Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
01-29-2016, 06:55 PM   #166
Loyal Site Supporter
monochrome's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Kirkwood (St. Louis) MO
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 20,423
That's decidedly how marketing cameras works in the CaNikon world. Canon and Nikon finance the Dealers and offer commission bonuses to salespersons. Pentax wouldn't do that in the 70's, 80's, 90's and they won't do it now. That's why they can't get in stores - they won't buy their way in. Pentax made a major effort to gain distributions in 2014, showing a complete marketing plan with higher margins at lower volume. Dealers demanded Credit, which Pentax will not offer - and they net lost Dealers.

Do you really think a few YouTube videos unsupported by real marketing makes any difference at all? Do you really think Pentax is totally benighted? Jim Malcolm is President of PMDA. Do you really think he's a talentless hack? That's what your post infers.

Pentax doesn't want everybody to beat a path to it's door right now. They're not ready. They're intentionally letting the big guys suffer losses due to underutilized capacity and a stuffed inventory channel. In North America Hoya so completely destroyed the infrastructure and sales channel that the choices are: 1) invest massive corporate money and suffer large losses for several years or; 2) use existing cash flow to build incrementally, but take longer to rebuild scale. They're actually doing much better than they were even two years ago.

We can't compare them to Canon or Nikon or Sony, or even Fuji, Oly or Panny. Pentax is not a global brand. It is Japan and the Pacific Rim, with a strong presence in France and a consolidated operation in the rest of the EU. In the USA right now they're primarily internet sales. They really don't have a presence to market.

And I'll ask again, how much more money per camera and lens would you pay to build the market awareness for Pentax?


Last edited by monochrome; 01-30-2016 at 06:40 AM.
01-29-2016, 06:59 PM - 1 Like   #167
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: South Bend, IN, USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,982
QuoteOriginally posted by CWRailman Quote
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.
I'm not sure which is "chicken" and which is "egg" in this discussion. A year or so ago, just about the time I started thinking seriously about replacing my Canon Rebel with a Pentax K, Target stopped carrying the K-50; I assume their sales were poor. If you go to almost any camera store or big box store in my area today, you will see three sections - one carrying point-and-shoot / compact / bridge cameras, mostly all Canikon, one carrying Nikon DSLR's, and one carrying Canon DSLR's.The last camera my Dad bought for my Mom (he died 2-1/2 years ago) was a Lumix; he would have trouble doing that today because there are very few stores that carry anything other than Canikon of any sort. I'm not sure how Pentax might address this virtual oligopoly, because I believe consumers are as complicit as are sellers (assuming Target dropped the K-50 because of low sales); this seems to be a problem for Sony in most stores as well as for Olympus, Panasonic, and for all Pentax models, not just the Q family. I had planned to get a silver/black Q-7, but I ended up with a yellow/black one because I got a really good deal on a used-like-new one via Amazon; I got my blue K-30 (I had planned on getting a white K-50) because I got a really good deal on a used-like-new one from KEH. Perhaps my best hope of buying a K-anything from a store would have involved driving three hours south to Roberts (and once I was going on-line, KEH was cheaper than Roberts, who was even higher than B&H on-line).

QuoteOriginally posted by CWRailman Quote
While it is not my forte, there are shooters on this board that have posted some amazing bird photo’s.
QuoteOriginally posted by CWRailman Quote
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.
My wife is a birder. My reason for buying a Q-7 was my seeing an opportunity to use it for birding, as well as replacing my aging Canon Elph pocket-able camera. I was originally inspired by those who use the Canon SX-50 (and now the Nikon P900) for birding. However, using a Q-7 that way is much more difficult than it looks. Getting a long lens that resolves down to the Q-7 sensor is not easy, and if you're going to buy the $$$$ Sigma that some are using, you wonder why you didn't buy a whole car-load of P900's with the money (and just one P900 or SX-50 is much smaller than the hoodman + Q-7 + adapter + K-mount lens). I probably need to set up some kind of test range in my back yard, rather than waiting for the right conditions to attract real birds. I believe there are combinations of less expensive lenses + settings that will produce good images, but this project has turned out to be much more difficult than I had imagined. This is why I and others keep agitating for an EVF (despite its being a "dead horse") - the whole process using just the LCD to sight and then manually focus is tricky - and a native long zoom lens. If Pentax packaged a Q-S2 (my imaginary Q with an EVF) plus a native long zoom lens as a birding kit, that would make sense; trying to sell some combination of currently-available gear to the average birder seems like a working definition of futility to me.

