>>Because it is too expensive? If so, why do they continue to offer >>some really expensive "pro" glass?
>Because they aren't pro "tools", but high-end toys to satisfy >non-commercial >shooters or consumers. That's the difference between C/N & P. Why are they not pro tools? Is it because pros don't use Pentax? Everything I've read suggests that optically and mechanically they are as capable as N and C (and Minolta, another underrated maker of good glass). Or are you saying that they are "vanity" lenses that pentax doesn't really intend to sell except to a few rich guys but wants to show that they can make too? This might be the case, although I'd still suggest that a pro could do as well by Pentax glass as by N or C if he chose to use it. >>This has always mystified me. Last I looked, Pentax made a 600/4.0, >>a 300/2.8, and an 80-200/2.8. Last I looked, the equivalent Nikon and >>Canon lenses were CHEAPER. >Because C/N have enjoyed the sales volume which doesn't exist for Pentax >market. Yes of course. >The logic is quite simple. Given the same amount of big bucks, >most >people would buy C/N instead of P. Sad but true. But it is also true that >C/N have USM/AF-S & IS/VR which have been gaining customers, but Pentax >has >been testing people's faith (must be for 15+ years now). When has Pentax EVER made a camera designed to compete with N and C for the pro turf? The LX MIGHT be an exception, but otherwise Pentax has not made an F3 or EOS-1 at any time. Nikon and Canon are trying hard to learn how to make a Spotmatic or ME Super. Canon seems to have figured it out with the Rebel line (odd name for the most popular camera of the era, isn't it?) >>What the hell do they think people who spend that kind of money on a >>lens >>are going to mount them on? You could LOSE a *ist behind a 600/4.0! >>Even the FA limited lenses are sort of odd that way--if you are willing >>to >>pay premium prices for good optics and good build quality and retro >>styling, are you gonna see the ZX-M (cheap, fragile) or MZ-S (blobby >>collection of newfangled controls) as the ideal camera? They've both >>got merits as cameras, I'm sure, but neither is the ideal partner for >>an FA limited lens from a philosophical standpoint. >MZ-S is not such a bad camera, just that for the same amount of money you >can buy F100 which offers more to most eyes. But then even if Pentax did >produce a F100 like camera, they don't have USM/AF-S lenses telephotos to >match the ultra AF speed so why bother? Lots of people, including Nikon until recently, would say that you don't need USM/AF-S to get the focus speed. In many venues, you don't need blazing focus speed anyway. Aside from the biggest lenses, only the very newest Nikons have internal motors. Internal focus motors may not save Contax or Minolta, either. Neither of them have much of the pro market despite producing "pro" cameras for many years. >A single camera or lens won't save the Pentax 135 system which is dying >slowly and painfully... Is it? What are the signs? Decreased market share I might believe. Decreased lens variety is true of ALL the camera companies now that zooms are the way. SLRs are losing market share to increasingly capable P&S cameras because for the majority of users SLRs are now overkill--too big, heavy, and expensive for their simple needs. Look at the sales of those disposable thingies! >I honestly don't know why I bought the LIMITEDs even though I don't have >LX >& MX (Althought LX is a lovely camera "when it works". They were sold due >to >the on-going service bills). I just wanted them when they came out. Now I >have a Z-1p only and has even less reason to stay with Pentax (I am >deeply >attracted by IS/VR/AS) My personal and secondhand experience with IS/VR is that it is a godsend if you regularly shoot things like speakers in poorly-lit halls: the subject isn't moving much and you are compelled to shoot somewhere down in the 1/30 to 1/125th range. For most people that is a pretty narrow range of their shooting experience. It is useless for rapidly-moving subjects (sports shooters tape their IS off, from what I hear) or tripod work. If you are a photojournalist like I am, this small sub-group of shooting situations is much more common and the VR is worth the roughly $500 premium. For everyone else, I'd suspect it is not a panacea but rather a battery eater. Suppose Pentax manages to come out with an IS/VR CAMERA, as Minolta apparently has? This sorta invalidates Nikon and Canon special lenses except with older cameras. >, except for financial reason. But if Pentax was >going >to compete with C/N head on, I guess Pentax might be acquired by... maybe >Fujifilm by now, like Konica bought Minolta. Why? Companies will want to sell cameras with N and C lens mounts. Fuji and Kodak both make cameras based on Nikon mounts, probably because Canon would rather sell all the cameras with Canon mounts itself. >If you asked me, I think >Pentax >has been playing safe, too safe indeed, but it keeps them alive. Not nearly as safe as Leica. Maybe Leica knows what it is doing, but I think they've got their heads in the sand. The *istD might not be "playing it safe". The MZ-D certainly was not. These cameras put them ahead of Minolta and Leica, and in size and such ahead of N and C for a while. on an unrelated note... >> Would it be impossible to build an AF SLR with some mechanical shutter >> speeds? Mechanical aperture readout? Manual film rewind? >The last one is not available on the -5n. I don't fully understand the >middle bit. If that's "displaying the aperture on the VF in Av mode", >no. It's displaying the aperture that is physically on the lens through a little window rather than electronically. It's a pretty useless feature now that everybody has their lenses set on minimum aperture either to use P mode or to control them via the camera. LX (and MX?) do it, Nikons did it, even though they needed a SECOND set of little aperture numbers just for the purpose.
