Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
09-25-2011, 08:43 PM   #61
Pentaxian
Wheatfield's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The wheatfields of Canada
Posts: 10,199
QuoteOriginally posted by jsherman999 Quote
Not really, though. Rolex & Rolls sell because their buyers want to establish status. Good fit & finish go into those products, sure, but that only serves to offer a camouflage and a convenient excuse for the real reason they're purchased: status.

Lowering the price of those goods would actually be counter-productive, because their buyers want them to be expensive. See this concept.

The equivalent for this in the photography world is Leica. Pentax is not Leica, 'Q' is not a Leica product, not a Veblan good, so, largely, maybe, fail.

.
And how does a company establish a product as something that is status worthy?

As an aside, and this is probably more to the point of the title of this thread than all the straw men that we can put in each other's paths, consider this:

When the K5 was introduced, the body price was in the $1400 or more dollar range.
And people flocked to it and bought it.
And very few people got as impassioned about it to the extent that is happening over this little camera.
The K5 is now selling in my jurisdiction for $1100. I expect this is the universal new price.
Less than a year, and it's dropped something like 22%.
So why was the K5's vastly over inflated introductory price nothing to get worked up over, but the Q's is?
Everyone knows that it will drop in price in a while, it's the way things work.
It is, apparently, no more overpriced upon introduction than the K5 was, or the K7 before it, or the K20, K10 and all the other cameras that came before it.

09-25-2011, 10:02 PM   #62
Veteran Member
jsherman999's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,228
22% won't do it for the Q

QuoteOriginally posted by Wheatfield Quote
And how does a company establish a product as something that is status worthy?
You can't just introduce a little quirky thing and hope that does it. If that were true, it would be simple for anyone to do, anytime.

QuoteQuote:
As an aside, and this is probably more to the point of the title of this thread than all the straw men that we can put in each other's paths, consider this:

When the K5 was introduced, the body price was in the $1400 or more dollar range.
And people flocked to it and bought it.
And very few people got as impassioned about it to the extent that is happening over this little camera.
The K5 is now selling in my jurisdiction for $1100. I expect this is the universal new price.
Less than a year, and it's dropped something like 22%.
So why was the K5's vastly over inflated introductory price nothing to get worked up over, but the Q's is?
Everyone knows that it will drop in price in a while, it's the way things work.
It is, apparently, no more overpriced upon introduction than the K5 was, or the K7 before it, or the K20, K10 and all the other cameras that came before it.
.

Difference is that the K-5 was/is a fantastic camera, and highly competitive. Same sensor as the D7000, yet somehow Pentax managed to eke more out of it, and in the hand, the K5 feels much better than the D7000. The lenses available for the K-5 make it a serious contender in aps-c, and the glass + the sensor performance even allow it to play in formerly-only-FF territory with small, brilliant primes.

K-5 supported a little higher introductory price because it was a sensible offering that matched or exceeded the competition in several very important areas. Many reviewers agreed.

If the 'Q' drops in price considerably, it will be (IMO) competitive. If it only drops 22% like the K5, it will be a $625 camera - still too expensive, probably. At $450 is starts to make more sense in light of the competition, at $350 it starts to get attractive.


.

Last edited by jsherman999; 09-25-2011 at 10:11 PM.
09-25-2011, 10:40 PM   #63
Veteran Member
Anvh's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 4,616
QuoteOriginally posted by jsherman999 Quote
If the 'Q' drops in price considerably, it will be (IMO) competitive. If it only drops 22% like the K5, it will be a $625 camera - still too expensive, probably. At $450 is starts to make more sense in light of the competition, at $350 it starts to get attractive.
Expensive compared to what?
Have you see the going price of the other CSC systems...
09-25-2011, 10:44 PM   #64
Veteran Member
Smeggypants's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 1,536
QuoteOriginally posted by Anvh Quote
Expensive compared to what?
Have you see the going price of the other CSC systems...
And what sensor(s) are they using?

09-26-2011, 01:26 AM   #65
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Zygonyx's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Ile de France
Posts: 3,101
And what functions, capabilities, aso...

I think the pricing is just something that follows a "marketing curve" more or less different according to the products or labels.
The newest the concept is, the highest the price tag at the beginning, the strongest the decrease in time.
09-26-2011, 01:39 AM   #66
New Member




Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Shropshire, United Kingdom
Posts: 15
QuoteOriginally posted by Anvh Quote
Only the Q or do you have the same problem for example with the GF3 + 14mm?
I know that you've seen two graphs which (in your mind) prove without doubt that the Q has equal image quality with the GF3. But from what I've seen in terms of sample shots, the GF3 (plus 14mm) has better image quality. Now I know looking at photos isn't the approach you like to take when assessing the capabilities of cameras and lenses, but it's the photos that matter, not the graphs.

The Q may have better external controls (but then the G12 has better external controls than the Q), but the GF3 more than counters that with a better native lens line up (at this time the Q has two half-serious lenses), as well as being more easily able to utilise a wide range of legacy glass (the size of the Q is going to work against it here). That's before we consider the fact that if you don't like the GF3 body you can change bodies without having to replace your lenses.

So in summary, no, I don't have the same problem with the GF3 + 14mm.