Last edited by reh321; 01-29-2016 at 07:20 PM. Reason: added thought
01-29-2016, 07:34 PM   #168
Loyal Site Supporter
monochrome's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Kirkwood (St. Louis) MO
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 20,423
QuoteQuote:
@reh321 RE: packaging a 'Reach' kit:
A group of Forum members had a web conference with Jim Malcolm about Q a couple years ago (thread here). One thing we suggested was a kit of the Q, RedDot Sight from sport optics, the Converter and option to add a Da*300. He said marketers call that an aspirational bundle and marketers do those as one-off deals with an inventory budget and some advertising. They actually showed the bundle at B&H and the Webstore! I don't know how well they sold but no second issue says something.

I think they've tried a lot of the things we ask for and they just can't get traction. The market is poisoned.

Last edited by monochrome; 01-30-2016 at 06:38 AM.
01-29-2016, 08:06 PM   #169
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: South Bend, IN, USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,982
QuoteOriginally posted by monochrome Quote
@reh321 RE: packaging a 'Reach' kit:

A group of Forum members had a web conference with Jim Malcolm about Q a couple years ago (thread here). One thing we suggested was a kit of the Q, RedDot Sight from sport optics, the Converter and option to add. Da*300. He said marketers call that an aspirational bundle and marketers do those as one-off deals with an inventory budget and some advertising. They actually showed the bundle at B&H and the Webstore! I don't know how well they sold but no second issue says something.

I think they've tried a lot of the things we ask for and they just can't get traction. The market is poisoned.
I doubt if I would buy that kit. The lens is larger than it needs to be, and doesn't provide zoom, auto-focus or other communication with the body (*). You still have to use the mediocre LCD. Still not something I would want to try to sell in competition with a P900 or SX-50.

(*) another "complaint" of mine is that the official Pentax K-to-Q adapter is over-priced for what it provides (I did finally buy one one at the PF Market at a reduced price). A good converter would allow the body to communicate with / control a modern K-mount lens as well as it does with a Q-mount lens.

01-29-2016, 08:24 PM   #170
Loyal Site Supporter
monochrome's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Kirkwood (St. Louis) MO
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 20,423
I have the converter. It is certainly over engineered. Does any adapter communicate with a body that sends focus-by-wire signals to an electronic lens, especially when the native lenses are leaf shutter lenses but the adapted lenses demand the adapter have a shutter?

From the Q Reach thread it is shown the Da*300 gives the sharpest images of the long lenses tested. In reality mounting a FF lens to a Q is a lark, not a real reach solution, but where else can I get 1000mm reach for a few hundred dollars and lenses I already own?

I'm no expert but I can't imagine solving these problems affordably.

QuoteOriginally posted by reh321 Quote
I doubt if I would buy that kit. The lens is larger than it needs to be, and doesn't provide zoom, auto-focus or other communication with the body (*). You still have to use the mediocre LCD. Still not something I would want to try to sell in competition with a P900 or SX-50.

(*) another "complaint" of mine is that the official Pentax K-to-Q adapter is over-priced for what it provides (I did finally buy one one at the PF Market at a reduced price). A good converter would allow the body to communicate with / control a modern K-mount lens as well as it does with a Q-mount lens.
01-29-2016, 08:54 PM   #171
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: South Bend, IN, USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,982
QuoteOriginally posted by monochrome Quote
I have the converter. It is certainly over engineered. Does any adapter communicate with a body that sends focus-by-wire signals to an electronic lens, especially when the native lenses are leaf shutter lenses but the adapted lenses demand the adapter have a shutter?
Not that I know of ... but this sub-thread began when CWRailman talked about difficulties in selling a Q-7 solution to regular birders - who are more interested in the birds than in the adventure in photographing them. I feel that any solution involving K-mount lenses would be hard to sell to them (because of size, if nothing else), and the adapter is just one dimension of that problem. Remember that my best solution involves the native Q-mount long zoom lens that I've been asking for because of this very application.
01-29-2016, 09:01 PM   #172
Loyal Site Supporter
monochrome's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Kirkwood (St. Louis) MO
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 20,423
Well, yeah, a complete native Q ecology is the best solution. In the thread I linked Pentax said (at the time in spring 2013) that was the plan for Q.
01-29-2016, 09:46 PM   #173
Pentaxian
johnmflores's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Somerville, NJ
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,185
QuoteOriginally posted by reh321 Quote
Not that I know of ... but this sub-thread began when CWRailman talked about difficulties in selling a Q-7 solution to regular birders - who are more interested in the birds than in the adventure in photographing them. I feel that any solution involving K-mount lenses would be hard to sell to them (because of size, if nothing else), and the adapter is just one dimension of that problem. Remember that my best solution involves the native Q-mount long zoom lens that I've been asking for because of this very application.
My wife is a birder. There's a clear distinction between birders and bird photographers and sometimes animosity between them, with birders accusing bird photographers of disrupting birds in order to get the photo. I remember going with my wife to try to see a snowy owl, which is rare in NJ. We kept our distance and stayed off the dunes and were rewarded with a sighting. While were enjoying the view, a bird photographer with a giant white Canon lens was trudging across the dunes and scaring the owl. Made me ashamed to be a photographer.

