Why ?.

I think you might find that a few more Pentax Users are coming on board than leaving. For those who don't buy magazines, AP is now brimming withy K-x and K7 offers froma variety of sources. Clearly someone is marketing more effectively.

As for prices, they are now on par with Nikon and Canon, but when making comparisons don't forget to compare like with like. So a 50mm f1.4 needs to be compared to a 50mm f1.4 for example.

And I also note much more 'editorial' mentions of Pentax across the photographic press, AP included.

I think Johns right, people will change for an infinate number of reasons, though no doubt high on the list will be the idea that changing brands will improve their photography.

But who cares if someone wants to sell up and go to the dark side, it just means more bargains available for us

Very true.

eBay has a mass of Pentax on offer - in the case of film lenses there are more Pentax lenses around than anything else, and all useable as well.

Slowly but surely people are wising up to the advantages of Pentax.

As an aside, I've just been given some other marques to sell on eBay, and looking closely at how they made they are really quite crude and clunky compared to Pentax. Elegance of design is an attribute of Pentax that I enjoy, apart from the photographic qualities!

Not necessarily - if a company simply won't offer a common lens, then it is only fair to compare what they do offer. So comparing the Canon 50mm f1.8 to the Pentax 50mm f1.4 in price (which I think is what you're getting at here) is not unreasonable, because both are the cheapest 'fast fifty' in their respective camera systems.

Ah, but once you compare like for like then it's on a par. Comparing a cheap plastic lens with a professional one doesn't seem equitable. If I were a Canon user, I wouldn't want the cheap 50mm anyway.

The 50mm is an extreme example anyway, but worth mentioning, and looking across the range where similar lenses are on offer, then I stand by what I said above. It is of course true that Canon and Nikon have lots more lenses, but in many cases these are not lenses that us normal mortals would be buying.

Fair enough - I've just dug up two lenses of comparable capabilities (EDIT: This should of course be 'three lenses' - I initially forgot about the Canon).

*New 35mm f2 on Pentax - £430 FA35
*New 35mm f2 on Canon - £220 EF 35mm f2,
*New 35mm f1.8 on Nikon - £170 35mm f1.8 DX

Now the Canon lens might not be any good (haven't checked), but the Nikon one got a very good review from Photozone. So for these two directly comparable lenses (the prices are all from the same place, Warehouse Express), Pentax loses by a long, long way. Doesn't stop me wanting the DA35 though

One example is no good, you need to scan the whole picture to get a meaningful comparison, plus of course compare the other suppliers as well as there are massive anomalies between them.

I had a bored moment when I did this lasy week....

The FA35 costs the same from SRS (I asked Chris when I was hunting one a while ago, he said they don't bother keeping them in stock because of the price but could get one if I really wanted).

The problem with comparing across the rest of the range is that the result is the same (though not always to the same extreme) - 100mmish macro lenses, ultrawide zooms, 200mm primes... the only areas where Pentax is competitive in price (that I've thought of looking for) are 300mm primes and fast standard zooms (ie DA*16-50 vs Canon 17-55).

I think those who switch for lens reasons (rather than, for example, body AF performance) can be put into two camps: prices and range. There is no question that Pentax lenses are fabulous, and generally equal or better in comparisons with Canikon equivalents, but the lens someone can't afford because it just tripled in price takes rubbish pictures for them Similarly the current Pentax range doesn't compare very well to Canikon in performance at 400mm!

Well, I took a selection across the board from last week's AP, and I can't agree, so I guess people will have to check for themselves.

Not a problem.

Quite - my 10-17mm Fish-eye is now retailing at anything upto £450 and I paid under £300 for it. The Sigma 170-500mm I've noted as high as £930, which is almost double what I paid.

Why is there such a hike in Pentax prices - anyone know?

I'd blame a need to increase profit margins at the same time as adverse trading conditions which smaller companies can't withstand as well as the big ones.

To be honest most of the prices seem to have come down a bit, if not to the original 'bargain' levels. And the bodies and base-level lenses remain terrific value.

I can't imagine a hike in prices being the reason to sell all your gear and change brands.

There are a myriad of reasons why people do it, from thinking they will get better photos with brand X, being swayed by the ads, needing longer/other lenses than those currently available for Pentax, to it just being easier to own one of the big two as far as getting extras for them or hiring lenses.

It is their choice and our chance to benefit from that choice by being offered some good gear, normally at good prices.

I love the Pentax ergonomics; on the rare occasions I've held a Nikon or Canon I haven't liked the feel of it, but I'd be the first to admit that that impression may just have been that it was unfamiliar.

I'd switch brands if I could get the great Pentax ergonomics, as well as faster AF in low light. I have no idea if it exists though - I have a friend who's a pro that uses Canon, and he a) moans incessantly about the Canon AF and b) is very complimentary about Pentax.

I wish someone would lend me a D300s for a month. I'd love to see what the fuss is really about.

Quite.

I'm surprised anyone would seriously suggest that price is a factor for switching brands. You might be able to sell your gear for more than you paid for it - but the alternatives aren't any cheaper once you get off the bottom-rung!

People don't ditch a K7 for a D90 or 50D - they go for a D300/700/D3 or 5DII/1D - so significantly more expensive bodies, but offering things you can't get from Pentax (at the moment). Then add the lenses - take an extreme example, follow the banner ad to SRS - "Nikon 200-400 F4, a bargain at a mere £6,144 " - You could buy the complete set of Pentax lenses for less than that. But they must sell a few, or no point advertising it...and its not even their most expensive Nikon lens!

And lets not even mention Leica or Hassleblad when it comes to price...

Pentax does great things, it doesn't do everything though (e.g. sport, birding, tilt/shift, FF, etc). Anyway, people switch for all sorts of reasons, sometime rational, sometimes not. But anyway, be honest, you could take almost any shot with something made 50 years ago...might not be as easy though!

Why do people some buy new cars every year... that's way more expensive than changing camera brands!