The case for Pentax
When I recently posted my guide to choosing your first dSLR, I was ripped to shreds in the comments for overlooking Olympus and Pentax… Which is quite wrong of me: Pentax have long made some pretty awesome cameras, with features that Canon and Nikon haven’t had (like being able to remote control external strobes – a feature Canon has never had until the introduction of the Canon 7D!)
Someone who was particularly outraged is the most fabulous John Cavan, who wrote a passionate and well-articulated plea to stop ignoring Pentax – and he’s got a pretty damn good case, actually… here’s why:
Canon, Nikon. Nikon, Canon. When most people think of buying a dSLR, that is often the debate that they wage with themselves. Of course, with the Sony purchase of Minolta, they may even now start to think of Sony in that debate. There is, however, another player on the market, a player that has been around for a very long time. In fact, they were once synonymous with SLR photography: Pentax.
Pentax is the first Japanese company to release a 35mm SLR in 1952 and, for quite a while, were the defacto standard for 35mm photography. The M42 screw mount, while not a Pentax invention, was made so prevalent by Pentax that it became known as the Pentax mount. In a sense, Pentax ushered in the age of SLR photography producing more cameras than all other manufacturers combined. So, what happened to them? They didn’t fall off the 35mm radar, even as they lost ground to names like Nikon and Canon, Pentax continued to innovate, but they were the last to move from the limited capability of the M42 mount and, to some degree, that probably hurt them the most.
However, Pentax didn’t go away. They continued to produce excellent cameras, including the classic K1000, first created in 1976 as a basic SLR, it managed to outlive all of its brethren and almost all successors because of its elegance and simplicity, finally hitting end of life in 1997. In 2003, Pentax entered the digital age and didn’t stop their innovation. By this time, however, the Canon/Nikon duopoly was pretty complete. A tough nut to crack, no?
Pentax is trying to crack that nut, so I’m going to talk about Pentax as it started getting serious about dSLR photography with the arrival of the K100D, K110D, and the K10D. The first two were the entry level dSLRs and the last was aimed at the prosumer. As with all of their cameras, Pentax focussed on certain key areas: backwards compatibility and the photographic experience. These are factors that continue to be key to Pentax since the introduction of these cameras, so let’s talk about them.
Backwards compatibility is a funny statement with digital, but it is applicable because it means that over 50 years of high grade optics are still available to you. Many of us Pentaxians have in our kits lenses that the modern dSLR owner wouldn’t even think of, wouldn’t even be aware of. We don’t have these lenses because there aren’t modern options for Pentax, because we have those too, but because they present optical quality as good as any current lens and at a price that you can’t hope to beat brand new. To give you an example, I own a Vivitar Series 1 100mm f/2.8 Macro manufactured by Kiron. This lens is widely regarded as one of the best, if not the best, macro lens ever produced and it’s nearly 40 years old. I paid $160 (Canadian) for it. To compare, a Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro lens currently retails for $730 or $1249 with image stabilization.
Another backwards compatibility feature, which makes my last comment even more interesting, is Pentax image stabilization (or anti-shake) is in the body of the camera. There are certainly advantages to IS on the lens, such as IS in the viewfinder, but the single biggest advantage to it on the body is that every single lens I attach to my Pentax, regardless of age, can be stabilized. Of the major dSLR manufacturers, only Sony can say that, and they don’t have the lens history of Pentax. There’s another advantage: price. You can see that above, IS adds $500 to the price for what is otherwise the same lens.
For your first step into the world of digital photography, look beyond the two big brands for some creative features and competitive pricing!
Now, of course, Pentax isn’t just leaving us in the world of historical lenses, scouring eBay and Craigslist so that we can take pictures. They do have a very good line-up of modern lenses with zooms and primes, wide to telephoto including what many, such as DP Review, call highly desirable limited lenses. It isn’t just Pentax, we also have Sigma, Tamron, and others producing good optics for a good price. So, with Pentax, you can pull from the old (even ancient, M42 can be adapted to the modern bayonet mount) and the new. Heck, with an adapter, you can even put a monstrous medium format lens on it! I know a local photographer that uses his Pentax 67 lenses on his K20D all the time.
