Pentax K30 previews

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

This camera has most of the features of the K5 in a lower price bracket:

http://www.dpreview.com/previews/pentax-k-30

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/pentax-k30/pentax-k30A.HTM

It has a plastic weather sealed body an no top panel LCD like in the K5,but has a steel frame,pentaprism and weatherproofing. It can use AA batteries with an adaptor.

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Considering this camera is going to be around £500 to £600,is weather proofed,has a pentaprism and an improved version of the 16MP sensor in the Pentax K5 and Nikon D7000,I thought more people would be more interested.

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

The camera looks good and pentax lenses are great but there just aren't enough lens choices and used lens market out there to be a serious contender to buying a Nikon or Canon. Give 1 reason why someone buying their first DSLR would choose a Pentax over a Nikon or Canon. I can't think of a single one, and that is why pentax has a fraction of the userbase of the big 2 and is suffering from flat or declining sales while Nikon is growing in market share and increasing sales and profit.

I doubt pentax will be around in 10 years time, which is a real shame
that is reason enough to stay clear.

One reason?? The fact that its cheaper than the competition,has a better viewfinder and is even weather sealed.

I have seen enough people buy cameras like the D70,D80 and D90(and their Canon equivalents) and stick with the flipping kit lenses for years,or buy cheaper independent lenses,since they were,well,cheaper,not if they were better. I am not talking about high end independent ranges either but their cheaper stuff.

The vast majority of dSLR owners simply don't make the investment in lenses to really make it worth sticking to one system. The K mount has a decent number of lenses available for it,and plenty of third party lenses too. On top of this like the F mount it has beena round for years,so there is a huge number of secondhand and other interesting lenses available for it too.

The advertising is basically selling the dream that "pros" use this brand and this has been the case for decades. Then people buy the cheaper cameras in the range thinking they are getting a bargain. They won't upgrade the glass since its Nikon or Canon anyway and they will be more worried on how much zoom it has.

It made one of my relatives laugh(he was a pro),when he would get his camera serviced by Nikon and he saw many of the cheaper models coming in for repair,whereas the Pro models were far more reliable.

On forums,and photography clubs people might be saving up for lenses which cost more than the camera body,but in the real world this is not the case.

The camera and lenses are essentially disposable,just like with computers and phones nowadays.

The whole "they won't be around" could happen to any company and in 10 years I doubt most people would be using a K30 or a Canon or Nikon equivalent let alone the lens that come with it.

The problem is that when that attitude is propagated it actually leads to the thing what you are saying.

It is really a shame!

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

^^^
Crappy lenses and camera's are disposable, not so much pro camera's, and especially not pro lenses...

If your a casual user, and are not going to invest beyond a camera and kit lens it may not be such a bad buy. If you want the most room to grow within a system, with all due respect, you don't pick Pentax.. hell allot of people don't go with Sony as it's too risky. Only a short time ago people thought Sony completely abandoned the FF market.
Pentax on the other hand doesn't even have a FF camera, although it could be argued it does have a $10,000 dollar DX medium format...

Well TBH,I only posted this since it looked at interesting camera especially with features like a pentaprism for around £500 to £600 and relatively affordable weather sealed lenses. These are features not common at this price point either. I also got the impression that the K mount already had a resonably wide range of lenses anyway(and independent ones from all the main companies too),and decades of legacy lenses too.

But of course it seems branding is more important. I forgot about that!

Isn't Sony like the third biggest dSLR maker on the planet now though?? They probably have no worse a range than Pentax(probably more limited) when it comes to lenses. Their top end lenses are not cheap either,and they only have a few cheaper lenses too. If anything this indicates something.

Now this is just a general set of ponderings. It applies to all the cheaper dSLRs from Nikon,Canon,Sony,etc.

So is a £500 to £600 considered a professional quality camera(in terms of build and support)?? How long are the life cycles for these cameras when compared to the higher end ranges well above £1000??

Out of interest what percentage of people who buy dSLRs under £700 do any paid work with the cameras?? What percentage would for example display their work online or in galleries to move towards paid work??

Most of these cameras are sold as kits with cheapo lenses. There must be a reason for this. Its not like your D700 was sold with a crappy kit lens,was it??

So what has a £500 camera got to do 35MM frame sized sensors,when the glass is only made to project an image circle for an APS-C sized sensor?? But even a lot of the midrange "upgrade" lenses are still for APS-C sized sensors though.

Right,so to "upgrade" to suitable lenses for 35MM frame dSLRs,most people would need to ditch their lens and body too. So you have proved what I said,both the body and lenses are disposable. You will need to buy a new set of lenses anyway.

How many people will buy older 35MM lenses,when their functionality might be gimped with cheaper bodies,or certain newer features require later lenses??

35MM frame cameras are irrelevant to the vast majority of dSLRs buyers down to cost.

I would love one but not at their current prices.

Until they are under £1000,no body really cares outside of:
1.)Pros
2.)Amateurs looking to sell their pictures(this is a maybe though)
3.)Rich Amateurs
4.)Gearheads

I heard Nikon might do this though,and if they do I doubt any of the other companies would have an answer IMHO.

So does the average person who buys a £500 camera,invest in £1000+ of lenses on average??

So what are the stats,for people buying £500 to £600 dSLRs investing in say a £1000+ of lenses or £500 of lenses,£2000??

I don't know myself,as people talk about "investing" in systems as advice to get one brand over another.

Also,what are the stats of how long they would keep the said lenses for??

How long do people keep kit lenses for even on a £600 camera?? What are the stats for people even bothering to get a set of new lenses in the first place??

So lets say you did buy a better lens,like say a wide angle zoom,for around £500 to £600. So lets put that at £1100 to £1200 with a £500 to £600 body.

