The OP may find this informative, it gives a very balanced view.

According to a Pentax engineer interviewed there was a problem that was fixed with a redesign. But there has been nothing from Pentax on the issue and they have never acknowledged the problem. So maybe you and Pentax top brass are correct and there was only ever a few teething issues with early lenses or maybe the Pentax engineer was right and there was a design fault leading to hundreds of failures over a few years - the information is all there and can be interpreted as one wishes.

Personally if the SDM was redesigned in 2012 I think it is too early to conclude on its long term reliability although I agree it is encouraging that newly manufactured lenses haven't shown the same problem yet. I'd personally conclude that there is much less risk in buying a newer lens but a high risk associated with an older one. I don't know when the exact cut-off point might be or how you would go about checking when a lens was manufactured.

I'd like to see the same shot around 05:30.

I did think about selling the 50-135 before the SDM fails but I have concluded that it is such an outstanding lens then the repair cost is worth it. As Pentax simply haven't come clean about the problem and what they have done to overcome it then I wouldn't trust the reliability of the SDM motor. I think Pentax would have been better served by repairing those motors that clearly weren't fit for purpose given the endemic failure rates and reassuring us about what design changes they have made for buyers of the newer lenses. Sweeping issues under the carpet is rarely going to win customers over.

With 3 I mean I like the idea of the shot but I don't think the light gets the best from the scene. I think it would work with dawn light but it seems a bit harsh here with all those shadows. First two shots will look good big.

I don't mind multi coloured dayglo cameras, that's for people who want them and I'm sure there are plenty. As long as they can do me one in black.


I do think it's an excellent strategy too, I can see it going down well in the Far East on the Q7 and the lower end cameras. Trouble is, Pentax also needs to appeal to those who value function and see cameras primarily as a photographic tool. Therefore I think it is important that they attend to the basics of presenting serious products in a professional manner. Anyone looking at the plan for lenses on the website would be excused for thinking that they have given up on them. It hasn't been updated for over a year. It simply looks shoddy and unprofessional. It is hardly going to attract converts from other brands. I also see little effort in showcasing the best that can be produced with a Pentax. The PPG has gone downmarket, the Premiere Collection neglected. The Pentax images presented on Facebook are underwhelming. The way Pentax is presenting itself to me is the fun brand for amateurs. I don't think it is a coincidence that some of our best photographers have reached the same decision. I do wonder why they have all gone Nikon though and I think Pentax should wonder the same.

Axel joins a list of very fine Pentaxians who have made the switch to Nikon. I think Pentax would be well served knowing why. The stated aim is to compete and those who have switched, highly competent amateurs and those easily of pro standard, are exactly those who Pentax need to hang on to to be regarded seriously.


There have been moves in the right direction and I'm sure we will learn of new products and new directions soon. However, there are basics that have been neglected such as the woefully out of date lens roadmaps on the company websites that just give the wrong message. I'm fed up of Pentax asking me what colour camera I want; I want a black one, the one option never on the list. I want to know what they are going to offer the serious photographer, the kind that have bought black Nikons.

Looking at that I would say there is a 99.9999999999% probability that it is viewfinder light leakage due to the long exposure. Looks just like it, not an issue.

I really like the first scene but I think the composition could be improved by the exclusion of the foreground grass and stream and with a bit more space above the turbines. Good but potentially excellent.

The second is very pleasant but I would crop to a panorama to tighten up the interest in the scene; I find the dark band at the bottom detracts as does the vignetting in the upper corners. The highlights look a bit too bright but recoverable.

The third is alright but would be much improved by gentle light.

With the fourth I think the subject is good but the background boats interfere too much and the highlights are too bright.

Goodnight and good luck Axel, you have a unique style that added much to this forum.

Good articles. I still see the quality compact as a complement to the DSLR, although in some situations as a natural first choice over a DSLR. I would imagine many could see good enough reasons to have both. I'm taking the kids camping tomorrow by the lake. It's not a photo trip and it just doesn't make sense to take the full landscape kit. However, a Ricoh GR, gorillapod and cokin A or two will mean that if there is the offchance of a wonderful sky then I can get the shot at pretty much DSLR. So in that way it is a very versatile option. The Q is good for the family album shots but just doesn't cut the mustard not for a high quality landscape. I can see a big market for the quality compact and expect to see more options soon.