Alright, I think I’ve established that Pentax is good at keeping the old available to the new, but I also mentioned the photographic experience. Most modern dSRLs offer what I would call point-and-shoot features and, to some degree, that is a wise choice. Pentax took a different approach, aiming their line at people looking to have the pleasure of the 35mm film experience in a digital package. So, instead of scene modes on the dial, they added things like hyper-program (a way to quickly switch between aperture and shutter priority modes), sensitivity priority (control ISO with the rear dial), and shutter/aperture priority (camera sets ISO based on shutter and aperture). Other ideas, such as the “green” button near the shutter release that quickly resets the exposure, even in manual, giving you a good starting point for creative adjustment. They also have the RAW+jpeg button that will easily give you both formats for the next shot, a feature that just made it to Canon now.
So, where is Pentax today? Well, they have a line up modern dSLRs that have continuously received top reviews time and again. In the entry market, we have the K200D, K-m and the K-x cameras. The K-x is the newest and is something worth talking about, so much so that Photography blog gave it a rare “essential” rating. At the higher end, we have the K20D and the K7, both very highly regarded. The K7 was recently compared to the latest Canon prosumer (the 7D) on DP Review and came out very close, but also costs quite a bit less. I’m not going to go into detailed features for them, this is widely covered on the Internet, but I will note that the prosumer versions of the Pentax line offer a number of features that are usually only seen in substantially more expensive cameras. Where Pentax lacks is at the truly pro end of the spectrum, something they hope to rectify with a medium format digital in the new year. Mind you, that’s probably more than most of us would wish to handle if we’re not doing commercial photography.
In any case, I’m not writing to convince you to buy Pentax (it means more great lenses for me on Craigslist if you don’t), but to consider it. Canon, Nikon, and Sony all produce excellent cameras as well. I don’t think you, as the consumer, are going to be left feeling cheated with any of them. My only advice would be to get your hands on to the cameras and try them, all of them. The feel, the weight, and the placement of the controls are all going to be factors that should influence you as much as anything and that you can only get by putting it into your hands with a decent lens. If you do that, in a good photography store that lets you, then I think you’ll find that Pentax is as good as any of them and perhaps, now, the debate you wage won’t just be Canon, Nikon or Nikon, Canon.
About John
John is a software architect that just happens to be an avid amateur photographer. He did a lot of 35mm film (used Yashica and Pentax) in college as the editor of the newspaper, but then kind of let it slide for years after that because he could never be bothered to develop the film. Ultimately, he got back into photography with the Pentax K10D and then it just went from there. Check out his website, too!
My day job, if it can be called that, is being a writer. I've got one book out there so far and it's awesome, so go ahead and buy a copy! It's available from 
In front of you, five hyperactive men with guitars, drums, and microphones. Behind you, five thousand fans. In your hands, a camera... You're going to need more than just a little bit of good luck to pull this one off. That's where this book comes in.
Take a Canon EOS 450D. Attach a Canon 50mm f/1.4 lens. Hit the streets of London. See what happens.
Insights, suggestions and comments
Maybe if Pentax had a Canon badge stuck on it, it would be cool?
These are some good points. I personally use Canon, because that is what I am used to, and Canon in general seem quite choice. It also means I can swap lenses with all of my Canon friends.
What went wrong? Did they have a marketing fuckup or something?
OK, I’m going to stop this right here. I shoot Pentax. I made the transition when Minolta was bought by Sony and I was ready to go digital. And while I have been loyal to the brand these past years, upgrading from an *ist DL to a pair of K10Ds, the limitations of Pentax have gotten to be too much. I’ve looked at the K-7, handled it, put it through it’s paces, and to claim that it is on par with the Canon 7D is like saying a Mustang is on par with a Porsche. Pentax makes a great product don’t get me wrong, but if you shoot low-light action as I often do, their cameras will get the job done. But nowhere near as easily or consistently as Canon or Nikon.
What went wrong? Probably a number of things. Despite being a quite innovative camera company, they were very slow to move off the screw mount and join the more modern era of autofocus and such. That probably helped the growth of names like Canon and Nikon a great deal. The other side of the coin, for Pentax, is they considered the 35mm format to be amateur and started focussing on the medium format more. So, what they did was let a lot of things ride. That was fine for something like the K1000 (which is still used as a teaching tool today), but for general 35mm work, they dropped the ball.
When getting my first “entry level” DSLR, I chose the K200D and the reasons you mention above are two HUGE reasons why. I love being able to put on high quality manual focus glass for a fraction of the plastic-y AF lenses of today. With my M42 adapter I can use the great Takumar and Super Takumar lenses of yesteryear. I also love being able to get image stabilization with all that old glass with the body-based IS.
