What will Pentax do next?

"Polly Pentax" wrote:

Hi, Tony.

I think that the difference with Canon is that you can be almost 100%
certain that they will still be around in a couple of years, and will have
good upgrade models available to purchase.

Whether the same is true for Pentax must be debatable, given their current
position.

Pentax are in a stronger position than some.

The digital imaging divisions of Sony and Konica Minolta are in deep
trouble. They have announced a joint venture to co-develop DSLRs, but
that is more a sign of their joint desperation than anything else.

Olympus desperately needs a 10+ MP pro model to justify the top
quality Zuiko Digital lenses. Olympus has wisely ditched Kodak,
formerly a Four Thirds partner, for Panasonic. Olympus and Panasonic
will shortly introduce at least three new DSLRs between them, but
until then, the jury is out on whether Four Thirds will prosper in the
medium to long term.

Pentax are still making money, and can count on a great many owners of
Pentax point and shoot film and digital cameras to trade up to a DSLR
of the same brand.

The D is available at Park Cameras for £600 - but they only have a few.
No-one else that I know of (apart from this single one at £450) has them in
stock at all, and Pentax UK also have no stocks left. So, it's buy now, or
almost certainly do without in the future - UNLESS Pentax come up with a
replacement.

You might like to refer to the review of the Pentax *ist DL in the
issue of Amateur Photographer due out on Tuesday. The review
concluded that the *ist DL has the best image quality of the three
Pentax *ist DSLRs.

I also take Kitt's point that, if it's good enough, it doesn't matter
whether any new bodies are forthcoming - except for the fact that I'll be
reluctant to add expensive lenses without a clear upgrade path.

Then don't add them! Just buy the kit lens, or the 18-35mm FAJ, both
of which are cheap but more than adequate.

Will Pentax keep tolerating losses on their digital imaging division?,
that's the question. In fact, 'will' the promised Medium Format model,
mentioned by John, actually materialise?

Pentax aren't losing money. Konica Minolta, Sony and Olympus are.

I have to say, it's at times like this that I wish I had a collection of
Cannon or Nikon lenses, instead of Pentax.

On the contrary, most Pentax lenses have desirable optical qualities
that are lacking in all but a few, mostly expensive Canon EF lenses
and AF Nikkors. Be glad that you have them.

My advice is; find an *ist D, or a DS, or a DL, don't pay more than
£500, and enjoy your purchase to the full.

Tony Polson wrote:
: You might like to refer to the review of the Pentax *ist DL in the
: issue of Amateur Photographer due out on Tuesday. The review
: concluded that the *ist DL has the best image quality of the three
: Pentax *ist DSLRs.

How is that? They've got the same sensor. ... or it comparing the JPG out of
the camera? IIRC the -D and -DS were chastised for not enough sharpening in the
in-camera JPG. With the same sensor (barring analog signal/noise issue flaws), RAW is
RAW. All of the image processing is done outside the camera.

I shoot exclusively RAW on my -DS for that reason. I don't want to limit my
options by any "toy" modes of the camera trying to be clever. It's a digital light
box, exposure meter, and histogram-displayer. That's all.

-Cory

--

************************************************** ***********************
* Cory Papenfuss *
* Electrical Engineering candidate Ph.D. graduate student *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University *
************************************************** ***********************

On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 14:03:01 +0000 (UTC),
wrote:

Tony Polson wrote:
: You might like to refer to the review of the Pentax *ist DL in the
: issue of Amateur Photographer due out on Tuesday. The review
: concluded that the *ist DL has the best image quality of the three
: Pentax *ist DSLRs.

How is that? They've got the same sensor. ... or it comparing the JPG out of
the camera? IIRC the -D and -DS were chastised for not enough sharpening in the
in-camera JPG. With the same sensor (barring analog signal/noise issue flaws), RAW is
RAW. All of the image processing is done outside the camera.

The DL may have a less aggressive anti-alias filter. I've
seen examples of quite bad colour moire from the DL,
something I haven't seen from my DS.

I shoot exclusively RAW on my -DS for that reason. I don't want to limit my
options by any "toy" modes of the camera trying to be clever. It's a digital light
box, exposure meter, and histogram-displayer. That's all.

That's a rather elitist attitude. I use anything that I find
useful, the "toy" modes don't preclude the use of raw.
Perhaps you never need continuous focus for example, which
is only available on the DS in one of the "toy" modes.



--
Regards

John Bean

John Bean wrote:
: The DL may have a less aggressive anti-alias filter. I've
: seen examples of quite bad colour moire from the DL,
: something I haven't seen from my DS.

Ah... good point. I hadn't thought of that. I guess I was assuming that they
kept as much of the camera the same as possible and just updated the software.

: I shoot exclusively RAW on my -DS for that reason. I don't want to limit my
: options by any "toy" modes of the camera trying to be clever. It's a digital light
: box, exposure meter, and histogram-displayer. That's all.

: That's a rather elitist attitude. I use anything that I find
: useful, the "toy" modes don't preclude the use of raw.
: Perhaps you never need continuous focus for example, which
: is only available on the DS in one of the "toy" modes.

