Why do people want pentax to gain market share? - Page 2

*Blue* · 10-14-2009, 07:29 AM

They need some growth but only to a sustainable point in part to fill some of those holes Wheatfield is talking about as well as R&D and some fun stuff.

schmik · 10-14-2009, 03:27 PM

Originally Posted by Wheatfield

Ummm, there are about a dozen holes in the lens line that are big enough to drive a truck through and the K-7 could still use better AF.

OK... there are a few lenses missing and the k7 could have even better AF but they did come out with the K7 whilst having the current market share. They did just release the Kx. Can't comment too much on the lenses as i don't watch that closely.

My point is that they do R&D now. They don't need to gain share to do that.

I do get surprised at people wanting them to become canikon. Isn't that the same as loving something to death.

mike

*smc* · 10-14-2009, 03:52 PM

They need to bring out a new camera every 1.5 to 2 years or sales will stop. That takes R&D to be competitive against Canikon. I don't want them to get "big" but I think they need to be bigger than they are now or we risk losing the brand entirely. Either Pentax will drop cameras and just stick with non consumer products (medical, etc) or they will be sold....to who knows....Holga (kidding) or someone that would make a mockery of the brand. If they keep the current market share we will see something drastic happen.

schmik · 10-14-2009, 03:59 PM

Originally Posted by smc

They need to bring out a new camera every 1.5 to 2 years or sales will stop.

At the current rate they bring out more cameras than that and it appears that they will gain share since k7 and kx.

They bring out approx 2 bodies per year.

mike

creampuff · 10-14-2009, 04:17 PM

A bigger customer base means a larger market share and revenue, which means more resources to make more lenses and accessories. It also means greater exposure. Why anyone would want Pentax to remain a small player needs their head checked.

schmik · 10-14-2009, 04:43 PM

Originally Posted by creampuff

A bigger customer base means a larger market share and revenue, which means more resources to make more lenses and accessories.

That's a good reason.... but maybe it just means more profit.

Originally Posted by creampuff

It also means greater exposure. Why anyone would want Pentax to remain a small player needs their head checked.

Why do you want greater exposure? What's wrong with small players?

FFIW, it is actually possible to have a small market share and be profitable. Small share does not equal 'in the red'.

I'm not saying i want them to stay small and I'm also not saying that i want them to grow. I just want to know why others are desperate for them to grow? why they want more exposure?

mike

djbrown · 10-15-2009, 04:56 AM

your right...t seems that a lot of people here really want pentax to gain market share...

*Ash* · 10-15-2009, 04:59 AM

Originally Posted by djbrown

your right...t seems that a lot of people here really want pentax to gain market share...

You've got a Wollongong-based business website but are located in the US?
(sorry to digress... just curious)

*Ratmagiclady* · 10-15-2009, 09:22 PM

It'd be good for us if they got somewhat bigger. Hopefully not bigger *enough* to forget us.

As for lens gaps, with the FA 35/2 not out there any more, I think what they really need is an affordable normal prime, maybe a DA WR 28 or 30. Call it a 1.8 or so. Especially now that Nikon's finally got something in the slot that'll work on the lower-level bodies. (A DA *30 1.4 or something seems pretty inevitable, if you asked me. )

They don't need to beat Nikon or Canon, but doing better would allow a lot of stuff we could use.

*Blue* · 10-15-2009, 09:38 PM

They could bring back the FA 28mm f2.8 as a WR lens in a DA package. Or the could just bring back the FA 28mm as WR.

Edit: They could also bring back the FA 135mm f2.8 as a WR in a package that doesn't look like a sewer pipe.

lurchlarson · 10-16-2009, 04:33 PM

If Pentax had greater market share then there would also be more third party accessories to buy. For instance, (maybe I haven't looked hard enough) I can't find an underwater housing for my k200d. Not that I scuba dive, it would be the comfort knowing that I could go with my camera once I start. My wife's Olympus e-620 has a housing (granted it's in house).

Also It would be nice to go into a store and ask if they have (fill in the blank) for Pentax and them saying "sure, just a sec" and getting it for you. Instead you have to anticipate your needs days in advance (which isn't always possible) and order it online.

*brecklundin* · 10-18-2009, 01:32 AM

Originally Posted by schmik

It seems that a lot of people here really want pentax to gain market share. Why?

The only reason i want them to do better is that in the past they have shown that they can be cheaper then the others. If they sell more they might just drop prices again due to increased volume.... that sounds like a pipe dream when i actually type it out

Personally I am quite happy shooting something different to all the other clowns.