Another factor that was huge for me with the K200D is that it feels like a real camera, with a magnesium subframe. SO much nicer than the cheap-feeling Rebels and D40/D60. In addition, the K200D features a ton of weather seals. It comes with a kit lens that you don’t have to be embarrassed over. It has a semi-spot metering capability. It uses standard AA sized batteries (I use rechargable Sanyo Eneloops and it is nice to have the same batteries available for camera, flash and vertical grip.
It is an amazingly great camera for “entry level” and one I will not outgrow for some time.
I was interested in what the author had to say until he exaggerated the pricing on the Canon lenses. He’s clearly heavily biased if he’s pulling that kind of stuff to get his point across. B&H currently lists the lenses for significantly less than quoted, and used (as he presumably purchased his 100mm macro lens) they’re even cheaper. So this was a comparison of a 40 year old used lens vs. “suggested retail” (i.e. not actual) price on brand new lenses which can easily be purchased used. Right, then.
It should also be noted that on eBay one can purchase conversion lens mounts for $5-10 that allow essentially any lens to be mounted on other platforms (a common one is to use Nikon lenses with Canon, and vice versa, but other such adapters exist). These cheap adapters let you use old lenses from more or less any manufacturer, thus negating that point.
The only thing Pentax really has going for it is in-body stabilization, but then you have Sony competing in that category. Every advantage Pentax has, Sony also has, plus Sony’s image quality is better to boot.
I shoot Pentax, and am as happy as those shooting Canon or Nikon. But I do have more money left in my pocket after my purchases :-)
I would like to point out one thing about Sony and in-body image stabilisation. From what I’ve been told by Sony users, in order for a lens to be stabilised it has to be chipped and recognised by the body, which means many older manual focus Minolta lenses will not be stabilised.
With Pentax, on the other hand, *ANY* lens that is mounted to it is stabilised. If there is no chip in the lens or the camera cannot communicate with it, then it asks you for the lens’s focal length, which you input manually, and then off you go shooting stabilised.
Maybe a Sony shooter can weigh in with the details of which lenses are supported and which aren’t.
The Olympus E-30 has In-body Image Stabilization too, as does the Olympus 510
I shoot Pentax, and I love it. There are currently several limitations that I’m bumping up against. One of which isn’t Pentax’s fault.
1-Lack of P-TTL support in wireless triggers, specifically Pocket Wizards. Pentax has no control over this, but it sure would be nice.
2-Write speed. I sometimes wish I could get more than 5-7 RAW files before I had to wait for the images to write to the card. This is probably because they use an SD card instead of CF. However, SD is more universal, so it’s nice to have the SD.
3-No 85mm 1.2 and 70-200mm 2.8 lenses. Granted, I don’t need these, but they sure would be fun to play around with.
For the price, you simply cannot beat them. I got a weather sealed camera that is actually made of metal (and didn’t feel like a plastic toy made in china) for around $600 with a better-than-average kit lens. I’d have to drop nearly double to get a Canon or Nikon that is similar.
The only thing they don’t have going for them is the lack of professional low-noise high-iso bodies.
Good luck with those $5-10 adapters and don’t be too disappointed when you find that they don’t focus to infinity. You can buy “chipped” adapters (for significantly more money that will let you use some brands on some bodies – get educated first on flange to film distances from the different mfgs).
You can do most everything with any manufacturers, assuming you don’t mind spending money. That’s the point with Pentax. You don’t have to. They have made backwards-compatibility a priority so adapters are not needed. The K-mount lenses just work (and in AV mode if you are using a Pentax-A or newer lens).
You also conveniently left out mentioning the weather/dust seals on the Pentax. I chase storms, so that is a nice “piece of mind” feature, in my book.
And the image stabilization in body (and working with manual focus lenses) is a HUGE benefit, both in dollars saved and that it works with a decades-old lens attached.
I’m a “bang for the buck” kind of guy and I LOVE that I got all this in one excellent package for $500 and a whole backpack full of excellent Super Takumar manual focus glass for another $300.
I’ve used the $5-10 adapters to use old manual Nikon lenses with my 5D Mark II. They work perfectly fine. There’s no reason to use a chipped adapter for old manual lenses like the 40 year old 100mm mentioned in the article, or the many manual 50mm f/1.2 or f/1.4 lenses floating around. You’re going to focus manually even if the lens was a native fit. And there’s also no good reason to use a new lens such that you’d need a chipped adapter: why not buy a new lens that’s already made for your camera? New lens prices aren’t that much different between manufacturers.
