Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
05-02-2013, 09:20 AM - 1 Like   #61
Veteran Member
devorama's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Chicago, IL
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 638
QuoteOriginally posted by kenafein Quote
Is it 900? I saw 1500, and it aps-c only.
It's only a preorder but this place has it for $900 USD.

First Zeiss preorders in USA! 32mm for $900 and 12mm for $1,250. | sonyalpharumors

05-04-2013, 04:23 AM   #62
pet
New Member




Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 17
R i p : Pentax
05-04-2013, 03:10 PM   #63
Veteran Member
bossa's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Adelaide
Posts: 4,546
Surely Ricoh has a plan for Pentax? I know that they aren't saying anything but you wouldn't would you? There's always a new customer out there I suppose so maybe this is a turning point for developing a totally new system?

And they probably aren't all that interested in current customers anyway because most have probably already bought most of what they need.. but WTH do I know anyway?
05-04-2013, 03:54 PM - 1 Like   #64
Pentaxian
Driline's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: IOWA Where the Tall Corn Grows
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,973
QuoteOriginally posted by pet Quote
R i p : Pentax
Correction..........RIP Canon & Nikon. Pentax is still way and above a better product than those will ever be.

05-04-2013, 05:19 PM   #65
Banned




Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 390
QuoteOriginally posted by Eulogy Quote
Technically speaking, if this is a Min. sale price hike by Pentax USA, it's not Adorama's fault. If a company threatens to cease ties with you unless you sell this product at a minimum price of _____, you're going to do it. There's a reason when the DA* prices went up they started offering more package deals with the lenses, so it was the same price as other sellers, but had free swag with it.

If a company threatens to cease ties with you unless you sell this product at a minimum price of _____, that's illegal, you notify the FTC or AG's office. Retailers are free to name their own price, however, it'd be foolish to sell an item at the original "lower" price if your replacement costs are going to cut into your profit margin for said item.

Last edited by Al_Kahollick; 05-04-2013 at 05:26 PM.
05-04-2013, 05:23 PM   #66
Veteran Member
TOUGEFC's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Brisbane
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,561
QuoteOriginally posted by Driline Quote
Correction..........RIP Canon & Nikon. Pentax is still way and above a better product than those will ever be.
HA!
05-04-2013, 05:49 PM   #67
Loyal Site Supporter
monochrome's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Kirkwood (St. Louis) MO
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 20,450
QuoteOriginally posted by Al_Kahollick Quote
If a company threatens to cease ties with you unless you sell this product at a minimum price of _____, that's illegal, you notify the FTC or AG's office. Retailers are free to name their own price, however, it'd be foolish to sell an item at the original "lower" price if your replacement costs are going to cut into your profit margin for said item.
No longer; as of June 28, 2007 US Supreme Court Ruling, which overturned the prohibitions of Resale Price Maintenance. Nikon, especially, does precisely the same thing.
05-04-2013, 06:10 PM   #68
Banned




Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 390
QuoteOriginally posted by monochrome Quote
No longer; as of June 28, 2007 US Supreme Court Ruling, which overturned the prohibitions of Resale Price Maintenance. Nikon, especially, does precisely the same thing.
It appears to me that refers to "advertised" pricing (which is why you must add an item to cart on some sites to see the sell price), not actual selling price. Price fixing, where distributers are told what they can sell an item for, is still illegal AFAIK.

On June 28, 2007, the Supreme Court overruled Dr. Miles, discussed below, holding that such vertical price restraints as Minimum Advertised Pricing are not per se unlawful but, rather, must be judged under the "rule of reason." Leegin Creative Leather Products, Inc. v. PSKS, Inc., Slip Op. No. 06–480 (Decided June 28, 2007).[4] This marked a dramatic shift on how attorneys and enforcement agencies address the legality of contractual minimum prices, and essentially allowed the reestablishment of resale price maintenance in the United States in most (but not all) commercial situations.

05-04-2013, 06:17 PM   #69
Loyal Site Supporter
monochrome's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Kirkwood (St. Louis) MO
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 20,450
QuoteOriginally posted by Al_Kahollick Quote
It appears to me that refers to "advertised" pricing (which is why you must add an item to cart on some sites to see the sell price), not actual selling price. Price fixing, where distributers are told what they can sell an item for, is still illegal AFAIK.

On June 28, 2007, the Supreme Court overruled Dr. Miles, discussed below, holding that such vertical price restraints as Minimum Advertised Pricing are not per se unlawful but, rather, must be judged under the "rule of reason." Leegin Creative Leather Products, Inc. v. PSKS, Inc., Slip Op. No. 06–480 (Decided June 28, 2007).[4] This marked a dramatic shift on how attorneys and enforcement agencies address the legality of contractual minimum prices, and essentially allowed the reestablishment of resale price maintenance in the United States in most (but not all) commercial situations.
Wherre does anyone say any Dealer will be denied shipments if they refuse to sell at a price?

