[monochrome]

Ricoh does have a plan, they are competent to execute the plan, are doing so now and I am confident they will realize their vision. The debatable portions of the Sig Tag I have used since December, 2011 are the admonition to be of good cheer and the statement that (one / we) will be happy. I can know what I know, which is principally corporate strategy insight; I can suggest that people stop hanging on to the past because it is surely gone and will not be restored; but I cannot know what will make any person happy. To those who cannot be made happy by whatever Ricoh does with Pentax it is crazy to continue to rail and complain and expect a different outcome. Doing so defines insanity.

If Canon really makes a better lens at a lower price, sell your Pentax gear, buy Canon, move on and be happy.

Here in general, with some specialized information and some consistent observation, is what I discern Ricoh plan to be:

1. For the most part, evolve the product line constantly but offer few groundbreaking introductions. Over the long term in a maturing product, compound evolution gets much more total growth than attempting breakthroughs
2. Expand their presence in their portion of the professional market.
   1. That does not necessarily mean Full Frame - it can mean 645
   2. Ricoh is committed to 645
3. Remain committed to K-mount with Pentax-branded dSLR's
   1. That can mean all the Pentax pixie dust we know - in APSc, at least.
   2. The jury is out on FF - I have no idea.
4. Remain committed to Q as their growth system
   1. We didn't expect 1/1.7 and we don't know what else to expect from Q
5. Develop the Ricoh brand with new technology
   1. If I had to guess I would say this will be their mirrorless brand, their Fuji competitor
      1. If the rumored "A" mount is real I would have to guess it will be Ricoh-branded
6. Competing effectively in Developed Markets (US/EU) is farther away than we would like
   1. There are both financial and cultural impediments to making the necessary investment, especially in the USA. Pricing decisions that we see we only see from our perspective. We've seen what price competition did to the entire global distribution chain when B&H can ship anywhere on earth at UPS delivery time. The EU and AUS and Canada basically forced Pentax USA to raise prices to protect their own turf. Pentax lost nothing in Ritz Camera and they're not offering Dealer Credit yet that I've heard - which is the important part of B&M distribution. Ricoh won't let go of the capital unitl 2014 at the earliest.
   2. OTOH there are financial and cultural benefits to investing in Asia and specifically Japan
7. Ricoh / Pentax cameras and lenses will be an alternative to Canon/Nikon/Sony, not another Canon/Nikon/Sony. We have to choose Pentax.

Lastly, Ricoh's timetable is likely not in harmony with our timetable. The parent company is still restoring its balance sheet from the 2011 earnings loss - the first ever since Ricoh became a public company - according to a financial recovery strategy that was planned to last through 03/2014. It is well established in the investment community that should Ricoh choose to make the necessary investment to rapidly gather market share in digital cameras it would threaten the earnings thesis now in place and negatively impact the stock price.

That is reality.

There is a plan. The outcome will be good. It may not be exactly what we want and certainly won't be what Pentax once was. It will take longer than we would like. The end result will be unique.

But since good for me might not be good for you - well, many will disagree and some will move on.

In the end you are correct - we cannot agree on nor can we debate "Good." It is subjective. Therefore we cannot really define Better nor Best - we cannot agree in advance on the Standard.

All that being said - good things are coming this fall. Some of us will think they are better than others do, but they are undeniably good.

I choose to be an optimist.

---

Last edited by monochrome; 09-04-2013 at 05:01 PM.

[Colbyt]

Good post fuent104.

But least anyone think is unheard of for a 50mm 1.8 lens to sell at this price. The Canon 50mm 1.8 was offered today on Ebay for $100.82 with free shipping. Looks like it sold out as the offer is now pulled.

[Aristophanes]

Who cares about happy or corporate plans? It's about the price and value. Ricoh could be staffed by Einsteins but they, as a bottom shelf product line (which they are at my nationwide chain that doesn't even stick the Q), will get zero exposure (sic) if they price stupidly.

Their plan is no different than a butcher. Try a high price and call it filet mignon, and if it don't sell, drop prices until product moves. But don't lay some mumbo jumbo about how Ricoh is pricing itself so as not to attract customers. That's just silly talk.

[monochrome]

Who cares about happy or corporate plans? It's about the price and value. Ricoh could be staffed by Einsteins but they, as a bottom shelf product line (which they are at my nationwide chain that doesn't even stick the Q), will get zero exposure (sic) if they price stupidly.

Their plan is no different than a butcher. Try a high price and call it filet mignon, and if it don't sell, drop prices until product moves. But don't lay some mumbo jumbo about how Ricoh is pricing itself so as not to attract customers. That's just silly talk.

Quoth the master. Fly on over to Japan and teach them some business sense and take the right inputs while you're going.

