[Kunzite]

Absolutely. At best, Hoya was a caretaker, giving just enough to keep Pentaxians on the hook, but apparently the whole time shopping the camera division to whoever would buy it. And who could blame them? Pentax completely mis-played the digital camera age and ended up bleeding money and users. Still, I don't view much that Hoya did as worthwhile. The best thing to come out of them was the K5 and even then, the best thing about it was the fact that they actually got a cutting edge sensor from Sony (for once).

Actually Pentax was profitable before the hostile takeover, and starting to gain momentum with the K10D; they were also preparing DA* and DA Limited lenses, as well as the 645D.
After the takeover, Hoya managed to bring them to profit again, though via cost cutting.

[Clavius]

Absolutely. At best, Hoya was a caretaker, giving just enough to keep Pentaxians on the hook, but apparently the whole time shopping the camera division to whoever would buy it. And who could blame them? Pentax completely mis-played the digital camera age and ended up bleeding money and users. Still, I don't view much that Hoya did as worthwhile. The best thing to come out of them was the K5 and even then, the best thing about it was the fact that they actually got a cutting edge sensor from Sony (for once).

At least Hoya enabled Pentax to develope and manufacture the worlds best APS-C DSLR: the K-5. But their new master doesn't keep that momentum, no they just move some stickers and settings around and reïntroduce the same products again and again for higher and higher prices untill all that little advantage that they had is lost again.

And about lenses, the last worthwhile lenses were release during Hoya. Ricoh quite efficiently stopped that in its tracks.

My point is, if you consider Pentax under Hoya "bad", then Pentax under Ricoh should be considered horrid. Which is to be expected, they crashed and burned their own SLR devision once. And their own current camera devision wasn't exactly shining either. So what makes everybody think they're going to get it right this time then? You just don't give the benifit of the doubt to anyone with a track record like that.

[Heie]

If I can laugh at this, then everyone else shouldn't take it so seriously, as it's in direct response to my article

But seriously, like normhead said - everyone wants everything, but to pay nothing for it.

In my time living in Germany, I have learned a *very* distinct difference between Americans and Germans. In America, we want everything for dollar store prices, and God dammit we want it now. And we bitch and complain about not having enough jobs and the ubiquitous outsourcing to countries like Thailand, Vietnam, China, and India, where labor is uber cheap. But that would raise the prices of our cherished Nikes and Walmart offerings should the manufacturing of those items be brought back to America and paid American wages.

In Germany, Germans are more than willing to pay extra for German-made goods because not only is the quality just superlative, but they are aware of where that money ultimately ends up - back in their own hands. There isn't the culture of neverending disposability and dollar efficiency as there is in America, which is why these prices are moslty complained about by Americans.

Where am I going with this? The issue isn't the prices as I see it (and despite my article, I *personally* want cheap lenses, but I have to think beyond my own wallet and in the context of a multinational corporation), but rather our insatiable demand for the very best. But at the very lowest price.

We are always told to think in terms of "investments." I will pose my question again that I closed my article with:

Ultimately how expensive is a $700 lens that is used on over 500 outings (including traveling light that would otherwise not bring that focal length) over the course of 10 years?

At least that's my perspective as I see it. In the end (longterm) this is a good thing. For the immediate today and my own wallet, I agree it's not the best.

-Heie

More Pentax news at: I'm Glad the HD Limiteds are More Expensive - Photographic Articles - PentaxForums.com

[Clavius]

If I can laugh at this, then everyone else shouldn't take it so seriously, as it's in direct response to my article

But seriously, like normhead said - everyone wants everything, but to pay nothing for it.

In my time living in Germany, I have learned a *very* distinct difference between Americans and Germans. In America, we want everything for dollar store prices, and God dammit we want it now. And we bitch and complain about not having enough jobs and the ubiquitous outsourcing to countries like Thailand, Vietnam, China, and India, where labor is uber cheap. But that would raise the prices of our cherished Nikes and Walmart offerings should the manufacturing of those items be brought back to America and paid American wages.

