[Clavius]

We laugh at colors on mid-range and low end dSLR's but a part of the thinking is it sells more cameras and thereby increases the installed base of K-mounts in the field.

I agree having more people wanting to buy those K-mount lenses would quickly solve that mechanical aperture part issue. Colours could have been a strategy they used for that purpose... I guess... But I'm fairly sure that not having ludicrously insane price increases would have been a much better way to increase market share then colours can ever be though. In other words, in my opinion they didn't really show any real intention of grouwing their market segment.

[ivanvernon]

This interview with the Sigma CEO on Imaging Resources is quite revealing in several ways, not the least being an explanation of why the Pentax K-mount causes them some difficulty. The answer won't please some people who want the K-mount "un-crippled" but at least it's some straight talking.

Of course, other issues are canvassed in the interview, which are of some interest, as well.

I cannot see the link in your post. My cursor does not react to anything here. Could you or someone else
please repost? Thank you very much.

[monochrome]

I agree having more people wanting to buy those K-mount lenses would quickly solve that mechanical aperture part issue. Colours could have been a strategy they used for that purpose... I guess... But I'm fairly sure that not having ludicrously insane price increases would have been a much better way to increase market share then colours can ever be though. In other words, in my opinion they didn't really show any real intention of grouwing their market segment.

We really have to let go of the idea that Pentax was ever a 'value brand.' Pentax was a 'Foreclosure Sale' brand under Hoya.

'Market Share' as a percentage of market sales is irrelevant. What matters is the absolute number of K-mounts in the market. There have to be enough K-mounts out there to warrant a production run by Sigma or Tamron. Market share can be 1/10th of a percent if there are enough K-mounts to sell Sigma lenses.

1. The bodies have been price-competitive right along, taking onto account the first-mover, second-mover pricing tactic.
2. The lenses had previously been ludicrously under-priced in the USA market by Hoya to maximize sales of the inventory they bought (to the point that USA was actually in price competition with other Divisions at the end). Once that was complete (note the gradual elimination of lenses and accessories as stocks were run down) they established MAP at comparative market levels to calm EU, Canada and CRKennedy, and as a business valuation tactic (discounted future cash flow at MAP prices), sold the empty husk of the company for a pittance, retired Ned Bunnell and moved on.

[normhead]

I seem to have got a copy of my Sigma 70 macro with no problem... Sigma can make K-mount lenses, so a lot of this is just corporate rambling... yes it's more difficult, and yes, when they want to, they'll make a Pentax lens at the same price as the Canon or Nikon lens. The interchange between them on the relationship between marketing and engineering was also interesting. Note that engineering comes back and says "if we make it this much bigger we can do this and this." And Sigma lenses have been getting bigger and bigger. If I carry my Sigma 70 and Sigma 8-16, at the same time, the weight is starting to ad up. My 21 ltd, 40xs, DA 25, and FA 50 1.7 probably don't weigh as much as even one of those. SO what I'm seeing here is Sigma engineers pushing the company more towards extremely capable lenses that aren't all that portable.

Which puts folks like myself in the position where, there's a 10 km hiking trail nearby where there's a beautiful bridge/waterfall...and I want to do that image with the 8-16, but I really don't want to carry it 10km. If I had a 15 ltd. the job would have been done by now. Not as good, but done.

[lm4187]

Interesting interview. I can understand their thinking.
On the other hand, they don't have to worry about in-lens stabilization which makes the lens (presumably) cheaper to produce and thus compensate somewhate for any costs of associated with the mechanical aperture.

[normhead]

Interesting interview. I can understand their thinking.
On the other hand, they don't have to worry about in-lens stabilization which makes the lens (presumably) cheaper to produce and thus compensate somewhate for any costs of associated with the mechanical aperture.

But since the put it in for Canon and Nikon, they probably have to figure out how to take it out for the K-mount. And I doubt lenses like the 8-16 and 18-35 are stabilized on any camera.

[forest_bear59]

It's always about market volume - the one and only reason I think. I would accept a somewhat higher pricing for PK mount lenses from them. Technical arguments for me are not valid that much...

[Lowell Goudge]

If I read between the lines, I think it still goes back to the fact that sigma does not want to licence the pentax mount, so they have to reverse engineer it.

When they say in one breath the market is becoming more segmented, and canikons are losing share, yet they do not list pentax as one of the other parties, but discuss them separately it would seem there is no good reason to ignore pentax, as they seem willing to chase all the others. It therefore must come down to something different, like licensing

[Clavius]

We really have to let go of the idea that Pentax was ever a 'value brand.' Pentax was a 'Foreclosure Sale' brand under Hoya.


'Market Share' as a percentage of market sales is irrelevant. What matters is the absolute number of K-mounts in the market. There have to be enough K-mounts out there to warrant a production run by Sigma or Tamron. Market share can be 1/10th of a percent if there are enough K-mounts to sell Sigma lenses.

1. The bodies have been price-competitive right along, taking onto account the first-mover, second-mover pricing tactic.
2. The lenses had previously been ludicrously under-priced in the USA market by Hoya to maximize sales of the inventory they bought (to the point that USA was actually in price competition with other Divisions at the end). Once that was complete (note the gradual elimination of lenses and accessories as stocks were run down) they established MAP at comparative market levels to calm EU, Canada and CRKennedy, and as a business valuation tactic (discounted future cash flow at MAP prices), sold the empty husk of the company for a pittance, retired Ned Bunnell and moved on.