You’re right that in-body stabilization makes a big difference. That’s the one thing that kills me about my Canon: the lenses have to have the IS. The weather sealing in the Pentax is nice for an inexpensive camera, but once you hit the ~$1k mark with Canon or Nikon, you get more than sufficient weather sealing.
But what people seem to be ignoring is the most important thing in a camera: image quality. Canon and Nikon have better image quality. It’s not an accident that they’re the perceived (and actual) leaders in the DSLR pack.
Seinberg wrote:
But what people seem to be ignoring is the most important thing in a camera: image quality. Canon and Nikon have better image quality.
I’m not generally so blunt, but that’s bull$#!@. All DSLRs in the market today produce great images with superb IQ. There are different “tones”, true, just as there are different engine sounds in different car brands, but none is better than the other. They are simply different.
To say Canon and Nikon have the best IQ in digital photography is preposterous. And given the opportunities afforded by Adobe to postprocess images, any image can be made to look like any other. When I need to decide which camera to buy, IQ isn’t even on my list of requirements. Continuing with the car analogy, it would be like having “can move faster than 10 mph” on a list of requirements for a car. It’s a car, of course it can move faster than 10 mph!
I’m sorry Dave, but your snobbish comment upset me.
In regards to Seinberg’s comment on pricing: these were Canadian prices at Vistek at the time this was written. I think I even mentioned the price I paid for the other lens in Canadian dollars, so I probably assumed the connection would be made.
By the way, for those who appear to think there is an implied statement of Pentax superiority here, I took pains to mention that this article wasn’t about knocking any other camera lines or about claiming Pentax is better. It is not better, it is potentially as good as any other lines when comparing the same classes of camera. The goal was to recommend that there is more to look at then the big two.
I think the reason that people seem so agitated about this kind of article is that they don’t won’t to think that their current camera wasn’t the best choice.
And Miserere, having really good IQ is like having a car that goes at least 100mph, not 10mph.
Pentax is looking for its position in this saturated DSLR market, and they might find it now, by releasing Pentax K7 and K-x.
These cameras are packed with modern features but cost significantly less than its competitors.
The K-x also comes out with 100 color combination that help it to expand their customer base.
Pentax will be doing fine forward if they stick to low cost leader strategy.
Who knew Pentax still existed!
I’d just as soon the world NOT discover Pentax. I’d like to have my used lens market stay as reasonable as it is, for as long as I can.
Miserere wrote:
All DSLRs in the market today produce great images with superb IQ.
Yes, that’s true perhaps at ISO 400 and lower. After that, there *is* a marked difference between cameras–and it isn’t just “different” as you say. There is a good and bad. Canon and Nikon, simply put, produce cleaner images the higher the ISO is pumped. Correct me if I’m wrong, but what you seem to be implying is that while all cameras might not be made equal, there are no quantitative differences: they’re “just different”, not better or worse.
Regarding my “snobbishness” – I’m sorry if I offended your sensibilities. I didn’t intend to come off as snobbish (and it’s certainly not something I’m accused of frequently!).
Regarding the pricing, John, I did think of that not long after posting my message but didn’t bother to re-post to clarify. My bad! I still stand by the other points, though ;-)
I can’t speak to Pentax’s entry level cameras, but every review I’ve seen personally suggests that while the K7 certainly has its merits, it struggles in high(er) ISO performance, where image quality quantitatively begins to suffer. Seems to be at 800 and above where things start to get iffy for the K7. Whether its a lack of proper noise reduction or something else, I don’t know.
I’ll also add that the author of this article definitely likes his rose colored glasses. I like the underdog as much as the next guy, but Nikon’s and Canon’s success isn’t some kind of conundrum…they make a superior product.
Sorry Nick, I disagree on your last statement. In a given class of camera, I wouldn’t make the blanket claim that Nikon and Canon are superior, it definitely depends on what you’re looking for. Your statement may have been true at one point, but the mindset you’re displaying is often called “resting on your laurels.” Something Pentax did once and lost the market over.
John,
You’re right in that Canon and Nikon can’t afford to get complacent. If they stop innovating, they’ll fade into obscurity just as easily as any other brand.
I guess my main problem with Pentax is that they don’t make even a semi pro body, ie a 5d or a d700 type camera. If they produced a comparable product to canikon in the 2-3k range, and still followed their usual pattern of being 10-15% cheaper, I’d definitely give them a second look next time around. As it sits now though, I tend to lump them into the same category as Olympus and, until recently, Sony.
Look what has recently happened with Sony…after the release of the a900 and a850, people are starting to take notice, on forums, in magazines, etc. Sony now has a sub 2k body with the same (or at least very similar) sensor in it as the D3X. That’s the kind of thing that piques my interest.
