Pentax K-5?


thoughton

Link Posted 04/03/2010 - 17:25
Stefan I can't remember much about the details, but I'm sure there was a Nikkor 58mm f1, and a Nikkor 85mm f1.

Also don't forget Stanley Kubrick's Zeiss 50mm f/0.7 lens.
Tim
AF - Pentax K5, Sigma 10-20/4-5.6, Tamron 17-50/2.8, Sigma 30/1.4, Sigma 70-200/2.8, Tamron 70-300/4-5.6
MF - Vivitar CF 28/2.8, Tamron AD2 90/2.5, MTO 1000/11
Stuff - Metz 58 AF1, Cactus v4, Nikon SB24, Raynox 150, Sigma 1.4x TC, Sigma 2x TC, Kenko 2x macro TC, Redsnapper 283 tripod, iMac 27, Macbook Pro 17, iPad, iPhone 3G
Flickr Fluidr PPG Street Portfolio site
Feel free to edit any of my posted photos! If I post a photo for critique, I want brutal honesty. If you don't like it, please say so and tell me why!

Anvh

Link Posted 04/03/2010 - 17:47
Mongoose wrote:
So in 2008 Pentax sold absolutely nothing in Japan that wasn't a K200D?

Something seems fishey to me.....

Indeed strange....
Stefan


K10D, K5
DA* 16-50, DA* 50-135, D-FA 100 Macro, DA 40 Ltd, DA 18-55
AF-540FGZ

Anvh

Link Posted 04/03/2010 - 17:56
thoughton wrote:
Stefan I can't remember much about the details, but I'm sure there was a Nikkor 58mm f1, and a Nikkor 85mm f1.

Also don't forget Stanley Kubrick's Zeiss 50mm f/0.7 lens.

50mm f/1.1 Nikkor-N for the Nikon S rangefinder maybe?

This site is better. link

From your site.
Quote:
To protect the rear element of the Zeiss 50mm, f/0.7 lens (which was within 4mm of the film plane)

That's a very different register then 45.5mm.
Of course you can have faster lenses then f/1 but not on a K or similar mount.
Stefan


K10D, K5
DA* 16-50, DA* 50-135, D-FA 100 Macro, DA 40 Ltd, DA 18-55
AF-540FGZ

beginner

Link Posted 04/03/2010 - 17:58
Shaky wrote:
Quote:
Pentax K-5
By PR admin | March 3, 2010

There are some rumors about a potential Pentax K-5 DSLR camera that will be placed above the K-x and below the K-7. This information came comes from sales representative for Swedish Pentax distributor (source).

Source: Photo Rumors


It used to be called the K20!...
K20D...ist DS ,DA18/55,DA16/45.DA* 50/135,"A"1.7 50MM..."A" 70/210..M 50mm f2...Tamron 90mm macro,28/300 Tamron,200/500 Tamron 6.9....A Pentax DA*300... Sigma10/20,FA31mm 1.8 Ltd*********,FA 77mm Ltd!

MostlyHarmless

Link Posted 04/03/2010 - 18:13
thoughton wrote:
Stefan I can't remember much about the details, but I'm sure there was a Nikkor 58mm f1, and a Nikkor 85mm f1.

Also don't forget Stanley Kubrick's Zeiss 50mm f/0.7 lens.

There was certainly a Nikkor 85mm f1 (and a 75mm one too 5 think) but I'm 90% sure they're not F-mount - '53mm mount' and the adaptor next to it in the picture are a clue - so no need to be retrofocus designs?

Kubrick's f0.7 was used on a 'non-reflexed' camera, so presumably did not have any mirror/retrofocus issues either (pictures of Mitchell BNC cameras show a separate finder). I seem to remember from Nikon MF days that some lenses (fisheyes I think though - like this) would only work with the mirror locked up, and a supplementary finder - so once again the need not be retrofocus.

Neal

Shaky

Link Posted 04/03/2010 - 18:21
Anvh wrote:
Mongoose wrote:
So in 2008 Pentax sold absolutely nothing in Japan that wasn't a K200D?

Something seems fishey to me.....

Indeed strange....

Not at all.

First of all this is only related to dslrs.

As for the K20, alas it was evidently unable to muster a share of the market greater than 1%.

Anvh

Link Posted 04/03/2010 - 19:59
Shaky wrote:
As for the K20, alas it was evidently unable to muster a share of the market greater than 1%.

yes I thought that too but the whole market share of Pentax is 1.6% and the market share of the K200D is also 1.6% ... how many precent does that leave for the K20D?