In Germany, Germans are more than willing to pay extra for German-made goods because not only is the quality just superlative, but they are aware of where that money ultimately ends up - back in their own hands. There isn't the culture of neverending disposability and dollar efficiency as there is in America, which is why these prices are moslty complained about by Americans.

Where am I going with this? The issue isn't the prices as I see it (and despite my article, I *personally* want cheap lenses, but I have to think beyond my own wallet and in the context of a multinational corporation), but rather our insatiable demand for the very best. But at the very lowest price.

We are always told to think in terms of "investments." I will pose my question again that I closed my article with:

Ultimately how expensive is a $700 lens that is used on over 500 outings (including traveling light that would otherwise not bring that focal length) over the course of 10 years?

At least that's my perspective as I see it. In the end (longterm) this is a good thing. For the immediate today and my own wallet, I agree it's not the best.

-Heie

More Pentax news at: I'm Glad the HD Limiteds are More Expensive - Photographic Articles - PentaxForums.com

It's not about Americans being cheap or stingy. It's the priciple. I myself am from the Netherlands. (we're backup Germans) I'm too stingy to buy Pentax lenses, but investing an idiotic amount of money in my Noctilux was no problem for me. I myself, and all other local Pentaxians (Dutch, Belgian and Germans) that I personally know, haven't bought any Pentax lens since the price increase.

It's because we know better. We've been with Pentax for a while now. And we know they were very affordable once, and we know exactly why. In 2007 a very enthousiastic salesman in a local brick & mortar camera store introduced me to the Pentax brand. He said Pentax made Canon and Nikon look like thieves, and at that point, he was completely right. Pentax had the AF motor and the SR inside the body. Pentax didn't make you buy motors and SR with each and every lens. Which made sense. Pentax lenses weren't "cheap", they were high quality high value optics that were kept affordable to the users in a very clever way: by relying on the motor and SR in the camera body. Indeed making Canon and Nikon look like they were forcing extra costs unto their customers with each lens purchase. But suddenly someone somewhere decided that exactly thát advantage should be taken from the customers and placed into the companies own pockets. Probably to make ends meet somewhere. Or to keep profit figures high enough to meet certain obectives.

So now:
1. we pay an amount for good optics for which we also could have had similar good optics with their own dedicated silent AF motor and own dedicated in-lens shake reduction;
2. we pay more for exactly the same products. I bought my DA 35 ltd in 2009 for a half the price for which the HD version now goes. A price increase of 200%.

You don't have to be stingy to object to such sneaky tactics, just sane.

I do agree thoroughly with you though, saving up for a lens that's going to get a lot of use should not be regretted. I take my M-lenses everywhere I go.

[Heie]

It's because we know better. We've been with Pentax for a while now. And we know they were very affordable once, and we know exactly why. In 2007 a very enthousiastic salesman in a local brick & mortar camera store introduced me to the Pentax brand. He said Pentax made Canon and Nikon look like thieves, and at that point, he was completely right. Pentax had the AF motor and the SR inside the body. Pentax didn't make you buy motors and SR with each and every lens. Which made sense. Pentax lenses weren't "cheap", they were high quality high value optics that were kept affordable to the users in a very clever way: by relying on the motor and SR in the camera body. Indeed making Canon and Nikon look like they were forcing extra costs unto their customers with each lens purchase. But suddenly someone somewhere decided that exactly thát advantage should be taken from the customers and placed into the companies own pockets. Probably to make ends meet somewhere. Or to keep profit figures high enough to meet certain obectives.

And this is where I differ - I still will argue in what I consider an objective manner that Pentax offers the best bang for the buck for the exact reasons you say. What lens under 100mm is stabilized by Nikon? For primes, not a single one. Not one and Pentax gives us a stabilzied fisheye? So by your logic the bodies should be more expensive and lenses cheaper. The bodies are actually cheaper than the their Canikon counterparts and with superior offerings (save for tracking AF and video). Plus the motors and the SR down to the cheapest models, and if Pentax keeps their word, 100% pentaprism viewfinders as well, a $1,300 + body feature for Canikon. The new 70D at over $1,500 isn't even 100% coverage, and yet the K-500 at 1/3 the price is.