I agree with Jon. Who knew Pentax still existed??
Nick, I’d say full frame is probably more in the realm of professional, rather than semi-pro. Many are now suggesting that a full frame dSLR should be considered more to be an entry level medium format (a format that Pentax is about to release early in the new year with the 645D). In the semi-pro, I’d probably call the K7, 7D, and the like as the sort of cameras that fit there. In any case, my article was in response to one about first time buyers, not usually pro, semi or otherwise, in photography.
As for Sony, tempting as all get out. I’ve considered it, seriously, several times because I’d love a full frame dSLR. On the other hand, I’m quite happy with my K20D and since it hasn’t been the limiter in my photography, so why switch? After all, until the camera becomes an impediment, there’s still huge value in it.
To Kelly, that’s my point. :)
Pentax was never a “Pro” camera. Their only attempt was the “LX.” They lead the world in many inovations. But maintained their place as the most popular, quality 35mm SLR. Partly, by being an excellent value also. Little know fact: the Japan Camera Industry had agreements amoung the manufacters as to what market slot they were to target. That’s one reason Canon & Nikon fight for the PRO market and others like Pentax didn’t.
David
Pentax Marketing Mgr (1970’s) for Honeywell Photo.
P.S. Did Pentax market share suffer from the separation from Honeywell?
David, I’d buy that statement except for the very real fact that the 645 and 67 were huge cameras in the pro market. What Pentax really seemed to feel was that 35mm wasn’t pro and, amongst other factors, essentially gave the 35mm market away. Despite that, the K1000 remains an enormously popular camera for teaching aspiring professionals.
@Seingberg
Have you read DPReview? The K-X just showed it’s high ISO superiority over Nikon and Canon.
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/pentaxkx/page26.asp
“With this performance the K-x easily beats most other APS-C cameras when shooting JPEGs, including much more expensive models. If you need better low light performance than this, going full-frame is pretty much your only option.”
It is certainly the case that lenses and other equipment are much cheaper for the Pentax. Canon and especially Nikon lenses are out of this world for a really fast lens.
They will only be as popular as their latest bodies. If an upstart like Sony, Pentax or anyone else for that matter comes along and starts to really innovate, the old names will be left in the dust.
Probably a strategy Pentax undertook was to skip out on trying to make professional level 35mm cameras.
The market was very narrowly defined by Nikon and then Canon (Minolta faltered and died) to get the professional camera crowd to switch brands while sticking with a miniature camera.
(Other than newspaper stuff what can you really shoot with a 35mm film camera? Ans: not much. All the high quality people went 4×5 or 6×6cm.)
So to attract pro’s they went to 6×7 and 6×4.5cm cameras and did pretty well as Mamiya was in the tank for many years trying to discover a way out of the twin lens reflex sink hole. It took Bronica two generations of cameras to get out of the sinkhole their first system put them in… Rollie was just sooo high priced.
Likewise Hasselblad sat on it’s hands and almost went out of business.
I would love to get a full frame digital back for my 21/4 system for the image quality and different look (I don;t like little bitty cameras). But holy smokes the price is unbelievable … at least $30K up to $45K
I notice a comment above about the Pentax LX being their only attempt at a ‘pro’ 35mm camera. It was doomed, of course, because by the mid-80s the so-called pro market (sales-wise) consisted more of people who wanted to be thought of as pro than actual pros. My relatively tiny LX was, I recall, consistently sneered at by the aspiring war-zone photographers I used to encounter in British cathedrals, lugging their heftier F3s and F1-Ns with nonchalant machismo and slightly slipped discs. Higher ISO performance may tip the scales for Canikon these days, but I doubt that it (DPReviews tests suggest that the K20D v. slightly outperforms the D300 and very much outperforms the 50D above ISO 1600). Most people buy the latter because they’re recommended as ‘the best’ by dealers, friends and others who haven’t heard of, or care about, the other options.
“(Other than newspaper stuff what can you really shoot with a 35mm film camera? Ans: not much. All the high quality people went 4×5 or 6×6cm.)”
Tell that to Galen Rowell.
Thanks for this. I love my 1976 pentax as much as my k100D that I bought two years ago and I am a proud Pentax supporter; it has never failed me.
none of my clients have ever asked which camera, lens, etc. i’m using. all they care about is the final product. so while people are arguing which one is better, i’m selling my artwork.
but in case anyone is interested i have an olympus 530 and a canon g10
Share your wisdom