No. Lens design and lens coating have a big effect on the quality of the image. In post-processing you can't put back what wasn't captured in the first place. You can try, by playing with saturation or whatever, but it's not the same.

G

Pentax was always bad at marketing. They thought the way to compete with Canon was by way of low prices. That's a reasonable strategy when you have high volumes, but not when you don't.

Hoya realised that there was a market for Pentax that placed emphasis on design, quality, and ergonomics, as opposed to price.

In the K5 we now have the market-leading enthusiast's DSLR, and a range of lenses that, except at the top end, provides for almost everybody.

Sadly, it would be unreasonable to expect low prices too.

G

The old mechanical shutters were generally made in-house, but when electronic, bladed, shutters came in, Pentax used Seiko shutters - as, I believe, did several other makes.

I've no idea who makes shutters now.

But there is much more to a camera body than the mechanisms it houses. The ergonomics and the aesthetic appeal are both very important. The former can make the difference between getting a picture and not getting it, and the latter plays a subtle role in all sorts of ways.

We buy more things than we care to admit on the basis of their looks. Cars, houses, clothes, wives, are all examples of items where aesthetics play a huge role in our buying decision. "Buying" of course is not exactly the right word for every item mentioned, but I am sure you get my drift.

I am a sucker for things that not only are good, but which also look good. Often, the former leads to the latter, but not always, as the spouses of good-looking film stars have sometimes found.

And talking of form and function, Pentax cameras are almost invariably both good-looking and a pleasure to use. So, excellent lenses are not the only reason to buy into the Pentax system.

G

PS: We'll draw a veil over the SFX when talking about good-looking cameras.

I think this is one of the worst reviews I have ever read.

Apart from the dismal English, this chap doesn't seem to realise that people in the market for a professional camera don't need to be told how an MF body differs from a 35mm-style body.

The ONLY things that we are interested in are:

1 Image quality
2 Are there any flaws that we should know about?

And the answers are:

1 The Pentax (no surprise) has better image quality, though the Canon isn't at all bad (no surprise either).

2 Both cameras perform flawlessly, given the limitations of their respective designs.

I personally look forward to the day when the 645 sports a 645 chip, not a cut-down one. That will widen the gap between it and 35mm chip cameras.

G

You're much older than you look, Don!

G

Well spotted. £20.00 is far too little for the 1:1.7 version.

G

I don't like Magnet kitchens either.

Too kitsch for me.

G

Don,

There can't be just one or two people buying all the world's Pentax lenses.

There must be lots. And if lots of people are prepared to pay a high price, then that's the going rate.

Of course, we also need to look at the supply side. It may be that the constant stream of sellers that fuelled the market in days gone by has now dried up. Perhaps there was a perception that Pentax were doomed and people wanted to get rid of their stuff. Now there may be a perception that Pentax is on a roll, and it's worth hanging on.

But either way, it's buyers that set prices, not sellers. If once you were prepared to pay £20.00 for a 500mm 1:1.7, you might now be prepared to pay much more because:

1 A new one costs several hundred, and
2 They're damn good lenses, and
3 You can always sell it again, and with lens prices going up, you might well make a profit.

It's like codfish. Cod used to be cheap. Now that it's scarce, people have realised that it's one of the finest fish in the sea, and are prepared to pay salmon prices for it. A few years ago that would have been unthinkable. But it's the preception/realisation that it is good that has inspired people to pay much more for it. After all, there are plenty of other fish in the sea. (At the moment!)

G

I usually buy camera bodies new and lenses second-hand.

That said, both my K20s were bought second-hand from forum members, so it's not a hard and fast rule.

But lenses usually sell for a discount of around 30% second-hand, and in excellent condition, so I only buy a lens new when there are none on the second-hand market.

G

I think you will find that most MF togs don't tend to have many lenses, and 30 grand is much more than an average Pentax 645 owner would invest in body and lenses.

You'd also find that traditionally he would have a huge investment in studio lighting, automated D&P equipment, etc.

And anyway, as a successful professional, you'd be getting a huge discount. 20% off because you don't pay VAT, and another 40% off because
it comes off your tax bill.

Cheap at the price, really.

G