Call B&H and order a recently "price-fixed" lens ......
05-04-2013, 07:07 PM   #70
Banned




Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 390
QuoteOriginally posted by monochrome Quote
Wherre does anyone say any Dealer will be denied shipments if they refuse to sell at a price?

Call B&H and order a recently "price-fixed" lens ......
Ummm, perhaps you should go back to the beginning of our little dance for that answer.... Hint: there's a "Eulogy" involved!
05-04-2013, 08:33 PM   #71
Pentaxian
johnmflores's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Somerville, NJ
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,187
Pentax can do nothing right, except provide me a camera and lenses capable of taking excellent photos.

They're doomed for sure.
05-04-2013, 11:01 PM   #72
Veteran Member




Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Fredericton, New Brunswick
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 631
QuoteOriginally posted by Al_Kahollick Quote
If a company threatens to cease ties with you unless you sell this product at a minimum price of _____, that's illegal, you notify the FTC or AG's office. Retailers are free to name their own price, however, it'd be foolish to sell an item at the original "lower" price if your replacement costs are going to cut into your profit margin for said item.
Correct, and incorrect at the same time. I was confused by this at first too, until I dug a little deeper(Past the wikipedia link below), only to find that big businesses always trump the small guys in the US.(And several other nations) The policies in other areas are more towards market freedom, but as a result, prices go higher.(The ultimate way to prevent cheap sales) I know this is the case in Canada as of 2009, it's illegal to implement such a pricing policy(Thus why ProDigital2000 is able to trump US competition on prices for the most part, they move so many units, that they're able to purchase at a lower rate than most[Not as low as US sellers, but again, they're not bound to sell at a minimum price], and as such, can sell them for cheap.); As it's basically price fixing. EU nations have similar policies.

It's legal to terminate sales to a company for any reason, including if they violate your suggested retail price. Illegal to say that "Can't sell it below ____", perfectly legal to say "We won't sell anyone these anymore if we find you sold them below _____". Shady Capitalism at it's best.

"While vertical price agreements remained taboo, in 1919 the Supreme Court in United States v. Colgate & Co., recognized the manufacturer's right to deal with whomever it wanted, and as importantly, its right to refuse to deal. This distinction allowed manufacturers to announce terms under which they would deal with their resellers and then refuse to deal with those who failed to comply. Colgate's progeny in 1984 further built upon this right in Monsanto Co. v. Spray-Rite Service Corp., stating that, "under Colgate, the manufacturer can announce its re-sale prices in advance and refuse to deal with those who fail to comply, and a distributor is free to acquiesce to the manufacturer's demand in order to avoid termination"."

It's all available for viewing here: Unilateral policy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

TLDR: It's like someone saying "I can sell you Oranges for $12/dozen." Then they shout in no general direction "All oranges I sell must be resold at $15/Dozen or more!". If they find you later selling them for $13/Doz, they can simply refuse to sell you more.(Albeit those are some rather expensive oranges)

Last edited by Eulogy; 05-04-2013 at 11:16 PM.
05-05-2013, 01:17 AM   #73
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: New York
Posts: 3,313
QuoteOriginally posted by bossa Quote
Surely Ricoh has a plan for Pentax? I know that they aren't saying anything but you wouldn't would you? There's always a new customer out there I suppose so maybe this is a turning point for developing a totally new system?

And they probably aren't all that interested in current customers anyway because most have probably already bought most of what they need.. but WTH do I know anyway?
*if* that was Ricoh's strategy, why would they bother buying Pentax?
05-05-2013, 01:28 AM   #74
Veteran Member
bossa's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Adelaide
Posts: 4,546
QuoteOriginally posted by DeadJohn Quote
*if* that was Ricoh's strategy, why would they bother buying Pentax?
I have no idea what they are planning and neither does anyone else as far as I can tell. My ramblings weren't logical, I realize that.
05-05-2013, 04:21 AM   #75
Banned




Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Charleston & Pittsburgh
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,683
QuoteOriginally posted by Al_Kahollick Quote
If a company threatens to cease ties with you unless you sell this product at a minimum price of _____, that's illegal, you notify the FTC or AG's office. Retailers are free to name their own price, however, it'd be foolish to sell an item at the original "lower" price if your replacement costs are going to cut into your profit margin for said item.
A valid point, but still happens everyday. Take a look at gasoline prices between regions
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
k-mount, lens, pentax, pentax lens, slr lens
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
One year anniversary - is Pentax unilateral pricing (MAP) on lenses working? Gray Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 22 04-07-2013 05:26 AM
Pentax lens pricing dilemma FireDog Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 6 08-12-2012 11:49 AM
Canon 40mm Pancake: Okay, Pentax, time to wake up on lens pricing! mattdm Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 136 07-05-2012 12:52 PM
Pricing help needed on A* 300mm f2.8 lens chrisbrogden Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 8 11-06-2010 04:47 AM
New Pentax or move on? kinsale Pentax DSLR Discussion 22 08-27-2010 02:42 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:56 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top