Another good point. The first digicam I used was a Canon G3, where any of the
toy modes *did* turn off RAW. I got in that mindset. I also figure that since they
other modes aren't described in detail anywhere (e.g. like the old "Program Curve" on
my Pentax P-30T manual), I'd rather do any modifications to the exposure manually.
Basically, that's P for "convenient" shooting, Av/Tv/M for any time I want to control
something in particular.

As far as focusing, I've heard that the autofocus only functions continuously
on sports mode. Seems like a pretty silly limitation to me. I've only got one AF
lens, (kit 18-55). The other dozen or so are MF, and mostly non-A, so the whizbang
stuff doesn't work anyway.

I just get tired of reviews where different models are unfairly compared
against one another. I tend to think that comparing things like image quality (in
particular sensitivity and noise) should be done with a RAW capture and converted with
the same RAW converter program. Comparing "out of the box settings" of one camera to
another is a really crappy (but yet, sadly typical) way to do it. Most are set up
like TVs and monitors... extra vivid colors, oversharpening, inaccurate color, etc.
As a consequence, one product who keeps things more accurate gets disparaging reviews.

Sorry to rant... pet peeve of mine...

-Cory

--

************************************************** ***********************
* Cory Papenfuss *
* Electrical Engineering candidate Ph.D. graduate student *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University *
************************************************** ***********************

On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 15:15:30 +0000 (UTC),
wrote:
As far as focusing, I've heard that the autofocus only functions continuously
on sports mode. Seems like a pretty silly limitation to me. I've only got one AF
lens, (kit 18-55). The other dozen or so are MF, and mostly non-A, so the whizbang
stuff doesn't work anyway.

I have only one AF lens, the FA28-105/3.2-4.5 and only two
that have an A setting, so I understand precisely what you
are saying :-)

I mention continuous AF because I actually used it for the
first time a couple of days ago - yes it is silly to have to
use "sports" mode but it does work well. And the use of raw
negates any attempt by the camera to mess with the image by
using "bright" mode etc. in the idiot modes. I've always
called them "idiot" modes, seems more descriptive than your
"toy" modes ;-)

I just get tired of reviews where different models are unfairly compared
against one another. I tend to think that comparing things like image quality (in
particular sensitivity and noise) should be done with a RAW capture and converted with
the same RAW converter program. Comparing "out of the box settings" of one camera to
another is a really crappy (but yet, sadly typical) way to do it. Most are set up
like TVs and monitors... extra vivid colors, oversharpening, inaccurate color, etc.
As a consequence, one product who keeps things more accurate gets disparaging reviews.

Sorry to rant... pet peeve of mine...

Oh I understand, it's just that it expends mental energy and
achieves nothing. So I don't do it :-)

--
Regards

John Bean

Polly Pentax wrote:
"Nicholas Wittebol" wrote in message
...
I find it funny that you acknowledge that you are asking for speculation,
and then later discard information about a future 8, 10, 12 mp anti-shake
replacement because it is just speculation...



Point taken - but I can't say that it's been much help

I don't expect anyone to know the inner workings of Pentax Corporation, I
was just asking what *others* would do if they faced the same dilemma.

I don't know about the inner workings of Pentax Corporation, but I know
this - there's been many corporations that suffered a loss year after
year and kept going, and Pentax is no more likely to quit digital now
than it was to quit 35mm two or three decades ago when the medium was
different but the market situation was more or less the same duel it is
now between Canon and Nikon and the rest left fighting for scraps.

wrote:

Tony Polson wrote:
: You might like to refer to the review of the Pentax *ist DL in the
: issue of Amateur Photographer due out on Tuesday. The review
: concluded that the *ist DL has the best image quality of the three
: Pentax *ist DSLRs.

How is that? They've got the same sensor.


The Nikon D100 also has the same sensor. All three of the Pentax
DSLRs (*ist D, DS, DL) have better image quality than the D100.

Go figure.

wrote:

I just get tired of reviews where different models are unfairly compared
against one another. I tend to think that comparing things like image quality (in
particular sensitivity and noise) should be done with a RAW capture and converted with
the same RAW converter program.


That's a valid point.

However, in reality, most users of entry-level DSLRs will shoot JPEGs.
Perhaps comparisons should be done using RAW *and* JPEG performance,
which will obviously give different conclusions in some cases.

Tony Polson wrote:

wrote:

I just get tired of reviews where different models are unfairly compared
against one another. I tend to think that comparing things like image
quality (in particular sensitivity and noise) should be done with a RAW
capture and converted with the same RAW converter program.

That's a valid point.

However, in reality, most users of entry-level DSLRs will shoot JPEGs.
Perhaps comparisons should be done using RAW *and* JPEG performance, which
will obviously give different conclusions in some cases.

When I got my point-and-shoot Olympus, I made sure it could give me RAW
(or, in that case, ORF) files. 'Entry level' means many, many different
things.

A thorough review of a given camera, especially in comparison with
another one, would include every conceivable mode of comparison,
including both RAW and JPEG quality. But such a review might be, like...
hard and junk. It would take time, and otherwise be annoying and require
an open mind and stuff. What a drag.

(Paul Mitchum) wrote:

A thorough review of a given camera, especially in comparison with
another one, would include every conceivable mode of comparison,
including both RAW and JPEG quality. But such a review might be, like...
hard and junk. It would take time, and otherwise be annoying and require
an open mind and stuff. What a drag.


Yes, the facts are just too boring to waste any time on them.

;-)