Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
01-28-2016, 09:10 AM   #151
Site Supporter
CWRailman's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Scottsdale, Arizona
Photos: Albums
Posts: 504
QuoteOriginally posted by johnmflores Quote
That's not entirely true. Ricoh removed the "Ricoh" logo from the back of the K-3 II because of complaints from Pentaxicans.

So there is that. Fussing over the stuff most important to great photos....

John,

While I am sure the Pentaxicans would like to take credit for that change I have heard that it may have resulted from distributors reporting that store owners, especially those in North America, were wary about stocking a photographic product with the Ricoh name on it. They have a hard enough time selling anything with the Pentax name and did not want to devote shelf space to what would be viewed by the general public as a new untested product. If Ricoh wants to put their name on any photographic product (yes I know about their current line of cameras which have not sold) they have a lot of marketing issues to deal with before that becomes feasible and in this declining market that would be kin to naming a cruise ship the Titanic.

Besides I think there are enough folks still in the camera business that remember when Ricoh was involved in the 35mm camera market and how they just seemed to abandon the line and any customer support without much warning. Many camera stores, including several Chicago stores that I frequented at the time lost money when that happened.


Last edited by CWRailman; 01-28-2016 at 09:20 AM.
01-28-2016, 09:47 AM - 1 Like   #152
Senior Member




Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Hamburg
Posts: 287
QuoteOriginally posted by Tony Belding Quote
This is why I've suggested multiple Q models with different price points, form factors and feature sets.

However... Realistically, the Q doesn't seem destined to become a major product line for Pentax, or at least not any time soon. Their situation is different from Olympus or Fujifilm, where mirrorless cameras are the mainstay of their business.
Absolutely. Count me in. I'll have my Q well done with a beefy battery, evf and a side order of a 300mm lens
01-28-2016, 01:06 PM   #153
New Member




Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 9
QuoteOriginally posted by eyeswideshut Quote
Sorry, but even something as innocuous as an EVF has its detractors. :-(


Majority seems to agree on the need to keep the Q small. This is its primary appeal, and a quality/characteristic that defines the product.


A high resolution screen would not alienate anyone. A new stacked sensor with on chip phase detection, would be welcome by everyone as well. Same goes for improvements in software, ...to make the camera snappy, with high
burst rates, super fast autofocus. There is room for improvement here, btw.


And finally lenses. New lenses are always welcome by everyone, old customers and new.
For me a small sized medium telephoto prime lens, please. Anything in the 70-100 mm range, and relatively fast so that low light, indoor photography is possible. A 90mm f.1.8-2.0- ish lens perhaps?
The Q line of lenses is missing a small sized prime medium telephoto offering. The zooms are
too large and too slow for indoors candid photography- my favorite with the small Q.

Last edited by Quser215; 01-28-2016 at 01:12 PM.
01-28-2016, 02:15 PM   #154
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: South Bend, IN, USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,982
QuoteOriginally posted by Quser215 Quote
Anything in the 70-100 mm range, and relatively fast so that low light, indoor photography is possible. A 90mm f.1.8-2.0- ish lens perhaps?
The Q line of lenses is missing a small sized prime medium telephoto offering. The zooms are
too large and too slow for indoors candid photography- my favorite with the small Q.
An actual 70-100mm lens on a Q would give roughly the same view that a 330-470mm lens would give on a 35mm camera.

Are you asking for an actual 15-22mm lens for the Q, which would give roughly the same view that a 70-100mm lens would give on a 35mm camera?

In actual practice, I have found the 06 lens, F/2.8 for 15-45mm (roughly equivalent to 70mm-210mm on a 35mm camera) provides plenty of telephoto for me in most cases when I'm indoors; its not that big - in fact, it is often in my jacket pocket when I go to church.

01-28-2016, 03:25 PM   #155
New Member




Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 9
QuoteOriginally posted by reh321 Quote
An actual 70-100mm lens on a Q would give roughly the same view that a 330-470mm lens would give on a 35mm camera.

Are you asking for an actual 15-22mm lens for the Q, which would give roughly the same view that a 70-100mm lens would give on a 35mm camera?