MostlyHarmless wrote:
thoughton wrote:
Stefan I can't remember much about the details, but I'm sure there was a Nikkor 58mm f1, and a Nikkor 85mm f1.

Also don't forget Stanley Kubrick's Zeiss 50mm f/0.7 lens.

There was certainly a Nikkor 85mm f1 (and a 75mm one too 5 think) but I'm 90% sure they're not F-mount - '53mm mount' and the adaptor next to it in the picture are a clue - so no need to be retrofocus designs?

Kubrick's f0.7 was used on a 'non-reflexed' camera, so presumably did not have any mirror/retrofocus issues either (pictures of Mitchell BNC cameras show a separate finder). I seem to remember from Nikon MF days that some lenses (fisheyes I think though - like this) would only work with the mirror locked up, and a supplementary finder - so once again the need not be retrofocus.

yes you're right about that, also the register distance is much shorter because there is no mirror.
So for example the camera the Zeis was mounted on had a register of 4mm if that had a 45mm Diamter mount just like Pentax you can get f/0.09 lens
Theoretical of course.

About the Repro Nikkon 85mm f/1 that's a macro lens and that's the exception to the rule but the effective f-number is only f/2
link
Stefan


K10D, K5
DA* 16-50, DA* 50-135, D-FA 100 Macro, DA 40 Ltd, DA 18-55
AF-540FGZ

Shaky

Link Posted 04/03/2010 - 21:22
Anvh wrote:
Shaky wrote:
As for the K20, alas it was evidently unable to muster a share of the market greater than 1%.

yes I thought that too but the whole market share of Pentax is 1.6% and the market share of the K200D is also 1.6%

Where? Japan? The World?

In terms of global market share I recall a figure of around 3-4% in volume terms for 2008, which would translate into a lower number in value terms.

However, it may be that in 2008 in Japan - possibly measured to the end of March to coincide with the Japanese financial year - the K10 and K20 were both current models, in which case they might together have captured say 1.5% of the market, without showing up individually.

This stuff really needs to be systematically analysed, which is not a trivial task given several different publically available sources for the various regions, but the numbers mentioned are well within the ballpark.

What I find interesting about the discussion here, however, is another manifestation of cognitive dissonance. God knows I have and others have discussed these numbers at length, and they should come as no surprise to anybody. However, even somebody like Mongoose - who I consider to be relative Pentax realist - resorts to suspecting fault with the numbers.

What happens psychologically is this; people have in their mind a view of Pentax as being a prestige brand. They then receive dissonant information, namely that their market share is barely perceptible, and a psychological process causes the new information that is incompatible with pre-existing beliefs to be rationalised away; there is a mistake in the survey, the information is coming from a doomster, it is a trade press conspiracy, etc.

Fascinating stuff behavioural psychology, in my view.
Last Edited by Shaky on 04/03/2010 - 21:24

Mongoose

Link Posted 05/03/2010 - 12:11
Shaky wrote:
Anvh wrote:
Quote:
As for the K20, alas it was evidently unable to muster a share of the market greater than 1%.

yes I thought that too but the whole market share of Pentax is 1.6% and the market share of the K200D is also 1.6%

Where? Japan? The World?

In terms of global market share I recall a figure of around 3-4% in volume terms for 2008, which would translate into a lower number in value terms.

However, it may be that in 2008 in Japan - possibly measured to the end of March to coincide with the Japanese financial year - the K10 and K20 were both current models, in which case they might together have captured say 1.5% of the market, without showing up individually.

This stuff really needs to be systematically analysed, which is not a trivial task given several different publically available sources for the various regions, but the numbers mentioned are well within the ballpark.

What I find interesting about the discussion here, however, is another manifestation of cognitive dissonance. God knows I have and others have discussed these numbers at length, and they should come as no surprise to anybody. However, even somebody like Mongoose - who I consider to be relative Pentax realist - resorts to suspecting fault with the numbers.

What happens psychologically is this; people have in their mind a view of Pentax as being a prestige brand. They then receive dissonant information, namely that their market share is barely perceptible, and a psychological process causes the new information that is incompatible with pre-existing beliefs to be rationalised away; there is a mistake in the survey, the information is coming from a doomster, it is a trade press conspiracy, etc.

Fascinating stuff behavioural psychology, in my view.

A quick spot of arithmatic shows that the "pie chart" section of that figure only adds up to 93%, and in fact all of the brands except Canon are mearly the sum of the cameras shown in the main bar chart. Canon get an extra % in the pie chart for reasons which remain unclear.

That missing 7% probably accounts for the Nikon D1s, Canon 1Ds, Canon 5Ds, Pentax K20s and any missing Oly and Sony models, which presumably all got less than 1% each.

