Pentax FA & A Lens price rise - Page 4

*Eaglerapids* · 11-02-2009, 08:49 PM

This was the thread that, along with the Microsoft cashback (up to 40%) that was happening last winter, convinced me to fill out my Limited prime kit while the getting was good. It was such a small window that enabled me to get them. I'd never be able to do it today. We were working our tails off, record snow kept me practically housebound shoveling the crap, my buddy had a back operation and I was taking care of his house also so I wasn't going anywhere. Man, that was some winter.
Oh yeah, and Prodigital was selling stuff for unbelievable prices, remember? I bet we never see anything like that again, at least for a long long time.

Rondec · 11-03-2009, 05:22 AM

Originally Posted by m8o

I really don't mean to turn this into yet another 300/2.8 handholdable or not debate, but hearing this so often, and I don't know in this case but largely by folks who don't have the experience w/it, bugs me so I feel compelled to just make this statement, and correct the dis-information.

I have experience w/the Sigma, but the Pentax is of similar dimensions & heft. A 300/2.8 is in no way too unruly, at least for me but I've read the same from many many others, to handhold and/or hike with it for hours -- I should know as I do it all the time [!] -- assuming you use the right handhold [over the left elbow with left hand grasping the right fore-arm or triceps], and you have a shoulder strap connected to the lens bracket if you're not carrying it in a bag. Of course if the camera + lens needed to to be held-up to my eye for an extended period of time, or I needed to manually focus, that would be a different story and I would opt to put it on a monopod if I could (I never travel w/a tripod).

But if I take a walk to shoot around point at the beach behind my house around the bird sanctuary, it's not like you're walking for miles with the camera + lens held-up to your eye, looking thru the viewfinder with every step! You walk (or jog), you stop, and lift the assembly to your eyes for moments at a stretch, then back down ... then back-up again... rinse & repeat dozens if not hundreds of times. I for one have no trouble doing that for hours with 10-ish lbs of lens, body & grip [+12lbs w/the 2X TC].

Back on topic ... has anyone been monitoring whether the price premiums Pentax Corporate promised us years back and delivered-on with these price increases has actually helped Pentax's bottom line, or has it bit them in the arse by reducing sales to a point where they're netting even less than before?
?

They are doing a lot better financially. The reality is that most people don't buy new lenses based on price, they buy them based on perceived need. From their financial statements, looks as though their point and shoot market is way down (no loss there), but their dSLR/lens market is pretty good.

To your point above, I guess the biggest lens I feel hand holding consistently right now is the DA 50-135. Anything bigger and I feel like I would be pretty unsteady. Not to say folks don't shoot with it, it just would be tough for me.

TiminyCricket · 11-05-2009, 12:56 AM

Originally Posted by Rondec

They are doing a lot better financially. The reality is that most people don't buy new lenses based on price, they buy them based on perceived need. From their financial statements, looks as though their point and shoot market is way down (no loss there), but their dSLR/lens market is pretty good.

It just doesn't make sense to me, though. They are trying to dominate the lower-end camera body market with bodies like the K2000, K-x, etc... and even introducing camera bodies in different colors... clearly targeted to the beginner, non-professional user who just wants to get their feet wet with DSLR. So why continue offering "ever-cheaper" bodies to try and get more people to buy them, but then they turn around and make a lens that used to cost $200 now cost $350, or a lens that used to cost $700 now cost $900?

I personally chose Pentax over Nikon and Canon because the cost of Pentax equipment was the only way that I could afford to get into D-SLR territory and still be able to afford reasonably high-quality equipment and lenses. Even if the lens offering at their current, inflated prices are still cheaper than Canikon that doesn't change the fact that if my 50mm 1.4 had cost $350 right off the bat I probably never would have bought it.

Rondec · 11-05-2009, 01:01 PM

There is some equation with regard to lens prices that we don't understand and maybe Pentax/Hoya doesn't understand either. Basically, depending on the prices they can make money or lose money. A lot depends on how many lenses they guess they will sell. If they sell a lot, they can probably sell them for less, but if they price their lenses on the supposition that they will sell a lot of lenses and then only sell half that number, they lose money. It is probably better for them to price them on the high side and not chance losing money then price them too low and lose money on every lens sold.

My feeling is that they actually were losing money at the prices they were at before -- I got the FA 50 for 190, the DA 40 was just a bit over 200 dollars. That can't continue long term and Hoya put an end to it.

*Ratmagiclady* · 11-05-2009, 02:28 PM

Originally Posted by Rondec

My feeling is that they actually were losing money at the prices they were at before -- I got the FA 50 for 190, the DA 40 was just a bit over 200 dollars. That can't continue long term and Hoya put an end to it.

I think in part, the lens prices were something that Pentax held the line on longer than the other makers, in a way: the rise was industry-wide, with the whole exchange rates thing, including for third-party glass, as I noticed. Bear in mind that Pentax also moved production facilities and other things just as the general economic crisis began. Also, they were maybe a bit more lagging in the electronics department and the affordable primo glass angle really was a big deal for that interim.

I think the situation really shifted on a number of fronts, and we could see a number of things happen.

pinholecam · 11-06-2009, 12:28 AM

Originally Posted by TiminyCricket

It just doesn't make sense to me, though. They are trying to dominate the lower-end camera body market with bodies like the K2000, K-x, etc... and even introducing camera bodies in different colors... clearly targeted to the beginner, non-professional user who just wants to get their feet wet with DSLR. So why continue offering "ever-cheaper" bodies to try and get more people to buy them, but then they turn around and make a lens that used to cost $200 now cost $350, or a lens that used to cost $700 now cost $900?

I personally chose Pentax over Nikon and Canon because the cost of Pentax equipment was the only way that I could afford to get into D-SLR territory and still be able to afford reasonably high-quality equipment and lenses. Even if the lens offering at their current, inflated prices are still cheaper than Canikon that doesn't change the fact that if my 50mm 1.4 had cost $350 right off the bat I probably never would have bought it.

Not sure about elsewhere, but here in Singapore, ppl are starting to carry around DSLRs like compacts. This represents a very large pool of customers (ie. those who used compacts, but now buy a DSLR). Whether these folks know/can use a DSLR effectively is beside the point. Most will probably not venture more than the kit lenses. In a way, the serious users will 'subsidize' the high volume low return entry dslr.

Of course, to me, Pentax still represent best value for money even for the lenses. I wouldn't have half as many lenses if I went the Canikon route.

Pål Jensen · 11-09-2009, 10:53 AM

Originally Posted by TiminyCricket

And why on earth did they make the 300mm prime an f/4? Are you kidding me? To spend the dough on a lens like that I would expect it to be a 2.8 like the other DA* lenses.

Because a 300/4 sells 200 times more than a 300/2.8. It costs four times less and weights a third. For most F:4 is plenty fast enough....