Quickflash Loc: Loganville, Ga

I am not looking to start a discussion like "Canon vs. Nikon" again. I am a Canon shooter and am not interested in changing brands myself, or in debating anything. I merely trying to learn something for my own info and possibly to help others that are just starting out.
That said, I recently noticed how much less expensive Pentax seems to be for cameras that seem to be as good or better than Nikons and Canons that are more expensive, yet the Pentax seems to have better specs. For example, The K-3 is less expensive than the Canon 70D, (which I own and love), yet the specs seem to be better on the Pentax and some of the Nikons. I also am under the impression that Pentax lenses do not have IS or VR because it is built into the body of the camera, making lenses cheaper, but presumably just as good as their competitors. However it seems that Pentax, at least on this forum, lags far behind in popularity, so I am wondering why. Is there something I am missing, or am I just wrong?

Leicaflex Loc: Cymru

Pentax do not have the same budgets for advertising that Canon and Nikon have, so they tend to go unnoticed.
My third camera was a Pentax and I still have and use it, film of course.
I recently tested the Pentax K3II and was very impressed.

Quickflash Loc: Loganville, Ga

Thanks for your reply. I am still surprised that more pros don't use Pentax if they really are superior. I am wondering if there may be reliability issues or something else I am not aware of.

Cdouthitt Loc: Traverse City, MI

Nothing wrong with Pentax...or Sony, Fuji, Olympus, or Panasonic. Pros shoot with those too.

johneccles Loc: Leyland UK

The reason why Nikon and Canon cameras have sold more than any of their competitors is not because they are superior it is due to the huge amount of money spent on advertising.
Many of the "other" makes are just as good if not better than Nikon or Canon, the fact is they have sold so many some has got to like them.
I am an Olympus user but not too biased, in fact I bought a Canon to use on a recent cruise, I was so glad I took my Olympus with me because I soon began to dislike it, the images were washed out and it ate batteries.
Every image from the Canon had to be processed, whereas 95% of the Olympus images where OK SOC.

DavidT Loc: Maryland

Let's not overlook the obvious fact that most pros need a full camera system. It's not just the camera specs that are important, but also the variety of lenses, electronic flashes, and other compatible accessories that come with the system.

And, even though Canon and Nikon spend a lot on advertising, it is small compared to the research and development costs for new products and updates for older ones.

Db7423 Loc: Pittsburgh, PA

A good point you make in your first paragraph. ;)

jederick Loc: Northern Utah

I have a Nikon D7100 with seven lenses that I absolutely love, especially for wildlife. Also have a compact, light Sony a6000 mirror less EVF camera with three lenses that I like equally well, especially as a walk around system. I have shot thousands of photos since the first of the year and probably 90% of them with the Sony a6000.

We will be gone for two weeks on a cruise and the Sony will be the only camera I take. :thumbup:

digit-up Loc: Flushing, Michigan

I'm not aware of Ricoh(pentax) as lacking much, if anything, for pros to have complete "SYSTEMS"? I had a canon and a conglomeration of lenses, most by 3rd party manufactureers. I hated to spend the money on the "L-Series" lenses, and canons' kit lenses certainly aren't great values. I gave up the sigma lenses for canon, and let the entire canon system(?) go. I have since gone strictly Pentax. In the past few years, I have acquired three new and fabulous Pentax bodies, and approximately 13 of their(pentax/ricoh) fabulous lenses. Everyone of them stellar as well as very worth the price. I'm not poor AND I'm not stupid, I always try to get the best I can with my money, and I almost NEVER pay for a NAME for a names-sake. I read something a day or two ago, on the uhh forum, someone was admireing a "BLAD" and always wanted one. It seemed they just were gaga for the name only. Lots of folks pay "BIG-BUCKS" for the label (name recognition). I dont get it>>?? Have you ever heard the term "HOUSE-POOR?? buy a bigger than needed house, you really can't afford, and then NEVER be able to afford the yacht youl'd like or the vacations or the photo-ops (vacations) youl'd like to take.. Waste your money on only ONE facet of your life, and limit your ability to "fly-your-plane. Damn!! Not I, said the duck... I really don't mind, NOT paying for the tons of bucks that canikon folks deal with, the bucks where they try to sell the IDEA that you deserve the "prestige" of owning this industries average cameras.

MarkD Loc: NYC

Pentax and the others do make very good cameras. I think that Canon and Nikon sell so well mostly because of brand recognition. Canon and Nikon are known to be very good cameras. Most pros use them and since most amateurs also use them (together I believe they are 80% of the interchangeable lens camera market) they are most likely to recommend them to their friends and family.

digit-up Loc: Flushing, Michigan

paying great big money for questionably High-end cameras, that cost so much more than they are worth (ie, nikon) Limits your ability to Take the vacations, where you might get some great pictures. Just a thought . RJM

digit-up Loc: Flushing, Michigan

reccommending canon and nikon in this day and age, and considering the fabulous options out there, isn't all that smart. Why not recommend real value, when reccommending cameras to family and friends. There really are better values out there. I'm sure you would actually be appreciated for suggesting sony, pentax,sigma, and many others, that beat canikon, for real values, to your friends. Do they want to pay for image stabilization to be built into EVERY lense they buy< for example?? That is moneys wasted. Do they(family&friends) want to pay for all that ADVERTISEMENT money, and should they?? I'm advertizing for Pentax, sort-of, For free, and that has been the best advertisement that a lot of photography systems ever get... Word-of-mouth, unsolicited, FREE!!

LFingar Loc: Claverack, NY

If you are shooting JPEG then your shots are being processed. In the camera. Canon has a variety of "Picture Style" settings available in-camera, as well as user defined options. Quite often the shots taken with the factory settings will appear washed out unless you choose one of the other settings or create your own settings. I imagine Olympus has something similar. The difference you see in the photos could very well be nothing more then the difference in the factory settings. Shoot both in RAW and I doubt you will see much difference. As far as battery life, I get very good results with both of my Canons, but I use my LCD screen very little and my GPS function almost never. Either of those can eat up batteries in a hurry.

Jim Bob

What "Pros" use should only be considered a starting point of analysis not its ultimate resolution.

Quickflash Loc: Loganville, Ga

Thanks to all for your comments. I guess it does all boil down to advertising. Had I known then what I know now, perhaps I would have started out as a Pentax, or maybe even a Sony shooter. However, I am very happy with what I have, so no regrets here.