Why do other want them to gain share so much?

So that they can say "told ya so" to the canikons?

mike

Only motivation in truth for HoyaTax is demand by the shareholders...it is that simple. What we consumers want, HoyaTax could give a rat's arse...it is completely about the quarterly report and that is it...period.

AdrianN · 10-18-2009, 02:20 AM

With a bigger market share, Hoya would make more money and be better able to please the shareholders. Should Pentax imaging's market share shrink and become unprofitable, it would be a certainty that it'll be sold off to the highest bidder.

*brecklundin* · 10-18-2009, 05:23 AM

Originally Posted by AdrianN

With a bigger market share, Hoya would make more money and be better able to please the shareholders. Should Pentax imaging's market share shrink and become unprofitable, it would be a certainty that it'll be sold off to the highest bidder.

That can be a bit of fallacious logic if one is not careful. A company can have a huge market share yet be less profitable than a company with a smaller market share. Market dominance or a significant presence does not always equate to enough profit. These days shareholders are looking for quarter over quarter growth...when you read that a company's growth rate is decreasing or flattening it does not mean the company is not making money only that the slope of their growth curve (more revenue and usually also sheer number of customers) over the previous quarter is not increasing at the projected rate. If a CEO projects a 15% growth then delivers only a 12% growth rate, that CEO can get fired. It's insane because usually the company is still making money, but only if the CEO was conservative in growing the corporate infrastructure and overhead so that the profit is still increasing...but often many CEO's cater to the simple customer growth RATE to fool a fair number of shareholders...I did a poor job of trying to explain it but suffice to say, just because a company increases it's market share does imply increased profits...it goes well beyond something as simple as market share.

I can offer as an example Sony used to produce a PDA line called the Clie...it was considered, by many people and technical reviewers, but it was considered as head and shoulders above as the best of the best PDA's ever made...but Sony killed off the entire line for one reason, yes it was making money but it was not making ENOUGH money. So Sony re-purposed the resources used to develop and produce the devices...to this day there are MILLIONS of Clie's still in use and going strong. But Sony was not happy with making money, they wanted to make MORE and find a product that would GROW whereas the PDA market had it's growth rate flatten. That is an example of a company with a significant to dominant market share deciding to simply amputate an entire division and product line that was still quite profitable but had stopped growing.

I sense this is the way Hoya is looking at Pentax. Simply making money is not going to be enough. In the future I see them, if they keep Pentax that is, but introducing reasons to remove the backward compatibility with legacy glass...it will happen so they can grow lens sales with each body introduced. But only if Hoya holds on to the Pentax brand.

lithos · 10-18-2009, 05:33 AM

Originally Posted by lurchlarson

If Pentax had greater market share then there would also be more third party accessories to buy. For instance, (maybe I haven't looked hard enough) I can't find an underwater housing for my k200d. Not that I scuba dive, it would be the comfort knowing that I could go with my camera once I start. My wife's Olympus e-620 has a housing (granted it's in house).

Most housings underwater photogs use aren't made by the OEM. They're third party - Ikelite being the only one I can remember at this time (I shoot Pentax; I don't have much reason to look at housings...)

But that's how they get made. Think of how small a fraction of DSLR owners take their camera diving. It wouldn't be much. And when Pentax has such a small market share, no maker's going to make housings for them. They'd never sell enough to be profitable.

I really, really wish there was a housing. Diving is surely one of the world's greatest activities. For starters, it's hard for people to talk under water with a reg in their mouth. (One thing I've wanted to photograph is the mouth of a sea urchin. They look like they're made of neon.)

And those Ewa-marine bags are useless below six feet (they are NOT dive housings.)

Also It would be nice to go into a store and ask if they have (fill in the blank) for Pentax and them saying "sure, just a sec" and getting it for you. Instead you have to anticipate your needs days in advance (which isn't always possible) and order it online.

That's a vicious cycle, I think. Someone goes into the store, asks for something from Pentax, sales rep says, sorry, we don't stock it, can have it in two weeks, customer realises it'd be quicker just to order the damn thing off the net, and, bingo, store's lost a sale. It's depressing looking at the Pentax shelf space (all eleven inches of it) and seeing that it consists of a K200D with a shite Sigma kit lens on it, and maybe a dodgy flash.

Of course I realise that if Pentax goes "mainstream" and "sells out" we'll have lost whatever made it "cool" anymore. Yep, sure, ok.