Going to these specific lenses - people are complaining that it inhibits entry into the brand - these are *not*...I say again...*NOT*... entry level lenses and not even in the realm of consideration for someone just getting into Pentax. A brand new person to Canikon isn't mulling the prices of the 70-200 f/2.8's (save for professionals, but that is a very small part of the population that enters into a brand). So I disagree with these lenses being prohibiting.

Also, your math regarding your DA 35 that is 1/2 of the HD version today is flawed. The HD version is $750, so that says you paid $375 for this lens (200%). What you are forgetting is the rate of inflation (say 10% over the course of 4 years), and the fact that these are new releases with better coatings, apertures, and, in my opinion, a sleeker, more professional appearance. Then try to compare across another brand. I was unable to find a single 35mm macro lens from anyone else, but I could have missed it. And even then, this is a full 1:1 reproduction lens in a 100% metal body that makes you wish it could take pictures of itself its so beautiful. And then thanks to SR its stabilized on Pentax's cameras. Give it a little time and the actual prices always falls a little bit from the MSRP (say $675), and I think that that is not unreasonable for such a lens. Were it another plastic body, then yes, outrageous. But the lens itself is a work of art - have we lost appreciation for that level of attention to detail? Surely that has value today.

Again, my issue is that we complain ourselves into self-defeat.

"Pentax is too expensive!"

While I agree the 50/35 plastic fantastics are too expensive, especially the 35 for its speed, the LTD line is unique, the WR line is unparalled from any brand, and the DA* line is not as expensive as we make it out to be. Nikon's 17-55, which isn't stabilized nor weather sealed and is quite a bit larger than the 16-50, is even more expensive at $1400. Yes Sigma is undercutting OEM prices a lot, but that is a false litmus test imo, especially because for the most part (specialty tele's notwithstanding), the offerings are across all brands. But instead, the only thing that anyone ever...EVER sees is the ubiquitous "Pentax is too expensive - don't even consider them" comments and ensuing perception. Its irks me as to the overall ignorance as to the value of perception, because whether right or wrong, perception is reality. And the current reality--whether true or not (and I could continue to argue in many facets for a system wide comparison that it's not true at all)--is Pentax has lost its place as a value system.

Has it not occurred to anyone that Pentax just simply undercut their own prices from 2008-2012? Had these been the original prices, I wholeheartedly believe no complaints would be made, other than "Yes, they didn't mark up the prices!" Or worse, we'd be looking at even higher prices. Everyone makes mistakes, and as such, is it out of the realm of possibility that Pentax undervalued their own inventory?

It's all relative, except when it inconveniences us, right? Like I said many times already - *personally* I would love to have these sold as the set of 5 for $1500. And then what? The brand is worth nothing, the consumer market is flooded with Pentax lenses in a class of their own, and if I wanted to resell, I would get peanuts? Not to mention everytime a product is announced, it better be in the immediate price grasp of my grandmother who wants a camera to take better family pictures for facebook?

I am not asking for blind fanboism (and I attest that I am not that type, despite some perceptions), but what we need is a lens to look through not clouded in sensationalism and remnants of how the world photography market was 3+ camera generations ago.

That and to take more pictures.

-Heie

[Rondec]

At least Hoya enabled Pentax to develope and manufacture the worlds best APS-C DSLR: the K-5. But their new master doesn't keep that momentum, no they just move some stickers and settings around and reïntroduce the same products again and again for higher and higher prices untill all that little advantage that they had is lost again.

And about lenses, the last worthwhile lenses were release during Hoya. Ricoh quite efficiently stopped that in its tracks.