I doubt the numbers for individual cameras are far off, but I don't think many worthwhile conclusions can be drawn from such an ineptly constructed figure.


Now if I start talking as a biased Pentax user instead of as a scientist, naturally we would have to assume some sort of conspiracy in which the K20 has been omitted because it actually sold more than everything else combined and the Canikon Collective need to hush that up to maintain their strangle hold on the poor uninformed fools who take fantastic photos never realising how much better their lives would be if they "simply held a Pentax".....
you don't have to be mad to post here



but it does help

SteveA

Link Posted 05/03/2010 - 14:18
This problem Pentax have with a starter DSLR is not a problem, they have one - its the K-M.
All it probably needs is a firmware update to activate the 11 AF points.
Since it will be sharing parts with the K-X, then the economics of scale should keep the price competitive.
Maybe Pentax think the snappers moving up will jump from compact to X70(bridge), then to K-X or K-5/7?
As regards market share k20 v k200, the online K20 users (PBase/Flickr)]seem to far outnumber K200, (Pbase figures today 174 to 15 (only 3 for K-M/K2000 gulp)),? (Over 1000 K10D users)

Maybe alot of K200 & K-M users are beginners & probably not 'into' using on line facilities?

Mike-P

Link Posted 05/03/2010 - 14:33
SteveA wrote:
This problem Pentax have with a starter DSLR is not a problem, they have one - its the K-M.
All it probably needs is a firmware update to activate the 11 AF points.

Apparently it's not that easy .. they left out certain electronics needed so as to make the body small. (So I read somewhere .. maybe total rubbish though.)
No equipment list here but thanks for taking an interest. My Flickr

Anvh

Link Posted 05/03/2010 - 15:09
Mongoose wrote:
I doubt the numbers for individual cameras are far off, but I don't think many worthwhile conclusions can be drawn from such an ineptly constructed figure.

The only reason I used that was to show that not the lowest entry level models but those a step above are sold better, making it for me questionable how much market a camera under the K-X would get and how much it would take away from the K-X... so I find it questionable if Pentax need a lower entry level camera then the K-X.

I never had it about numbers and no one in this thread had beside the fact the numbers doesn't count up.

Mike-P wrote:
SteveA wrote:
This problem Pentax have with a starter DSLR is not a problem, they have one - its the K-M.
All it probably needs is a firmware update to activate the 11 AF points.

Apparently it's not that easy .. they left out certain electronics needed so as to make the body small. (So I read somewhere .. maybe total rubbish though.)

They needed to left out the AF indication in the viewfinder but the K-X for example has 11 AF points so it can be done.
The K-M probably had some AF that weren't up to standard for the K200D and the K20D so they reduce it to 3 AF and if they worked well then they went into the K-M. Just speculation here but it isn't uncommon.

The biggest problem for introducing the K-M would be parts.
The K-X and the K-7 both use a different processor and other upgraded stuff and also the 10mp Sensor is not made any more I believe so they need to put a new sensor in it... I don't think Pentax would make a good move if they would do that.
They have the new production running for new parts and then they need to downgrade them to make older parts again

So yes a K-M with new bits would be great... but well that would be the K-X wouldn't it?
Stefan


K10D, K5
DA* 16-50, DA* 50-135, D-FA 100 Macro, DA 40 Ltd, DA 18-55
AF-540FGZ

mckendrick

Link Posted 05/03/2010 - 21:34
Shaky wrote:
Pentax need to streamline their product lineup as a matter of urgency.

Quite.
Bodies: MX, LX, *ist D, K-50, KP

Optics: SMC Takumar 28-80mm 3.5-4, SMC Takumar 80-200 4, SMC M200mm 2.8, SMC A28mm 2.8mm, SMC A50mm 1.7, SMC A100mm 2.8 macro, DA10-17mm 3.5-4.5 Fisheye, DA18-55mm II 3.5-5.6, DA50-200mm 4-5.6

johnriley

Link Posted 05/03/2010 - 22:05
Streamlining usually means cutting down and I'm not sure this is what the posters actually mean.
Best regards, John

Pentaxophile

Link Posted 05/03/2010 - 22:15
No... it would be hard to streamline when there are only two bodies available!

I agree with Stefan, I think the K-x is a great draw for Pentax... people are willing to pay more and come to a lesser known brand when high end features are available for a very competitive price.

Pile em high and sell em cheap seems to work better for the 'default choice' brands like Nikon and Canon than it has for Pentax I imagine.
[link=https://500px.com/will_brealey/[/link]
Add a Comment
You must be registered or logged-in to comment.