[thornburg]

Good post fuent104.

But least anyone think is unheard of for a 50mm 1.8 lens to sell at this price. The Canon 50mm 1.8 was offered today on Ebay for $100.82 with free shipping. Looks like it sold out as the offer is now pulled.

The Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 is available every day of every week for less than $130.

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II Lens, USA Warranty 2514A002
Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II Autofocus Lens 2514A002 B&H Photo Video
Amazon.com: Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II Camera Lens: CANON: Camera & Photo

Those are new, full warranty, etc.

If you're willing to grey market, it's even cheaper:
Amazon.com: Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II Standard AutoFocus Lens - Gray Market: Camera & Photo

It's optically superior, and full frame. Why should I pay $50-$100 more for a Pentax's inferior APS-C only 50mm?


I know anecdotal evidence has limited value, but let me tell you a story:

A friend of mine who does lots of film photography has been considering getting a DSLR for about a year now. I talked to him about it repeatedly, and was asked for advice. Budget was one of his biggest concerns, and their was a strict limit on the total cost of camera + 2 lenses (or so).
The advice I gave him included the following: Because you shoot a lot of manual focus film cameras, and good manual focus lenses are so widely available and so cheap, buy a Pentax. It's the only brand where you can mount a lens from 1978 and get the same functionality you did on the film camera it originally came from.

His response was that the one autofocus lens he really wanted was a fast prime. Various discussion ensued. In the end, the Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 was what made him buy a Canon camera instead of Pentax. He chose not to get a Sony or a Four Thirds camera because their low light performance is not as good--I don't remember why Nikon wasn't chosen.

If Pentax had a cheap fast prime, I think they could have won him over. Instead he bought a Rebel.

The unwashed masses won't do research before buying, they're going to just buy a Canon or Nikon (or *maybe* Sony). The people who do actually do research may or may not even consider Pentax. If they do consider Pentax, Ricoh had better hope that what they want is great small prime lenses for an average of $700 each. Either that or a weather resistant camera with a simple zoom (18-55 or 18-135). Those are the two markets where Pentax makes sense right now. Anyone else should be buying some other brand.

The only ones left fighting for Ricoh are die-hard fans. Unless they come up with a better strategy, the Pentax brand is going to slowly fade away and die.

[Uluru]

Watched pot never boils.

[IchabodCrane]

The Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 is available every day of every week for less than $130.
...

It's optically superior, and full frame. Why should I pay $50-$100 more for a Pentax's inferior APS-C only 50mm?
...

Why, you ask? Because you don't get image stabilization with this cheap Canon prime. In this day and age, why settle for such antiquated technology?

[Aristophanes]

Why, you ask? Because you don't get image stabilization with this cheap Canon prime. In this day and age, why settle for such antiquated technology?

So they are both lenses without stabilizing in the lens. Then why the huge price difference? Especially for an APS-C lens?

Don't forget there was over 150 years of photography before stabilization.

[thornburg]

Why, you ask? Because you don't get image stabilization with this cheap Canon prime. In this day and age, why settle for such antiquated technology?

Ha ha.

If you read photography recommendations, the primary advantage to having in body stabilization is that your lenses don't need OS/IS/VR, so they're cheaper. This fails for Pentax in two ways. First, they charge more for similar lenses than Canon. Second, third party manufacturers (Sigma/Tamron) tend to charge the exact same price for the Pentax/Sony model (with no stabilization) as they do for the Canon/Nikon model (with stabilization).

Additionally, you'll notice no one makes an image stabilized fast fifty. Why? Because you don't need IS on a 50mm lens with a fast aperture.

Don't get me wrong, Shake Reduction is a great feature, and I love that it works even with fully manual lenses (unlike Sony's SSS, which only works with lenses that report the focal length to the camera).

[Aristophanes]

Stabilization on any handheld glass is always a plus. Canon and Nikon don't offer it on their fast 50's because of the cost and bulk. Advantage Pentax.

The issue is that Pentax then flushes that advantage away with a massive, unjustifiable price difference. Maybe US$25 above the completion would be OK, but not $125. Telling potential Pentaxians they pay for in-body SR via 30% higher lens prices is stupid.

What Ricoh appears to be doing is making up for falling camera body revenues by ramping up glass. On the abstract this makes the total cost of ownership equal, until you want more, good glass. Then the curve gets so steep as to inhibit sales. It becomes more expensive to invest in brand Pentax.

At some point the FF creep downwards is going to force ALL APS-C supply towards a lower total cost if ownership on lenses and bodies both (and new WR flash units).

