[jsherman999]

.... And comparing Pentax Limiteds with Canon L or Nikon G lenses, I would believe the Limiteds are still cheaper while giving comparable IQ. (Please correct me if I'm wrong here).

I'd agree with that. Also, smaller than their IQ peers. (I only have first-hand experience with Nikon, though.)

So it seems like Pentax is in a pretty interesting position, which is while it is not exactly cheap to start (if you need AF 50mm primes), it is still very competitive in the semi-pro/pro prime category.

Yes. But they are also shackled by this strategy, a bit.

.

[paperbag846]

Yes. But they are also shackled by this strategy, a bit.

Thats exactly what I'm talking about. They need more cheap lenses for people to "buy into" the Pentax system, before they are going to blow 1000s on the FA ltds.

If you are a first time DSLR buyer, it would likely be years before you would consider purchasing the FA 31. The consumer needs lenses as stepping stones between the kit lens an a top-notch prime (or f2.8 zoom).

The DA L 35mm is a step in the right direction.

[Laurentiu Cristofor]

And, yes, you DO see it in sales. This is why Pentax has 5% market share.

Nonsense! Pentax had already lost market share before they discontinued their 50/1.7 lenses - the FA 50/1.7 was produced until 2004. And at $200, the FA 50/1.4 was a bargain until 2008 - not that it helped Pentax gain any market share. The need for a cheap prime has become relevant only in the past few years - if anything, Pentax may have actually gained market share during these years.

[aleonx3]

Really funny you mention that. I went from 1 --> 5 --> 2. I don't want to have to do 3 .

Most of the Nikon folks I know stop at 3. They don't care or don't know better. These folks have the D90, D300(s) and some D7k with the 18-200mm superzoom and that is their only lens.

[twitch]

Most of the Nikon folks I know stop at 3. They don't care or don't know better. These folks have the D90, D300(s) and some D7k with the 18-200mm superzoom and that is their only lens.

That seems to be the case for the Nikon shooters I know too. They seem to love their 18-200 or 18-105 slow as hell zooms. I can't understand it, but then I don't shoot Nikon.

[Docrwm]

That seems to be the case for the Nikon shooters I know too. They seem to love their 18-200 or 18-105 slow as hell zooms. I can't understand it, but then I don't shoot Nikon.

There is no fathoming a mind that has turned to the dark side and it is self-abuse to try.

[northcoastgreg]

And, yes, you DO see it in sales. This is why Pentax has 5% market share.

So Pentax has 5% market share because they don't have a full set of everything? But isn't this confusing the effect with the cause? Pentax has been losing ground to Nikon and later Canon since the sixties. There are all kinds of causes for this, from the initial choice of the M42 screwmount over a proprietary to diffidence about getting into digital. But during most of that time while they were shedding market share they had a complete lens lineup, including a budget prime (the 50/1.7, which went out of production as late as 2004). In other words, for the most part, Pentax does not have a 5% market share because they don't offer everything; rather, they don't offer everything because they only have a 5% market share.

It would be far too costly, and far too risky, for Pentax to try to compete with Canikon using a me-too strategy. Pentax either has to keep carving out its own special niche, and making do with the crumbs left-over from Canikon, or it has to take the lead on some sort of path-breaking innovation, as Canon did with AF and later with digital.

[Blue]

So Pentax has 5% market share because they don't have a full set of everything? But isn't this confusing the effect with the cause? Pentax has been losing ground to Nikon and later Canon since the sixties. There are all kinds of causes for this, from the initial choice of the M42 screwmount over a proprietary to diffidence about getting into digital. But during most of that time while they were shedding market share they had a complete lens lineup, including a budget prime (the 50/1.7, which went out of production as late as 2004). In other words, for the most part, Pentax does not have a 5% market share because they don't offer everything; rather, they don't offer everything because they only have a 5% market share.

It would be far too costly, and far too risky, for Pentax to try to compete with Canikon using a me-too strategy. Pentax either has to keep carving out its own special niche, and making do with the crumbs left-over from Canikon, or it has to take the lead on some sort of path-breaking innovation, as Canon did with AF and later with digital.

As of Jul 2010 it was 7.8% which was a dramatic increase from 2008. That showed what a jackass Thom Hogan the Nikon-man is when he predicted 2010 to be the death call for Pentax.

Canon falls off a cliff as Nikon grabs the #1 market share in DSLRs/iLCs in Japan in H1:2010 [revisited] - 1001 Noisy Cameras

His 2011 predictions were idiotic.

http://bythom.com/2011predictions.htm

[Aristophanes]

My local big box flyer today has the most prominent ad being the C$119.99 Canon 50/1.8. Those ads get people into the store thinking "Canon". If the consumer does not have that option on Pentax, then Pentax loses a sale.

What "niche" does the K-r fit into? Enlighten us.....please.