I'd like to point out I don't own the GF3 or any other M4/3 camera.
09-26-2011, 01:41 AM   #67
New Member




Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Shropshire, United Kingdom
Posts: 15
QuoteOriginally posted by Smeggypants Quote
And what sensor(s) are they using?
They use worse sensors apparently.

He has a graph that proves it.

09-26-2011, 06:43 AM   #68
New Member




Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Shropshire, United Kingdom
Posts: 15
QuoteOriginally posted by Smeggypants Quote
It's another Balfour but far less knowledgeable and far more acidic.
You mean a 'Lazarette'?!?

09-26-2011, 12:08 PM   #69
Veteran Member
Smeggypants's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 1,536
LOL - yeah pretty close I would say

QuoteOriginally posted by robbie_d Quote
You mean a 'Lazarette'?!?
That always reminded me of a brand name of a tampon.
09-26-2011, 01:31 PM   #70
Veteran Member
Anvh's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 4,616
QuoteOriginally posted by robbie_d Quote
I know that you've seen two graphs which (in your mind) prove without doubt that the Q has equal image quality with the GF3. But from what I've seen in terms of sample shots, the GF3 (plus 14mm) has better image quality. Now I know looking at photos isn't the approach you like to take when assessing the capabilities of cameras and lenses, but it's the photos that matter, not the graphs.
For once you ain't right, was just curious what you thought off CSC in the same price range.

QuoteOriginally posted by robbie_d Quote
So in summary, no, I don't have the same problem with the GF3 + 14mm.
I think you mean to say you don't have problems with a m4/3th system.
Although it's a very fair point to look past just that one camera model, didn't thought about that.

Pentax is just starting so who knows.
09-26-2011, 03:17 PM   #71
Pentaxian
Wheatfield's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The wheatfields of Canada
Posts: 10,199
QuoteOriginally posted by jsherman999 Quote
You can't just introduce a little quirky thing and hope that does it. If that were true, it would be simple for anyone to do, anytime.


.

Difference is that the K-5 was/is a fantastic camera, and highly competitive. Same sensor as the D7000, yet somehow Pentax managed to eke more out of it, and in the hand, the K5 feels much better than the D7000. The lenses available for the K-5 make it a serious contender in aps-c, and the glass + the sensor performance even allow it to play in formerly-only-FF territory with small, brilliant primes.

K-5 supported a little higher introductory price because it was a sensible offering that matched or exceeded the competition in several very important areas. Many reviewers agreed.

If the 'Q' drops in price considerably, it will be (IMO) competitive. If it only drops 22% like the K5, it will be a $625 camera - still too expensive, probably. At $450 is starts to make more sense in light of the competition, at $350 it starts to get attractive.


.
From all appearances, the Q is also a fantastic little camera, in spite of what people who have never used one say about the image quality.
09-26-2011, 03:55 PM   #72
Veteran Member
Anvh's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 4,616
QuoteOriginally posted by Wheatfield Quote
From all appearances, the Q is also a fantastic little camera, in spite of what people who have never used one say about the image quality.
Well the IQ won't be top notch but it isn't a deal breaker, the photo's are just good, nothing bad to say about them.
Also the Q comes with one of the more faster kit lenses so the ISO can remain lower, maybe the little Queen might equal out or better the slightly bigger boys under the same light circumstances.

Last edited by Anvh; 09-27-2011 at 04:15 AM.
09-26-2011, 04:37 PM   #73
New Member




Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Shropshire, United Kingdom
Posts: 15
QuoteOriginally posted by Wheatfield Quote
From all appearances, the Q is also a fantastic little camera, in spite of what people who have never used one say about the image quality.
So basically:

People who haven't used one and say negative things = unreasonable and incorrect
People who haven't used one and say positive things = reasonable and correct

Awesome.
09-26-2011, 05:19 PM   #74
Veteran Member
jsherman999's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,228
QuoteOriginally posted by Wheatfield Quote
From all appearances, the Q is also a fantastic little camera, in spite of what people who have never used one say about the image quality.
It's a fantastic little $350 camera, and a pretty good little $450 camera.

.
09-26-2011, 05:48 PM   #75
Veteran Member
Smeggypants's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 1,536
QuoteOriginally posted by robbie_d Quote
So basically:

People who haven't used one and say negative things = unreasonable and incorrect
People who haven't used one and say positive things = reasonable and correct

Awesome.
Isn't it indeed.

Leonard Nimoy has just phoned me complaining that he now realises that for all those years he's been playing an inferior character!
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!
camera, kit, lens, mirrorless, pentax, pentax q, pentax q10, pentax q7, price, q10, q7, viewfinder
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Pentax SMC 200mm A* f2.8 Pricing advice LennyBloke Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 2 09-08-2011 06:56 AM
Pentax K7 Pricing A.M.92 Pentax DSLR Discussion 5 01-22-2011 10:19 AM
USA Pricing vs Canada Pricing Babbs Pentax DSLR Discussion 4 11-18-2010 05:27 PM
no pricing of pentax lens in B&H catalog cyy47 Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 4 11-05-2009 09:19 PM
Help pricing a Pentax H2 Stephanie Pentax Film SLR Discussion 14 11-05-2009 11:46 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:06 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