Quickflash Loc: Loganville, Ga

I couldn't agree more.

Quickflash Loc: Loganville, Ga

I believe that "superiority" is totally subjective. In some ways Nikon beats Canon. In other ways, Canon beats Nikon, and in some ways, Pentax beats them both. There is no one brand that reigns supreme.
I think the Big 2 are the Big 2 for a reason. However, I also think Pentax and others are overlooked by most people due to the reasons pointed out all through this thread. For some, the lesser known brands may be a better choice. The information in this thread may help a newby to decide the often asked question of which camera to buy. For me the best camera is the Canon 70D, but only because that is the one I have. If you love the one you have, it is the best for you.

OldEarl Loc: Northeast Kansas

Pentax was a strong player in the 60s. A lot of the schools used Pentaxes for their classes. As I recall they were number 2 on the list for folks to get because of the price. The Super Takumar lenses were on a par with anything other than Nikkor. The problems at that time were that the bodies did not hold up to the wear and tear the Nikons did and the Praktica-Pentax screw mount was a pain in the but. The H1a shutter had a maximum speed of 1/500. With the lower price, the lenses tended to loosen up fairly quick. My conversion to Nikon began when an H1a fell apart in the ham hands of a sales person when I was trading up. By the time of the Pentax K mount, which I had recommended in 68 in a user survey, I was well into the mechanical Nikons and not ready to go back.

Canon became a major player with the mechanical F1 in the early 70s, but I never had a Nikon F fall apart on me. I did get F2s and F3s.

In the 60s and 70s there were many brands of SLRs. Ricoh, Miranda, Mamaiya, Kowa, Minolta, Leicaflex, Alpa, are what i remember from the time. I still carry a Canon rangefinder on occasion.

Nikons (both RF and SLR) made their name among photographers in Vietnam. Canon came of age in the 70s. For a short time Minolta had an advantage in the autofocus market.

Gaddysmom

OldEarl has a great memory! Thank you. Pentax were used in a lot of schools because they were less expensive than Nikons. Back in the day, Canon's entry level SLRs were also cheaper than Nikkormats. And, remember that a major selling point for the early Olympuses (Olympi, anyone?) was their weight. They were smaller and lighter than comparable Nikons and Canons.

And, speaking of Alpa, I remember seeing photos of Queen Elizabeth II with a gold-plated Alpa.

lamiaceae Loc: San Luis Obispo County, CA

MARKETING BUDGET. Note my tag line. Yes, the AF and stabilization is in the bodies. Only real issue is Pentax still needs a FF camera. Can't be too far off since they are putting out new Pentax D FA lenses (like Nikon FX lenses). Though note, they do have a pricy Digital Medium Format!

balticvid Loc: Queens now NJ

Leica doesn't advertise much, if at all.
Do they make good cameras, lenses?

speters Loc: Grangeville/Idaho

Pentax cameras have always offered some of "the best bang for your buck"! That is one of their strength. They are no less in quality than Nikon or Canon's (actually a lot of times, they're better), but Pentax is able to do that at prices that nor Canon or Nikon is able (willing) to do.

CraigFair Loc: Santa Maria, CA.

Pentax does not even show up in the top 17 cameras. And neither does Canon. Only Nikon and Sony, both with the Sony Sensors.
http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras#price=0%2C45200&year=2002%2C2015&xDataType=year&yDataType=rankDxo
At times I've been buffaloed into thinking Canon Lenses are better but that's not the case either.
Craig

OldEarl Loc: Northeast Kansas

Try asking me about what happened last week. 8-)

OldEarl Loc: Northeast Kansas

They make good equipment. In pre-digital days they were a gold standard although the Leicaflex may not have been up to the Rangefinders. Rolls-Royce does not advertise.

TommiRulz Loc: Corpus Christi, TX

Oh I miss Minolta!! Those were some bad ass cameras in the eighties! Were they bought by Sony?

jimmya Loc: Phoenix

I would offer this to you. The old saying is that's still true is "you get what you pay for". So I would suggest that the initial specs might be better but how long with the camera hold up under normal use? Will a Canon or Nikon last a lot longer just because the over all quality is better? I suspect so.

mrjcall Loc: Woodfin, NC

Any of you remember Yashica ? My first real camera was a Yashica Electro 35 rangefinder purchased from the Navy Exchange in San Diego when I was in the Navy in 1967... Not sure when they died, but believe it was around 2008 when they sold Yashica/Contax/Kyocera to a Chinese firm... That was a mighty fine camera!

alandg46 Loc: Boerne, Texas

Pentax had a real problem with marketing. Particularly, when selling a Dslr. What the heck is a *ist? This was the worst, but there were others. As far as quality, I gave my sister my K100D and it has over 300,000 shutter actuations and has since been given to a great nephew. I gave my sister my second K-5, after I bought a K-3(retaning one K-5).

I have had more problems with my Nikon D800E than all my Pentax stuff combined. Except for a 50-135mm F2.8 lens, which had the motor fail twice in two years. I got it fixed the last time and sold it and ended up buying another virtually new for a real bargain price and have had no problem with it.

BTW my Nikon has now decided it doesn't like compact flash cards and will have to be fixed.

jimmya Loc: Phoenix

Sure I remember Yashica. I had two of their film cameras and loved them.