My point is, if you consider Pentax under Hoya "bad", then Pentax under Ricoh should be considered horrid. Which is to be expected, they crashed and burned their own SLR devision once. And their own current camera devision wasn't exactly shining either. So what makes everybody think they're going to get it right this time then? You just don't give the benifit of the doubt to anyone with a track record like that.

But you see, we don't know what Ricoh has to do to repair the ravages of Hoya's cost cutting moves -- hiring new people, starting projects. All we know for sure, is that anything looked expensive to Hoya was a project they weren't interested in.

That's why I say I am waiting. If Pentax launches a decent APS-C flagship this fall and a full frame camera with three or four lenses in the spring, then it will be clear to me that Ricoh has a plan and that they are investing in the Pentax system.

[Uluru]

If I can laugh at this, then everyone else shouldn't take it so seriously, as it's in direct response to my article

The title of the article was so funny. However, it doesn't men that I don't agree with some of your ideas.

And regarding the prices, I think prices for Pentax equipment now are competitive. They used to be lower, now they aren't — at least in the US. However, to me, who dwells below the equator (to quote Monochrome), or in a universe in lower parallels, nothing has changed; we antipodeans pay same prices to Pentax as we always did. Maybe even a tad lower.

Thus, it seems, to many stingy, old folks dwelling above the equator and who spend lots of time around here, all that levelling up of prices means that Pentax brand "is finally losing all the competitive edge", which is another funny thing I'm planing to make a funny post about.

What is missing in the puzzle, right now, are good, modern, well updated camera bodies, to justify the overall competitive value of the system. Without great new cameras, all new lens prices are just another word for extortion.

But we may be hours away from the announcement. I keep the fingers crossed .. for the sake of all stingy, grumpy old men above the equator.

---

Last edited by Uluru; 09-04-2013 at 04:45 AM.

[Heie]

The title of the article was so funny.

I admit it was on the sensational side But I wanted to grab the reader's attention because nothing sucks more than to invest into writing what you (yourself) consider a good bit of prose and then to be overlooked and passed over for lack of anything interesting.

But I think the current line-up (APS-C only) is missing only a flagship "K-3" (or whatever it will be called) to be complete. I would argue that the K-500/K-50/K-5 II(s) is a great lineup for different segments. Yes, the resolution is the same across all of them, but it's a tried and true sensor unlike the Canon 18.1 mpx sensor that saw how many cameras? 8? 9? Including their flagship 7D. And it sucks. Terribly...

So I would say the APS-C lineup is "good, modern, [and] well update[d]" save for a flagship APS-C, which hopefully we will see soon, but I'm not getting my hopes up too much

A problem that I don't have an answer to is regardless of whether it is competitive to Canikon's offerings or not, the bemoaning of the K-5 II(s) despite it being more capable than the majority of those that complain about it. We have reached the plateau of the technological arms race of the past decade. We are in for a future of evolutionary rather than revolutionary upgrades, yet we seem to have only an appetite for K-7 --> K-5 (or D700 --> D800) -esque improvements.

-Heie

[Clavius]

And this is where I differ - I still will argue in what I consider an objective manner that Pentax offers the best bang for the buck for the exact reasons you say. What lens under 100mm is stabilized by Nikon? For primes, not a single one. Not one and Pentax gives us a stabilzied fisheye? So by your logic the bodies should be more expensive and lenses cheaper. The bodies are actually cheaper than the their Canikon counterparts and with superior offerings (save for tracking AF and video).

At the time to which I was referring to, the Pentax bodies indeed were more expensive then their Canikon equivalent bodies. (K10D & K20D) I figured, I'm not going to stick to just the kitlens, and the Pentax lenses were both high quality and more affordable then the other brands. So logically the Pentax system was the way to go. A small brand like Pentax could use such an advantage. At that time, Pentax was present in each and every brick&mortar camerastore and even in lots of electronics stores here in the west of Europe. And not only the main body and kitlens, more advanced and specialty lenses were held in stock by the stores. And they were selling too. The bias towards Pentax really surprised me when I joined this forum. Pentax disappearing out of the stores is a direct result of the new pricing strategy. Or it's one hell of magic coincidence that the timing of both price adjustments and Pentax disappearence followed each other up so neatly.