I know the story and all the excuses. The prices went up worldwide though, also in countries where no such abuse had taken place. When you're a weak brand with very little marketshare, the worst you can do is become even more expensive then your competitors.

Funny little aside: Per the 1st of January 2014 the European Import Duties are lowered to 0 through an autonomous tariff suspencion of council regulation (EC) 1387/13 for, amonst others, objective lenses. Did you think the European Pentax users noticed anything of that levy? Of course not, they're much to stupid to notice, lets give em some more colours. No you have to switch to a different brand to see price decreases resulting from that measure.

[mikeSF]

I know the story and all the excuses. The prices went up worldwide though, also in countries where no such abuse had taken place. When you're a weak brand with very little marketshare, the worst you can do is become even more expensive then your competitors.

i still cannot find fault in Pentax for wanting or needing to improve their cash flow. Companies set prices to remain in business, plain and simple.

[monochrome]

I know the story and all the excuses. The prices went up worldwide though, also in countries where no such abuse had taken place. When you're a weak brand with very little marketshare, the worst you can do is become even more expensive then your competitors.

The abuses did take place in other countries, in that the other Divisions were forced to price-compete with Pentax USA.

I don't like knowing I should have bought both the silver and the black FA Limiteds in 2006 any more than anyone else does - but I'm not still complaining about Hoya pricing decisions half a decade later. I don't expect Ricoh to grow Pentax into a 25% market share player. They're pricing for whatever thier plan is.

[normhead]

i still cannot find fault in Pentax for wanting or needing to improve their cash flow. Companies set prices to remain in business, plain and simple.

Exactly... if we were talking food or water of other backs necessities of life, then sure, let's worry about everyone being able to afford it. But honestly, if I can't afford the new 20-40, does that even affect my style? After looking at the price cycle of the Pentax FA* 300 2.8, I realized, the price new in 1998 was about the same as the Sigma 300 2.8 is now, and it's a better lens. I can't see how if Pentax re-released that lens it would be under $5000. SO right now it's about the same price as the Sigma 300 2.8. Pentax has nothing to do with that. The market is setting the price point. Blame your fellow Pentaxians who keep pushing the price up. The fact that one person doesn't want to pay the asking price for something, doesn't mean the person selling should lower it's price. It means that person the potential buyer does not value said item as much as the guy who owns it, and in the overall scheme of things, probably shouldn't even have one to begin with.

People talk on here as if Pentax has everything under their control, and can do whatever they want. Well they can't.
NO what gets me excited is that most medical research is directed by drug companies and other companies who need expensive options to make profits, and will explore these options instead of cheaper more effective options that would improve people's health, but not add to their bottom line. Now that tees me off. Pentax trying to make money on lenses... I'm not really concerned. If Pentax doesn't make what I want at a price I want, Tamron or Sigma will. Pentax gave me the DA 18-135 and DA*60-250, and that leaves me open to a lot of options just those two lenses. After that, I can pick and choose if I wish.

[Clavius]

The abuses did take place in other countries, in that the other Divisions were forced to price-compete with Pentax USA.

I don't like knowing I should have bought both the silver and the black FA Limiteds in 2006 any more than anyone else does - but I'm not still complaining about Hoya pricing decisions half a decade later. I don't expect Ricoh to grow Pentax into a 25% market share player. They're pricing for whatever thier plan is.

We're complaining (or discussing) about Sigma not being interested in the tiny Pentax segment to market more K-mount lenses, right? At least in my region, the giant price increase caused Pentax to suddenly and completely disappear in a vast majority of camera stores that used to carry them. Those two facts happening right after each other could be a coincidence of course.

[normhead]

We get reports of stores adding and dropping Pentax all the time... unless we have some kind of bog picture analysis, it's probably better to not even speculate on stuff like that. All I know is that Henry's and Aden Camera sold Pentax back in 1967 when I was in Ryerson Polytech taking photography, and they still sell them now. Others come and go.

[mikeSF]

People talk on here as if Pentax has everything under their control, and can do whatever they want. Well they can't.

you just made my point. A company cannot meet the market demand (for FF platform, expand lens roadmap, etc) without first having a strong cash situation. You cannot invest what you do not have. It is simple economics.

---------- Post added 04-03-2014 at 11:04 AM ----------

... the giant price increase caused Pentax to suddenly and completely disappear in a vast majority of camera stores that used to carry them. Those two facts happening right after each other could be a coincidence of course.

are you still referring to the MAP policy of 2012? As long as I've been in photography, I have never walked into a store that carried Pentax, and I still havent after 2012, well, except for Fry's who now stocks them locally, and sells microwaves and TVs too.

I am not going to re-read the 2012 MAP announcement, but I seem to recall there was not an actual price increase enacted by Pentax, but rather they put restrictions on the aggressive discounting that their dealers could offer. In other words, the consumers saw an increase because the dealers were receiving margin protection (helping them to remain profitable on the line). I dunno, please correct me if i misread that. That seems like an attempt to maintain the dealer base, not alienate them.