Why is the K-7 "Semi-pro"?

shuie · 05-22-2009, 08:35 AM

I'm trying to remember the requests of people for a pro camera from Pentax. The features people seemed to request the most. Why would the K-7 not be called a pro level camera? Gripes in the past seem to have been-

Shutter speed
FPS
Faster/better Autofocus
Metal body
Better viewfinder
Better liveview
Better quality at High ISO

All of these are supposedly addressed on the K-7granted until we see actual pics from production units and real reviews from people using production units to test focus speed and accuracy we don't know for sure.
What is the K-7 missing? What am I missing? What does it need?
Ok, I'll start answering my own question.
Flash sync 1/180th second
Not FF ( however I don't feel that is a disqualifier it could be called a Professional APS-C format camera)

Mister Guy · 05-22-2009, 08:37 AM

It's missing FF, a Canikon label, and a larger price tag.

shuie · 05-22-2009, 08:41 AM

In that case I'm glad its a semi-pro

quarc · 05-22-2009, 08:48 AM

If Pentax were to call it PRO, people would expect more on the service and repair sides. It would also attract lots of people explaining why a Pentax can't be a pro camera. Initially I felt like you, but now I think it is probaby better to have a camera noone can argue is very good for its class.

Then we also have the old discussion; what is pro. It usually means press photo, and even if Pentax now do 5 fps, Canon and Nikon do more. Pentax is already used by pros (but probably not so much for press) and with the K-7 that is likely to increse. Pentax also seams to improve its repair service. I read of rediculous times I would not accept even as amateur, and if you are a pro you can't be without your gear for months. If they manage to bring this down to days instead (which I think it should be) that would b a first step I think to dare calling a camera PRO.

ftpaddict · 05-22-2009, 08:53 AM

I've seen the K-7 being labelled as anything from an alternative to a Nikon D5000 to an advanced enthusiast camera. Which is a load of crap. If I had money to spend on a Hasselblad, I'd buy one. That would instantly turn a $15.000 camera into an advanced enthusiast device.

shuie · 05-22-2009, 08:56 AM

I see you point about repair support. For me I have never had to send my cameras in but I understand how it could be a problem. On this note I remember a press release from Pentax last year about starting a new Pro support program with faster turnaround times and other stuff. Does anybody know it that program came into fruition or did it die?

*smc* · 05-22-2009, 09:05 AM

Pentax does (will) have a pro camera...the digital 645

Jasvox · 05-22-2009, 09:08 AM

If it was the same camera, priced at $2500...it'd be re-labeled as "pro". I am for one, happy it's not. (and besides, who cares about labels?)

Jason

jimby · 05-22-2009, 10:01 AM

The term "pro" is first and foremost a marketing distinction. If a camera company labels a model as "pro" then this will determine the course of all the downstream marketing activity, such as:

1. Where the camera is advertised?
2. How the camera is advertised?
3. How the camera is positioned and reviewed against competitors in the marketplace?
4. What kind of budget is needed for marketing a "pro" vs "amateur"?
5. How long is the camera going to be on the market?

For instance, marketing a "pro" camera against Canon or Nikon requires a completely different marketing strategy than marketing an advance amateur camera. Pentax has always been, at least in 35mm, an advanced amateur brand, and their foray into the 35mm pro market with LX probably taught them some valuable lessons. While the LX was a successful camera, it didn't penetrate the "pro" market in a huge way.

If Pentax had decided to market the K-7 as a pro camera, it probably would cost at least $500 more, and the marketing would be completely different. They wouldn't sell as many cameras in the long run because the pro market is currently locked up with two behemoths fighting it out.

TaoMaas · 05-22-2009, 10:15 AM

Originally Posted by smc

Pentax does (will) have a pro camera...the digital 645

That's what I think, too. It's a war of words...anything less than medium format is "amateur". That automatically makes Canon and Nikon "wanna be's".

*OregonJim* · 05-22-2009, 10:21 AM

Originally Posted by shuie

Why would the K-7 not be called a pro level camera?

If it's in the hands of a pro, it's a pro level camera.

If it's in the hands of an amateur, it's an amateur level camera.

Well, I had to state the obvious.

Venturi · 05-22-2009, 10:41 AM

Originally Posted by OregonJim

If it's in the hands of a pro, it's a pro level camera.

If it's in the hands of an amateur, it's an amateur level camera.

Well, I had to state the obvious.

But what if the Pro hands his camera to an Amateur? Does the amateur become a pro? And what about at the instant of exchange?

TaoMaas · 05-22-2009, 10:50 AM

Originally Posted by Venturi

And what about at the instant of exchange?

That's when it's a "semi-pro" camera.

dave sz · 05-22-2009, 11:11 AM

Originally Posted by Jasvox

(and besides, who cares about labels?)

Jason

If you haven't noticed, a lot of people on this forum do....

*monochrome* · 05-22-2009, 11:21 AM

Originally Posted by jimby

The term "pro" is first and foremost a marketing distinction. If a camera company labels a model as "pro" then this will determine the course of all the downstream marketing activity, such as:

1. Where the camera is advertised?
2. How the camera is advertised?
3. How the camera is positioned and reviewed against competitors in the marketplace?
4. What kind of budget is needed for marketing a "pro" vs "amateur"?
5. How long is the camera going to be on the market?

For instance, marketing a "pro" camera against Canon or Nikon requires a completely different marketing strategy than marketing an advance amateur camera. Pentax has always been, at least in 35mm, an advanced amateur brand, and their foray into the 35mm pro market with LX probably taught them some valuable lessons. While the LX was a successful camera, it didn't penetrate the "pro" market in a huge way.

If Pentax had decided to market the K-7 as a pro camera, it probably would cost at least $500 more, and the marketing would be completely different. They wouldn't sell as many cameras in the long run because the pro market is currently locked up with two behemoths fighting it out.

You hit the nail on the head.

in addition to the different marketing expenses (that have to be added to the individual camera MODEL price), all the "pro" SUPPORT services have to be spread over an entire pro camera LINE, and added to the prices of all the camera bodies and lenses in the line.

To effectively compete in what is today considered the "pro" market (press is really sports/action, for the most part) Pentax would need AT LEAST to have:

a significant series of long, fast prime glass
a significant series of fast zooms
significant brick and mortar distribution in major markets
enough scale to support LOCAL lens and body rental in 25 major US markets alone, plus globally the same kind of markets
rapid repair service centers, with "lender" gear available
truly system accessories

Canon really established the professional Press standard of expectation with the F1, and has built upon that expectation for 40 years.

Pentax can successfully compete in certain sub-sets of the market for cameras used by persons who earn their living using them, as they dominated studio fashion (and to a smaller degree had some market share in nature / landscape) with 67 and 645 film cameras.

Let's enjoy the body we have coming to us today; appreciate the prime lenses we have for digital - available from no one else; watch for the next offerings in the strategy; and do our best to not care whether other people earn their living using a Canon or Nikon body to shoot professional sports.