But instead, the only thing that anyone ever...EVER sees is the ubiquitous "Pentax is too expensive - don't even consider them" comments and ensuing perception. Its irks me as to the overall ignorance as to the value of perception, because whether right or wrong, perception is reality. And the current reality--whether true or not (and I could continue to argue in many facets for a system wide comparison that it's not true at all)--is Pentax has lots its place as a value system.

I agree with everything you said, and especially with the above. My math and perception considering the DA 35 ltd example are not correct, but even though I realise that, it doesn't change the perception. And that goes for everybody that stopped buying Pentax gear at that point. But that won't bring Pentax back in stores, because we can't just change everybodies perception that easily.

Moreover, my perception got confirmed when I added a second system. The total cost of ownership of a Canon 5DMKII and a 4 equivalent prime lens lineup turned out to be less then that of Pentax. And I understand all the reasons why those FF lenses are less expensive then their APS-C equivalents, but that doesn't change the perception or the total cost of ownership.

Has it not occurred to anyone that Pentax just simply undercut their own prices from 2008-2012?

Yes it has, and they may have had their reasons to do so. Or not. Undercutting did get them back in the stores though. And the sudden switch of tactic then did more harm then good.

I am not asking for blind fanboism (and I attest that I am not that type, despite some perceptions), but what we need is a lens to look through not clouded in sensationalism and remnants of how the world photography market was 3+ camera generations ago.

That and to take more pictures.

-Heie

No, you are not a blind fanboy, you're probably the most objective one of the bunch. But don't expect each and every average schmo to be equally objective and understand the new pricing scheme. The contrast between being able to afford lenses in year A, and the same ones being out of reach in year B tends to blur that objectivity for a lot of people.

That's why I say I am waiting. If Pentax launches a decent APS-C flagship this fall and a full frame camera with three or four lenses in the spring, then it will be clear to me that Ricoh has a plan and that they are investing in the Pentax system.

That would surely do a lot of good, not the slightest doubt about that!

[Pål Jensen]

Ultimately how expensive is a $700 lens that is used on over 500 outings (including traveling light that would otherwise not bring that focal length) over the course of 10 years?

At least that's my perspective as I see it. In the end (longterm) this is a good thing. For the immediate today and my own wallet, I agree it's not the best.

There has been whining on every Pentax lens that wasn't dirt cheap. People complained about the FA* 200/4 Macro (I think it was around $1000) as being overpriced. Now the same people complain why Pentax doesn't have it in its line-up while it is going for up to $3800 on ebay. The same was true for the 85/1.4 and the 135/1.8 but the whiners still want Pentax to make more fast lenses. I bought the 18/3.5 in 1978. It was very expensive. The cost concious bought Tokinas 17mm that flared horribly. I can probbaly get more my 18mm lens now than I paid for it. Great lenses keep their value.

[Heie]

snip

I was unaware of prices of anything body-related prior to the K-7 as that was when I came to Pentax, so I admit my own ignorance in that regard. Despite that, I would say that that time and camera market is long obsolete

Otherwise I don't disagree with anything you said, and I appreciate you realizing your own perception regarding the price of your DA 35 in 2009 vs the same lens today and how they are incongruous.

But instead of intelligible conversations and discussions such as this, vitriol and ignorant statements thrown without context or fact-checking is the preferred modus operandi as of late. And that's what I am trying to bring attention to that needs to stop, because we are only adding to the snowball as its rolling down the mountain as Ricoh tries to push it back up.

-Heie

[monochrome]

But instead of intelligible conversations and discussions such as this, vitriol and ignorant statements thrown without context or fact-checking is the preferred modus operandi as of late. And that's what I am trying to bring attention to that needs to stop, because we are only adding to the snowball as its rolling down the mountain as Ricoh tries to push it back up.

