.shared-secrets.com...
>> "Noons" <wizofoz2k RemoveThis @yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
>> news:7163c1fa-1808-446b-8312-b5fc050ee624@s12g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>>> On Mar 10, 12:39 pm, "David J. Littleboy" <davi... RemoveThis @gol.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> the area of "FF", and so does have a theoretical advantage. It also
>>>> turns
>>>> out that MF lenses are razor sharp on 5D density digital sensors, so
>>>> 24MP
>>>> and higher images that are painfully sharp corner to corner are a piece
>>>> of
>>>> cake for MF digital. Anything 24MP and over in FF is going to be a
>>>> stretch
>>>> for even the best Nikkor or Canon lenses at anything other than f/8 or
>>>> f/11.
>>> and at that density and stop-down, one will likely start to hit
>>> diffraction limits anyway...
>>
>> Nobody needs more than 64k of memory - Bill Gates
>
> He never said that.
>
>
 >> Stay informed about: Whatever happened to Pentax? 

van dark wrote:
> No, he said it.
>

640K ... yer off by an order of magnitude.

> Ryan Robbins napsal(a):
>> "Peter" <peternew.TakeThisOut@nospamoptonline.net> wrote in message
>> news:47d59c98$0$13871$8f2e0ebb@news.shared-secrets.com...
>>> "Noons" <wizofoz2k.TakeThisOut@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
>>> news:7163c1fa-1808-446b-8312-b5fc050ee624@s12g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>>>
>>>> On Mar 10, 12:39 pm, "David J. Littleboy" <davi....TakeThisOut@gol.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> the area of "FF", and so does have a theoretical advantage. It also
>>>>> turns
>>>>> out that MF lenses are razor sharp on 5D density digital sensors,
>>>>> so 24MP
>>>>> and higher images that are painfully sharp corner to corner are a
>>>>> piece of
>>>>> cake for MF digital. Anything 24MP and over in FF is going to be a
>>>>> stretch
>>>>> for even the best Nikkor or Canon lenses at anything other than f/8
>>>>> or f/11.
>>>> and at that density and stop-down, one will likely start to hit
>>>> diffraction limits anyway...
>>>
>>> Nobody needs more than 64k of memory - Bill Gates
>>
>> He never said that.
>>
 >> Stay informed about: Whatever happened to Pentax? 

van dark <van.dark.TakeThisOut@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>Ryan Robbins napsal(a):
>> "Peter" <peternew.TakeThisOut@nospamoptonline.net> wrote in message

>>> Nobody needs more than 64k of memory - Bill Gates
>>
>> He never said that.
>
>No, he said it.

No, he didn't. Try finding the exact quote.

--
Ray Fischer
rfischer.TakeThisOut@sonic.net
 >> Stay informed about: Whatever happened to Pentax? 

"Pudentame" <no.one.DeleteThis@no.were.invalid> wrote in message
news:47dbf37b$0$6132$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
> van dark wrote:
>> No, he said it.
>>
>
> 640K ... yer off by an order of magnitude.
>


At least nobody denied, that I said what I said I said.

--
Peter
 >> Stay informed about: Whatever happened to Pentax? 

"Ray Fischer" <rfischer.DeleteThis@sonic.net> wrote:
> van dark <van.dark.DeleteThis@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>Ryan Robbins napsal(a):
>>> "Peter" <peternew.DeleteThis@nospamoptonline.net> wrote in message
>
>>>> Nobody needs more than 64k of memory - Bill Gates
>>>
>>> He never said that.
>>
>>No, he said it.
>
> No, he didn't. Try finding the exact quote.

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Bill_Gates

He claims he didn't.

I was at MIT when Bill was dropping out of Harvard. He showed up at a
meeting of a student computer group that I missed, and asked people to work
with him. He got laughed at: "We have real computers to work with" was the
attitude since that particular group was given a chunk of the Multics system
to play with.

MIT nerds can be amazing turkeys, sometimes.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
 >> Stay informed about: Whatever happened to Pentax? 

In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems David J. Littleboy <davidjl RemoveThis @gol.com> wrote:

>"Ray Fischer" <rfischer RemoveThis @sonic.net> wrote:
>> van dark <van.dark RemoveThis @yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>Ryan Robbins napsal(a):
>>>> "Peter" <peternew RemoveThis @nospamoptonline.net> wrote in message
>>
>>>>> Nobody needs more than 64k of memory - Bill Gates
>>>>
>>>> He never said that.
>>>
>>>No, he said it.
>>
>> No, he didn't. Try finding the exact quote.

>http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Bill_Gates

>He claims he didn't.

>I was at MIT when Bill was dropping out of Harvard. He showed up at a
>meeting of a student computer group that I missed, and asked people to work
>with him. He got laughed at: "We have real computers to work with" was the
>attitude since that particular group was given a chunk of the Multics system
>to play with.

>MIT nerds can be amazing turkeys, sometimes.

Well, who knew?

What happened was a combination of skill, good sense, and a major
dollup of luck. There's lots of the first two around. It is the
last that is in short supply.

--
--- Paul J. Gans
 >> Stay informed about: Whatever happened to Pentax?