In actual practice, I have found the 06 lens, F/2.8 for 15-45mm (roughly equivalent to 70mm-210mm on a 35mm camera) provides plenty of telephoto for me in most cases when I'm indoors; its not that big - in fact, it is often in my jacket pocket when I go to church.


Yes that is what I meant, a prime lens equivalent to 70-100mm.


The 06 lens Zoom is the largest lens in the Q lineup. Its not that large
compared to other format lenses, but it nullifies the Q's small size advantage.
In makes an otherwise conspicuous camera very visible.


A small prime lens in the specified focal length would complement Q's
advantage of small size. The 01 is tiny. A 70-100mm prime would not
be much bigger. F2.8 is slow. In poorly lit situations I frequently find it
inadequate. I do shoot with the smaller sensor original Q. The Q7, QS-1
are somewhat better I am sure.


I find it strange that a small, spy-like camera, ideal for candid
photography (!) does not have a lens that would allow
a decent photo of ones subject from a few feet away, indoors,
and in low light, ...without nullifying the candidness aspect/quality.
The Q with the 06 lens is no longer a very candid camera.
01-28-2016, 05:45 PM   #156
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: South Bend, IN, USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,982
Apparently, the Panasonic GX8 has a burst rate of 30 fps, so it must scan its sensor at a much faster speed than the 1/13-th second required by Q bodies. I don't know what the downside of that kind of sensor would be, but that sounds like a very good "under the covers" improvement to me.
01-28-2016, 07:04 PM - 1 Like   #157
Loyal Site Supporter
monochrome's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Kirkwood (St. Louis) MO
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 20,424
QuoteOriginally posted by Tony Belding Quote
However... Realistically, the Q doesn't seem destined to become a major product line for Pentax, or at least not any time soon. Their situation is different from Olympus or Fujifilm, where mirrorless cameras are the mainstay of their business.
Funny that. Two years ago Jim Malcolm was saying Pentax considered Q their 'Growth' line of cameras.

Last edited by monochrome; 01-29-2016 at 04:44 AM.
01-29-2016, 06:40 AM   #158
Pentaxian




Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Hamilton, Texas
Photos: Albums
Posts: 647
QuoteOriginally posted by monochrome Quote
Funny that. Two years ago Jim Malcolm was saying Pentax considered Q their 'Growth' line of cameras.
I would love for that to be the case, but. . . The 645Z has been a huge hit for Pentax. The coming full-frame unit and its associated lenses have been getting huge attention. And what have we seen for the Q line? The last new thing was the Q-S1 which is basically just a Q7 in an ugly shell.

This is not what one expects from the "growth" line of cameras.

01-29-2016, 08:40 AM   #159
Site Supporter
CWRailman's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Scottsdale, Arizona
Photos: Albums
Posts: 504
QuoteOriginally posted by tony belding Quote
and what have we seen for the q line? The last new thing was the q-s1 which is basically just a q7 in an ugly shell.

This is not what one expects from the "growth" line of cameras.
Agree 100%
01-29-2016, 01:16 PM   #160
Site Supporter
CWRailman's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Scottsdale, Arizona
Photos: Albums
Posts: 504
QuoteOriginally posted by patarok Quote
You are sure, you are on the right forum? fujiforumsDOTcom???

No, honestly: look:
Full Frame- Market Launch 2015 - RIAC Community

Than FYI: Some companies have contracts with persons which read forums and news for them to gain feedback about what users want, expect or like.

And as you missed the timespan to have a word on what we may see in a FF DSLR, you may want to take your chances for:
Full-Frame Lenses Wishlist - RIAC Community

spare yourself sophistic argumenting against the wishes or expectations of others and just post which lenses you would like to see.
As you may be able to imagine, nobody who evaluates such a wishlist for RICOH will read sophistic arguments on why fuji is better or why the guy who posted before is a totall silly bloke... just not interesting.

if you want to take part, just let us know which lenses you want to see.

FYIA, "http://community.us.ricoh-imaging.com" is a forum that is run by RICOH Imaging directly...

Though your presentation left a lot to be desired, normally I would agree with some of your comments. But in this case I don’t think stroking Pentax’s ego will benefit any of it’s customers. They need a boot in the rear to get them motivated to provide state of the art products that are better, not equal but better, than the competition. Then they need to market those products and make them available for their faithful followers to see, hold and test before committing to a purchase. Pentax fails in all counts.If this was a car race they would be black flagged off the course.