How long would that setup last most people?? 2 years? 3? 5?

By the time they upgrade the body would the lens be the limiting factor now?? Would there be changes to the mount or other changes which render it only a stop gap solution or would it be functionality impaired??

With the consumer stuff,I am not so sure especially with built in obsolescence.

In the film days it made much more sense,I am not so sure now with consumer cameras now.

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Thats the vicious circle though. If no one buys their stuff,they cannot invest in newer models and lenses,yet people think they won't do this and so won't buy their stuff.

I can understand why Nikon and Canon are popular with pros,entirely - as I known people who shot with the original Nikon F(no,I am not that old BTW). However,remember that Canon despite the original F1,really could not compete with Nikon in the high end until the Eos1 was released in 1989,and that was after 30 years of the F,F2 and F3,so things can change. However,that was in the film days.

However,for consumers who are not pros and not ever thinking of going this way,I am not sure it really matters any more.

I suppose halo marketing is just too strong and is probably the reason why the Minolta camera division failed but when Sony relaunched them it did better. Not sure what to make of their electronic viewfinders though and the fixed pellicle mirrors.

Konica going **** up after 130 years was sad and I really liked Impressa 50 as a print film. Kodak seems to be going that way too and even the consumer division of Olympus is having issues.

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Don't get me wrong I really like the Pentax cameras and the lenses are top notch, but I just cannot advice anyone to buy a Pentax dslr. They are not really any cheaper when all said and no critical or novel features.

I think your idea on what equipment dslr owners buy and the life of lenses is some what warped. I am using a couple year old lens design and I will be gutted if some of my new lenses don't last 10 years. I have gone through 2 camera bodies in the last 8 years and I will probably buy a D800 this year that I hope will last 5-6 years.

I am not sure what you are going about TBH,about price?? I looked at the Pentax K5 and a 16-50MM/F2.8 and it was around £1230. The Nikon D7000 and a 17-55MM/F2.8 comes to around £1830. The K30 has most of the features of the K5,with a polycarbonate body with a stainless steel frame and is even cheaper.

You talk about lack of novel features -like a pentaprism and weather proofing at £500 to £600??

I own a DSLR myself and kept my old film lenses for years but again this is the issue with many people on forums or in photography clubs who have an inability to relate to the wider market. However,I am also know I am not typical of most of the dSLR market at all if I look at the whole planet.

Many users have not moved from film SLRs.

If you go on this forum you would think all PC gamers the world over would be having a Core i5 2500K at 4GHZ+ with £200+ GPUs. However,that is not the reality of most PC gamers,is it? The same goes with computer users - most have laptops or tablets not desktops(this is supported by sales figures and the way OSes are heading) and even most desktops are prebuilt. Yet,on computer forums a large percentage have a desktop and most will assemble them too. They will also have a greater tendency to upgrade the parts too.

You don't realise most DSLR owners are not pros,hardware enthusiasts or sell their work or display them on forums or galleries. This has been the case for decades.

Remember this is a £500 to £600 camera not a D800 which costs many times that. Its not even the price of a D7000.

This camera is not for you though - it is not your target market.

We are on a forum where many like minded people aggregate together,but don't think this is indicate of the majority of dSLR purchasers.

I have known enough photographers from pros to the average person and don't think most DSLR purchasing is limited to advanced amateurs and pros.

If anything that is far from it. The mindsets are very different between each group,why they buy a product and that is after actually listening to their purchasing reasons.

You talk about warped - how many people will buy a D800 as a percentage of Nikon DSLR sales?? I have known people who were pros in the 1960s with Nikon F(the first one) and Rollei medium format cameras - so don't think I have have no clue what different photography markets are like.

By that very admission,you are small percentage of the whole DSLR market,so in that sense you ideas could be warped about the majority of the dSLR market too,especially if you came from film.

I also have done other imaging work too - so I also have a very good understanding of the basic technology and have used equipment from Olympus,Leica,Zeiss and Nikon which would make a medium format digital camera look like pocket change.

What percentage of dSLR users will buy APS-C frame lenses only? What percentage will buy 35MM frame lenses and what 35MM frame lenses will most buy?

How many of the lens purchasing decisions are determined by cost or weight for example??

How many will just buy a kit package and still use it years later?? How many will buy a Sigma or Tamron lens because it is cheaper??

We are not talking about D700 or D800 level cameras which are well over £1000+ but £500 to £600 cameras.

Even then how many are thinking - I might get a camera with a 35MM frame sized sensor in the future?

You could make an argument for macros,but even Nikon makes a DX macro.

Even then with product segmentation,you tend to find the cheaper models might not function entirely properly with the older 35MM legacy AF lenses,since they need an AF motor in the body,or lack support for newer metering improvements and other things.

In the film days it did not matter. You could buy a cheaper body and then spend more on the lens. It was not uncommon.

Eventually you could get a more expensive body. This is not the case anymore - most FX lenses are not AF-S and those that are expensive or there are just better DX alternatives available.

The whole D3000 and D5000 ranges lack an AF motor and the D90 which does,is from 2008. There is a good possbility that the D90 won't have an actual replacement from what I gather and Nikon will slot in a more expensive D5100 replacement instead,which probably lacks an AF motor too.

In fact Sony is one of the few companies which seems to mantain legacy support with their dSLRS(even with the cheapest cameras) so people can still use their old Minolta lenses even from the 1980s. However,I even see that changing as I doubt many people would care anymore.

Even with the D7000 coming to the end of its life it is still around £770 to £800 with cashback and the new model will probably be closer to £1000 at launch just like the D7000 was.

Nikon themselves do just under 20 DX lenses - I have a slight feeling that these probably are the highest sellers. I also would think Nikon DX sales are pretty large too.