Some people have an agenda other than promoting intelligent conversation or debating a considered position. Some people, for reasons that may be obvious, are here to foment discord and despair and doom. Hyperbole and straw men are tools of the overmatched.

[Clavius]

I was unaware of prices of anything body-related prior to the K-7 as that was when I came to Pentax, so I admit my own ignorance in that regard. Despite that, I would say that that time and camera market is long obsolete.

True, those times are never comming back.

Otherwise I don't disagree with anything you said, and I appreciate you realizing your own perception regarding the price of your DA 35 in 2009 vs the same lens today and how they are incongruous.

Perception is warped, or is it? Look at Fuji... Why can they produce a 35mm lens that is both faster (1.4) and cheaper then the Pentax 35 ltd? The build quality of the Fuji at least matches that of Pentax ltd. And the optical quality is better. Are they undercutting now? Fuji is quickly out-Pentaxing Pentax with their high quality, small and fast primes by using new technologies. And the market will ignore all excuses that Pentax has for not keeping up.

But instead of intelligible conversations and discussions such as this, vitriol and ignorant statements thrown without context or fact-checking is the preferred modus operandi as of late. And that's what I am trying to bring attention to that needs to stop, because we are only adding to the snowball as its rolling down the mountain as Ricoh tries to push it back up.

-Heie

Pentax still has a chance of survival as long as there are still people around that are passionate enough about the brand to be frustrated and whine about it when it's going downhill like the way it is now. It's when there is no longer anybody that cares when they really have to start worrying. When the whining stops, it's game over.

Adding to that snowball might make that snowball big enough for Ricoh to notice that there's one rolling downhill.

[normhead]

The total cost of ownership of a Canon 5DMKII and a 4 equivalent prime lens lineup turned out to be less then that of Pentax. And I understand all the reasons why those FF lenses are less expensive then their APS-C equivalents, but that doesn't change the perception or the total cost of ownership.

I assume the 5D system with 4 primes didn't include any telephotos or lenses employing shake reduction. If everything you shoot is from a tripod with focal lengths under 100mm then I can see that being equivalent. Most enthusiasts have at least one telephoto zoom and rely on shake reduction extensively, and as soon as that happens, your "equivalence" argument doesn't make sense. But if you really limit your choices, you can make that argument. But you also have to ask to be fair, what's the cost of a 100-400 FF lens as sharp as my DA*60-250. My recent purchase of a DP2 has shown me exactly how much I rely on shake reduction for most of my images, and it's a lot. I thought my hands were getting steadier as I got older the Pentax SR is so good (or maybe it's just suited to the way my hands move.)

I have no problems believing 5D MarkII is the real deal for you... but look through the forum and see what most people are shooting with and you won't find a lot of people for whom that would be true.

I also have no problem believing that for what some folks shoot a 645D is the cheapest solution... or a D800 or whatever. But a lot of Pentax people will be mislead if those kinds of statement are made with no other defining parameters.

The simple fact is , my most used lens (and the most used lens of many happy Pentax users ) is the 18-135, which if you check the numbers, is better than many primes in it's wide end. A Canon 24-200 equivalent...doesn't exist, a Canon 18-135 IS- about $600, more expensive than the Pentax offering. So when I look at what I use, I can't figure out what you're talking about. I can't replace what I shoot with a Canon 5D mk2 without accepting inferior product (slower lenses), and paying a lot more for it.

[monochrome]

Pentax still has a chance of survival as long as there are still people around that are passionate enough about the brand to be frustrated and whine about it when it's going downhill like the way it is now. It's when there is no longer anybody that cares when they really have to start worrying. When the whining stops, it's game over. Adding to that snowball might make that snowball big enough for Ricoh to notice that there's one rolling downhill.

It is only going downhill in your mind.

You assume the past predicts the future - but no. The Pentax you recall died a slow, agonizing death over the last 10 or so years - it is already gone; it was already gone before Hoya sold the empty husk. It does not follow that there is no Pentax in the future, nor that Ricoh is killing Pentax.