Ever since I found the Q series of cameras I have been a supporter of the line. Not only have I purchased and owned 7 of the little buggers, in the third of my blogs about that series featuring one of the Q10’s I gave away as Christmas presents,titled “Ol’Harold Shoots the Nakomis General Store with a Pentax Q10” you will see one of the strengths of using the Q and find links to my other blogs demonstrating and supporting the Q series. You will also see a link to the Gallery of images I shot with a Q10 at the Scottsdale Model Railroad club. I Googled and could not find your blog on any of those cameras. Did you write one andif so where was it posted?

While I did my best to support that line I have since found that some of those who read my blog and attempted to find any of the Q series at their local camera stores found that here in North America Drug dealers advertise better and are easier to find than Pentax cameras. This is one reason I am critical of Pentax and their marketing processes. You can wish and hope and dream about future products and include such in your letters to Santa and they may or may not come true but in order for Pentax to have the resources to develop any additional products for the Q series they need to see some profits from that line. They will not see profits if potential customers do not have access to the product.

While it is not my forte, there are shooters on this board that have posted some amazing bird photo’s. I asked two of my friends who are very active in the bird watching hobby and neither have ever heard of anyone using a Pentax Q for birding. When I sent them links to some of the images they thought the photo’s were good but wondered why they had never read about this option. Why has Pentax not made a big deal about this? Another opportunity to do business has been missed.

Currently when I think about the Q it reminds me of turning down a road and seeing a DEAD END sign. You’re not sure if you will get to your destination before getting to the end of the road. I think others have the same vision and that is why many of them have moved on to other brands. Pentax doesn’t need stroking, they need to be kicked back into action.
01-29-2016, 02:12 PM   #161
New Member




Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 9
QuoteOriginally posted by Quser215 Quote
Yes that is what I meant, a prime lens equivalent to 70-100mm.


I find it strange that a small, spy-like camera, ideal for candid
photography (!) does not have a lens that would allow
a decent photo of ones subject from a few feet away, indoors,
and in low light, ...without nullifying the candidness aspect/quality.
The Q with the 06 lens is no longer a very candid camera.


Here is an example.
This was done with the 01 prime. Good picture but required much too close contact (this is a cropped of course)
Attached Images
View Picture EXIF
PENTAX Q  Photo 

Last edited by Quser215; 01-29-2016 at 11:33 PM.
01-29-2016, 03:40 PM   #162
Loyal Site Supporter
monochrome's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Kirkwood (St. Louis) MO
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 20,424
@CWRailman. How much more money are you willing to spend on Q cameras and lenses in order to receive that which you believe you need (none of which is actually related to images whatsoever)?

Go buy the stuff that advertises and markets if it will make you happy.
01-29-2016, 05:17 PM   #163
Site Supporter
CWRailman's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Scottsdale, Arizona
Photos: Albums
Posts: 504
QuoteOriginally posted by monochrome Quote
@CWRailman. How much more money are you willing to spend on Q cameras and lenses in order to receive that which you believe you need (none of which is actually related to images whatsoever)?

Go buy the stuff that advertises and markets if it will make you happy.
I buy the stuff that the manufactures demonstrate and support. While we purchased 7 Q series cameras in 2014,
These are the cameras that I purchased in 2015 for testing and evaluating and are still here. The 4/3 Panasonic 20mm lens and the Olympus 45mm lens have already been resold but the others remain so far. My review of the Fuji line has not yet been published on my WEB site.

