More Pentax pro penetration of photograpers

Well, I just went to a seminar at CIPNE (Commercial and Industrial Photographers of New England) and my K10D attracted a lot of attention. The kind of attention that had people saying "Wow, I gota get me one of those!".

With the new lenses coming out (and all us old geezers with M and K lenses laying around) it looks like Pentax might penetrate the professional market after all. Especially after listening to folks gripe about their Canikon gear, and then handling the K10D and saying "you got it for HOW much?!?!?!".

So, snap up those old lenses before they go away. The flood is coming.

IMO, the Fall of 2007 will give professionals more of a reason to consider the Pentax as a pro platform..

...and how much will it cost, then?

A chessebuger, large chips and a pint of ale...less vat.

Is that what's known as a politician's answer?
Well... maybe minus the VAT

At that price I'll have one
Matt

It would be good if Pentax could penetrate the pro andserious user base but this seems unlikely untile pentax do something about some lenses,...not many pro users will be satisfied by a 16-45 f4 zoom and a few quirky 'miniturised' primes that 'may' exist somewhere out there beyond the blue..

The K10 is currently standing head and shouldres above the othres in it's class, although that isnt especially difficult! its interesting, apparetnly quite well designed, even if that was by the bloke who did the front of the Ford mondeo, and, it woud appear to work quite well if you can bypass th mindless complexity,.....However, any thoughts of a half decent system stops when you try for the lenses...

You can get a weird little 21mm thing like a bottle cap, but you have to put up with a dingy v/f picture as max aperture is only f3.2..!!?! The price for this miracle is a staggering £400....if you can find a 'dealer' who will condescend to sell one. Then there are equally weird 40mm and 70mm 'bottle caps' which are not 'pro' lenses if any of th reviews are to be believed due to chromatic aberations.

All the lenses that pentax need to support a pro / serious system they have stopped making,....if they could re-launch a 20mm(that you can get your fingers around), 24mm f2, 28mmf2, 50mm f1.7 & 1.4, and 85mm f2 they would get a lot of attention....especially if the prices were kept as competitive as the K10.

Are you sure you like Pentax, viewfinder?

it's no less likeable than the other wunderplastik....

When I pick up my K10D it doesn't feel much like plastic - under there is a solid metal chassis holding everything in place. Don't judge a book by its cover.

Technology has moved on and we no longer need to make cameras in the same way a Spotmatic was made. Even the MX and ME Super, which you might think of as metal cameras, are full of engineering plastics that you can't see.

No, I like and approve of the current designs. The proof is in the results and the results are excellent. Their function is after all to make images with and this they do perfectly well.

I also approve of the Pentax decision to use a proper pentaprism design. Both my *istDS and now my K10D weere much improved by this simple but very important feature.

Ditto John's comments

while Viewfinder and I have significant differences of opinion on the subject of the camera body, I must agree with him to an extent on the lenses. Pentax are currently suffering from a major shortage of fast primes, and indeed fast lenses in general until the much delayed DA*'s finally arrive.

This is no issue for me since I can't afford them anyway, but I can see how it might sway the opinion of a pro for whom the price of the lens pales into insignificance compared to it's optical quality and speed.

I feel that Viewfinder's view was formed thirty years ago, and at the time was probably pretty much right.

However, there are only three reasons to have a fast lens:

1 To obtain reduced DOF.
2 To be able to shoot in low light.
3 To have a brighter viewfinder.

And there are two reasons not to:

1 Cost.
2 Size and weight.

Of the pros, first, I feel that for most people, most of the time, F2 will often restrict DOF too much.

Second, speed is much less important now that we can take high quality pictures at ISO 800. Thirty years ago, 800ASA was unthinkable.

Third, a brighter viewfinder is less important with AF, which didn't exist 30 years ago.

Of the cons, cost needs no explanation; whilst size and weight are significant reasons for choosing Pentax rather than copier-cam.

Viewfinder appears to be complaining about the width of Pentax's 20mm lenses. Well, the way to make them thinner is to reduce the max aperture. But then he would complain that it wasn't fast enough.

Furthermore, Viewfinder doesn't yet understand that modern zoom lenses are very good. Thirty years ago, most were pretty bad.

Current Pentax primes include the following:

14mm 1:2.8
21mm 1:3.2
31mm 1:1.8
40mm 1:2.8
43mm 1:1.9
50mm 1:1.4
77mm 1:1.8
100mm 1:2.8

Fast enough for most people, most of the time, and small and affordable. Half of them are faster than 1:2.

I won't upset Viewfinder by mentioning the zooms.

G

Coming back to the OP - I've just read this link which is another sign of things looking up. My other passion is windsurfing so I know of the photographer Erik Aeder's work very well - having looked myself years ago, trying to find this kind of kit to fit a Pentax was next to impossible...

http://nedbunnell.blogspot.com/2007/01/k10d-waterhousing.html

Aren't the pros and serious users happy with Sigma EX lenses?

Many of them, yes. Other's, no.

Personally, I'm more than happy with the EX's that I have.

Dan