This distinction is important, as the birders that I've seen are perfectly happy using a small-sensor superzoom to document the birds that they see. They aren't after ultimate IQ. On the other hand, the bird photographers that I've seen are in pursuit of magazine-worthy IQ and willing to carry giant lenses to get it.

The Q, unfortunately, falls somewhere in between, too complex (with adapters and manual focus of adapted lenses) for birders and not perceived to be high quality enough for bird photographers (or fast enough for BIF).

Would a long native zoom help? Good question. We'd have to ask Nikon how the 1 system + 70-300mm native zoom (~810mm EQ) is doing. I know that I haven't seen one in public, but that's a sample size of 1.

01-29-2016, 10:02 PM - 1 Like   #174
Loyal Site Supporter
Pioneer's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Elko, Nevada
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,231
Not at all interested in a new full frame but a new Q, along with some additional glass, will definitely get my attention.
01-31-2016, 03:12 AM - 2 Likes   #175
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Flyover America
Posts: 4,475
QuoteOriginally posted by johnmflores Quote
The Q, unfortunately, falls somewhere in between, too complex (with adapters and manual focus of adapted lenses) for birders and not perceived to be high quality enough for bird photographers (or fast enough for BIF).
My ultimate, hypothetical, "birding" camera for my purposes -

-Imagine a K5 but with a EVF and focus peaking with a 1 inch sensor - done.
It doesn't take rocket science to get what I want - just shake and bake what is already out there.

So far as birding/photography ethics are concerned - wildlife of any kind exists for it's own sake not mine. If I can't be more or less transparent to a bird I leave. That's an absolute for me.

Last edited by wildman; 02-22-2016 at 10:50 AM.
01-31-2016, 09:03 PM   #176
Senior Member




Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Western Australia
Photos: Albums
Posts: 173
QuoteOriginally posted by monochrome Quote

In reality mounting a FF lens to a Q is a lark, not a real reach solution, but where else can I get 1000mm reach for a few hundred dollars and lenses I already own?

I'm no expert but I can't imagine solving these problems affordably.
And therein lies the problem of marketing a Q 'reach' kit, the Q is really only viable as an affordable telephoto system if you have the lenses already.
01-31-2016, 10:24 PM   #177
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: South Bend, IN, USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,982
QuoteOriginally posted by Dieseler Quote
And therein lies the problem of marketing a Q 'reach' kit, the Q is really only viable as an affordable telephoto system if you have the lenses already.
If you look at the size and price of an SX-60 or a P900, there is no reason why a native Q 50-300mm (or some such thing) should be very large or very costly.
02-01-2016, 06:37 AM   #178
Senior Member
Erich_H's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2012
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 134
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....
And that would make the K3 a collector's item in the future:
The only "real" Pentax w/Ricoh logo.... (not counting p&s)

Thanks/Erik

Last edited by Erich_H; 02-01-2016 at 06:44 AM.
02-02-2016, 02:06 PM   #179
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: mid nth coast,nsw
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,122
some WILD ! shots there Wildman!


@ Dieseler...
QuoteOriginally posted by Dieseler Quote
the Q is really only viable as an affordable telephoto system if you have the lenses already.

sorry, I think it is viable ....all one has to do is find well looked after old AND cheap glass....for example, $5 for a mint adaptall 2... 80/210 in an op shop...also tokina 100/300(2nd on review list) $25 ....both these are aussie dollars....Q and Q10s are coming up regularly on gumtree and ebay $100-200(depending what AF lenses come with them)....my opinion is that's a cheeeeeep telephoto system
02-02-2016, 03:22 PM   #180
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: South Bend, IN, USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,982
QuoteOriginally posted by surfar Quote
some WILD ! shots there Wildman!

@ Dieseler...

sorry, I think it is viable ....all one has to do is find well looked after old AND cheap glass....for example, $5 for a mint adaptall 2... 80/210 in an op shop...also tokina 100/300(2nd on review list) $25 ....both these are aussie dollars....Q and Q10s are coming up regularly on gumtree and ebay $100-200(depending what AF lenses come with them)....my opinion is that's a cheeeeeep telephoto system
Unless the 80-210 is much better than the 60-300 virtually mint Adaptall 23A (which had an excellent reputation for sharpness) tested yesterday, and reported on as #34 in my "Baby Steps" thread, it will be "cheap" in the worst sense of the word. Unfortunately, in my experience most older glass does not resolve down to the small pixels on a Q sensor; in essence, each light beam is too fat, so it hits multiple pixels, and we don't get the detail that a Q should be capable of getting. That is why I keep asking for a long native Q lens, which would meet Q sensor needs.

wildman, of course, is using serious (in both capability and cost) glass in his efforts. In some sense that would be nice to have, but I wouldn't want to drag that down any of the trails my wife and I hike on as she looks for birds.
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 02:13 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