01-29-2016, 05:43 PM   #164
Loyal Site Supporter
monochrome's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Kirkwood (St. Louis) MO
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 20,424
So how much more money are you willing to spend on Q cameras and lenses so Pentax can
  • Finance the Dealer inventory
  • Leave margin for salesperson commission
  • Pay direct sales reps to support Dealers
  • Pay for demo product
  • Pay for trade shows
  • Pay for print ads
  • Pay for local broadcast Co-op ads
  • Pay for online media marketing consultant
  • Pay for more Pentax HQ staff to support sales and marketing efforts
  • Pay for domestic product inventory to supply small Dealer orders
  • Pay to sell volume lots ar a loss or B/E in Big Box chains
I'm sure there's something I haven't thought of. My point is, everyone who perpetually calls for Pentax to be more like another brand has to also describe how much more money they're willing to pay for a Pentax product so other people can see all the marketing.
01-29-2016, 06:29 PM   #165
Site Supporter
CWRailman's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Scottsdale, Arizona
Photos: Albums
Posts: 504
QuoteOriginally posted by monochrome Quote
So how much more money are you willing to spend on Q cameras and lenses so Pentax can
  • Finance the Dealer inventory
  • Leave margin for salesperson commission
  • Pay direct sales reps to support Dealers
  • Pay for demo product
  • Pay for trade shows
  • Pay for print ads
  • Pay for local broadcast Co-op ads
  • Pay for online media marketing consultant
  • Pay for more Pentax HQ staff to support sales and marketing efforts
  • Pay for domestic product inventory to supply small Dealer orders
  • Pay to sell volume lots ar a loss or B/E in Big Box chains
I'm sure there's something I haven't thought of. My point is, everyone who perpetually calls for Pentax to be more like another brand has to also describe how much more money they're willing to pay for a Pentax product so other people can see all the marketing.
That is not how sales and marketing works. Whether you are making golf clubs, motorcycles, cameras cars or whatever, the company has to invest heavily into marketing. Why do you think golf club manufactures pay pros to use and support their products? In this case Pentax has to spend money to tell the world about it's product so the world can beat a path to it's door. But in reality if marketing is done correctly it does not take much money. They could develop a series of web based tutorials having some well known photographer demonstrate the benefits of using the Q. Google Damien Lovegrove to see his use of Fuji products. He used to be a Canon shooter. What about a Pentax sponsored YouTube video demonstrating how the Q series can be used for birding or whatever that is called. That would cost them absolutely nothing. Heck I have a few non photography related videos on Youtube and all it cost me was the time to put them together.

Fuji has the Fuji guys and both Olympus and Panasonic have presence on Youtube. What does Pentax have? Yes occasionally they have found a spokesperson in Blunty and he does support the product but where's Pentax's involvement. Do they really care about marketing their products? It almost seems like they are trying to hide them.

A major manufacture does not wait for buyers to commit money before they manufacture a product. That is not how it works. If it did there would be no losses in business and as you know, businesses fail every day and much of that failure can be attributed to lack of marketing or marketing a product that is not up to standards with what others are selling. While other companies invest money into development and marketing, Pentax waits to see what works then comes out with their own version. Case in point. When Olympus came out with the very popular OM-1 that took the industry by storm back around 1972 and it was selling like ice in the desert, based on the success of that downsized light weight body Pentax then came out with the MX. That is how they have worked for years. Why didn't they think of that first? And when they do come out with an innovative product like their 110 or now the Q series they fail to market it and it just dies. From what I have been told, back in the late 1960's Pentax had great communication with the stores and their products were on the shelves of most photo stores here in North America but that fell apart and now most store owners are not willing to devote shelf space to a product that is not advertised or properly marketed. They do not want to become the spokes person for the Pentax product line. How did that happen? Simple! Pentax quit marketing and the result was that they lost market share.
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!
bigma, camera, focus, high-iso, k-3, lens, lenses, mirrorless, pentax, pentax news, pentax q, pentax q10, pentax q7, pentax rumors, phase, phase detection, pixels, profile, q-s1, q10, q7, sensor
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Rumor: Pentax FF new Limited lenses coming soon? Stavri Pentax News and Rumors 253 09-27-2015 10:40 AM
New Pentax leaf shutter 645 medium format lenses coming soon i83N Pentax News and Rumors 73 10-03-2014 08:03 AM
New soon-to-be Q owner Soul_Est Welcomes and Introductions 4 06-05-2013 12:21 AM
First signs of upcoming Pentax K-3 appearing... JohnBee Pentax News and Rumors 183 09-06-2012 08:20 AM
K20D will be replaced very soon? (Signs of..) RiceHigh Pentax News and Rumors 127 09-17-2008 01:16 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:12 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