If prices are too high for Pentax only the competition can benefit. Correction coming. A lot of Japanese manufacturers are in la-la land denial these days and are getting a rude wake-up call (happened in printers about 4 years ago, ongoing slaughter on TV's, big changes in autos, audio is also retrenching, etc.).

[Aristophanes]

Here's the Pentax pricing issue at a glance:

Note the fast 50 from canon has no "higher" MSRP and discount philosophy:

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II Autofocus Lens 2514A002 B&H Photo Video

It's a simply US$125.

Now the Pentax:

Pentax smc DA 50mm f/1.8 Lens 22177 B&H Photo Video

NOte the "real" price supposedly at US$246 and change, and its markdown to US$181, still much more than the Canon.

Now the Nikon is pricier than both:

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 50mm f/1.8G Lens 2199 B&H Photo Video

But still no ridiculous MSRP above that.

And, of course, Nikon still has the older gen AF version at less than all of the above:

Nikon Normal AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D Autofocus Lens 2137 B&H Photo

but that model doesn't work on lower range screw drive Nikon models (5200, 3200 and earlier).

Still, you buy a Nikon D7200 you can get this lens for only US$109. Whereas if you buy a K-5ii you are out another US$70, making the entire Pentax package less affordable to many.

Price matters. Even the perception matters. Why Pentax has this sill MSRP at all is baffling. It's on their own US webstore as well.

[IchabodCrane]

It's limited to build an entire price comparison around one prime lens. Sure, the Pentax 50 mm at $181 is more than the Canon but really, is it that big a deal? It's not like we're paying $200 more for the thing. Besides, when you look at it from a low-light perspective, that Canon lens (Nikon, too) is equivalent to a Pentax at f4 or f5.

[thornburg]

It's limited to build an entire price comparison around one prime lens. Sure, the Pentax 50 mm at $181 is more than the Canon but really, is it that big a deal? It's not like we're paying $200 more for the thing. Besides, when you look at it from a low-light perspective, that Canon lens (Nikon, too) is equivalent to a Pentax at f4 or f5.

f/5? Really? Pentax may claim "up to 3 stops", but realistic use is more often about 1-1.5 stops. Or maybe you were including ISO noise performance? I might give you that one vs Canon, but not Nikon.

I've done plenty of low light indoor shooting, and I would take a Canon Rebel with 50mm 1.8 over a Pentax K50 with kit lens any day. The number of usable shots is at least 50% higher (I'm ignoring the zoom part, as it isn't relevant to the discussion).

Also, I'm not basing my whole comparison on one lens. It's just the one that angers me the most.

If I could afford to spend $500+ on individual lenses, it would probably piss me off even more that a Canon 28mm f/1.8 is $450 while the Pentax 31mm f/1.8 (the closest equivalent still made) is $1200.

The Canon 35mm f/2 is $300, while the Pentax is $400.

The Canon 85mm f/1.8 is $420, while the Pentax 85 isn't made anymore, and the 77mm f/1.8 (closest match) is $1000.

The Canon 20mm f/2.8 is $500, while the Pentax 21mm f/3.2 (again, closest still made) is $570, despite being slower, narrower, and APS-C only.

I've reached the conclusion that the reason Pentax makes strange focal length lenses is because they don't want direct comparisons to Canon/Nikon/Sony.


I'm not saying Pentax should be *cheaper* than Canon/Nikon. I'm saying that it's ridiculous that they charge such a huge premium, even on lowly plain DA lenses (no *, not limited, etc)

Also, why is it that nearly all modern Pentax bodies are weather-sealed, but only a very small fraction of lenses are available in WR versions? Are any of the limiteds WR? Any primes at all besides the 100 WR and the DA* 55?

(EDIT: Prices came straight from Amazon, sometimes rounding up, but never in Canon's favor)

[Aristophanes]

I think WR on fast focusing, quick shift, pancake primes is technically difficult. I think you might see a Pentax WR between the DA 21 and the 35 someday. I thought there might be an outside chance the DA 35 macro could for WR. Not so.

Pentax the brand does not have enough oomph to justify these high prices.

[IchabodCrane]

f/5? Really? Pentax may claim "up to 3 stops", but realistic use is more often about 1-1.5 stops. Or maybe you were including ISO noise performance? I might give you that one vs Canon, but not Nikon.

I wrote "f4 to f5", not "f5". For reference, f4 is 2.5 stops slower than f1.8 which is a not an unrealistic expectation with Pentax SR.


Here's one reference to a 2.5 to 4 stop improvement:

http://c758710.r10.cf2.rackcdn.com/files/support/manual/1327548737_All_Bodie...ion_012208.pdf


Here's one where they tested and obtained up to 4 stops:

Study of the Effectiveness of Shake Reduction in the Pentax K7


Do you have any references to a 1 to 1.5 stop improvement?