[paperbag846]

There is no fathoming a mind that has turned to the dark side and it is self-abuse to try.

If I had all the money in the world, I would shoot Nikon, too. But I would never buy a super zoom... I would not bother with them unless I became absurdly wealthy and decided to buy a full frame camera I don't need.

BUT then I would buy the 20 2.8, 35 1.4, and 85 1.4!!!\

However until I become rich (by magic), I think Pentax has Nikon beat on the ASPC lens lineup.

[paperbag846]

My local big box flyer today has the most prominent ad being the C$119.99 Canon 50/1.8. Those ads get people into the store thinking "Canon". If the consumer does not have that option on Pentax, then Pentax loses a sale.

And with the DA L 35mm f2.4 being their "answer", it would take a pretty knowledgable shopkeep to explain why its not a f1.8, and why 35mm is better for you than 50.

Unfortunately, you will not find this person in your local bestbuy, blacks, or whatever. The place where Canon and Nikon make a majority of their entry-level sales.

[RioRico]

Unfortunately, you will not find this person in your local bestbuy, blacks, or whatever. The place where Canon and Nikon make a majority of their entry-level sales.

And those are notably places where Pentax makes ZERO sales because Pentax isn't placed there. Thus a question: Will Ricoh-Pentax push for mass-market placement? Rather, SHOULD they go there? Should Ricoh-Pentax become yet another supplier of plastic crap? Suppose Pentax came out with a plasticized Kx (call it the K-y) with a plastic 50/1.7? Would this join the ranks of outfits that users want to upgrade ASAP? Would this make Pentax a market leader?

[paperbag846]

And those are notably places where Pentax makes ZERO sales because Pentax isn't placed there. Thus a question: Will Ricoh-Pentax push for mass-market placement? Rather, SHOULD they go there? Should Ricoh-Pentax become yet another supplier of plastic crap? Suppose Pentax came out with a plasticized Kx (call it the K-y) with a plastic 50/1.7? Would this join the ranks of outfits that users want to upgrade ASAP? Would this make Pentax a market leader?

Short answer - yes.

Long answer - there is a lot of money to be made in consumer goods. You know, cheap trash. You make something really cheap, and you sell it for more. The cost of producing a BAD camera, and selling it for *only 500 dollars* could result in the same profit margins as a very good camera such as the K-5 (lets say in both cases, 300 bucks).

The same goes for lenses. An el-cheapo lens might only cost them 50 dollars to produce. If they can sell it for 200, then they made the same 150 they might expect to make from something like the DA 40.

My numbers might be off but also consider these two things:

A) If you can sell a lot at low margins, you can often make more money then by selling less at high margins (e.g., the iTunes model of music sales).

B) Every K-crap owner with their sketchy 50 1.7 all plastic "fantastic" is now a Pentax owner, and even if a small percentage of them upgrade, that increases sales of the better stuff. Lets say 1/10 soccer moms who buy a camera at best buy become actual photographers. Or, better yet, they simply decide they like it enough to buy a zoom so they can shoot lil henry's soccer matches. That sale of the 55-300 will go to the camera company that has a presence in Best Buy.

That's the thing with these proprietary mounts. After someone buys in, its much more challenging to convince them to switch. As far as the north american markets are concerned, Pentax should not strive to be a budget brand, much less a prestige brand. They need to SPAN these two, so they can suck the soccer moms up the food chain as they get better at their hobby and spend more and more money.

Currently I hear "why would Pentax bother, there are so many used lenses available!" This is true. It's also true of Nikon and Canon (with the proper adapter). Pentax just makes it easier on us. The fact is most people are willing to pay for simplicity, and the people who hang out here with their old lenses might be the smarter group, but they certainly are not the majority.

Or have we forgotten about all those superzoom wielding Nikonians?

But the point is those who want more of the good stuff (limiteds, 2.8 zooms, etc.) need Pentax to bring in the money to fuel R&D. We need a lens roadmap back. We need the CEOs to grow fat so I can sell my food stamps in order to buy that *next big thing*.

[RioRico]

Short answer - yes.

Don't tell us -- tell Ricoh. Email them: USA DEMANDS CHEAP CRAP!! PLEASE PRODUCE!!

[aleonx3]

My local big box flyer today has the most prominent ad being the C$119.99 Canon 50/1.8. Those ads get people into the store thinking "Canon". If the consumer does not have that option on Pentax, then Pentax loses a sale.

What "niche" does the K-r fit into? Enlighten us.....please.

Even if Pentax make the same for $10 less, those folks who know nothing will still prefer Canon because they 'trust' the sales people in the store. Pentax can not play the same game as Canikon, they will never succeed with that sales channel established in North America. Sony tried that but failed and Ricoh-Pentax should learn that lesson from Sony. For Pentax to gain market share, they need to be cautious and attack the niche market first. Need to give the entry level Canikon folks to think that Pentax is high-end, not low-end products.