[stevebrot]

In 1970, Modern Photography magazine published the results of a reader survey on the Pentax Spotmatic camera. The user responses are very eye-opening given the benefit of 48 years of hindsight with the Spotmatic model available at the time as well as the incremental development of new models that addressed most of the user concerns/requests. Pentax Forums member @Nesster has published scans of the article on his Flickr account and it makes for interesting reading.

What struck me:

• The complaints and comments and requests in 1970 are strongly congruent with current complaints/comments/requests
• The requests for emerging features even those inappropriate for SLR cameras was a common theme then as it is now
• Many of the comments demonstrate a lack knowledge about the camera and reasonable expectations from gear. Such was noted by the editors then and continues to this day. (E.g. Depth of field is sorely lacking at f/1.4 )
• Comparisons to Nikon, Bronica, and Hasselblad were made, though qualified by the observation that Pentax was not really a professional tool such as those other brands (Canon was not yet a significant market force). Not much has changed there either.
• Within five-to-six years all of the requests save higher sync speed and spot metering had been met

Click through for access to readable copies:

Many thanks for Nesster (Jussi) for sharing this bit of history.


Steve

(...was actively involved in market research for purchase of an SLR back then and was familiar with the stuff mentioned the article at the time...)

---

Last edited by stevebrot; 01-29-2018 at 01:26 AM.

[D1N0]

Except that Pentax was the largest consumer brand back then . The Spotmatic was considered small? Quite chunky compared to the later m- series K-mount slrs.

[clackers]

"Lack of depth of field at f1.4 ... Laws of optics govern that, not Pentax"

Love it.

[Not a Number]

Same old same old. True then as now:

PentaxIsDooomed™

[ffking]

Interesting that range and quality of lenses wasn't of great interest (in question 2, at least - there was some inconsistency in findings, as one might expect of any survey) - I know we've become more obsessed with those things, but it does mark Pentax out as a consumer brand

[btnapa]

but it does mark Pentax out as a consumer brand

Good point. Back then at least Pentax commanded some market share in the consumer segment. Today, Pentax's consumer share is negligible and the pro share insignificant. I wonder where this small market shares leaves the brand. When I got into the Pentax brand (with my first SLR, the MX) back in 1980-81, a retailer and a friend told me how good it was and the compactness and feel of the smaller body got me to go with the brand. Where is that push or persuasion today?

[Bophoto]

Good point. Back then at least Pentax commanded some market share in the consumer segment. Today, Pentax's consumer share is negligible and the pro share insignificant. I wonder where this small market shares leaves the brand. When I got into the Pentax brand (with my first SLR, the MX) back in 1980-81, a retailer and a friend told me how good it was and the compactness and feel of the smaller body got me to go with the brand. Where is that push or persuasion today?

I think then Pentax's entering the 70's professional market with the 67 camera it did not get so much attention.
Canon / Nikon's investment in professional FF cameras is widely used in sports arenas and is therefore highly visible on television.
It's like in the advertisement, hammering in the brand's name.

[honey bo bo]

Not much has changed in 48 years

CHANGE?
The Technicratics NO!
The Equipment YES!

[btnapa]

I think then Pentax's entering the 70's professional market with the 67 camera it did not get so much attention.
Canon / Nikon's investment in professional FF cameras is widely used in sports arenas and is therefore highly visible on television.
It's like in the advertisement, hammering in the brand's name.

Perhaps not. But with the advent of their 645 system. They eventually got a foothold in the pro market competing with Mamiya and Bronica in the 645 space. I think they had a golden second chance with the 645D and 645Z to dominate the space. However, with the change of ownership and the ensuing confusion and lack of direction, they lost that chance. And now with Fuji entering the market and possibly Sony to follow, the task is almost impossible. Let's face it, the medium format and to some extent the FF DSLR markets are shrinking pools and Pentax has the least amount of that shrinking real estate. Eventually it will dry up. It is not a question of if, it is a question of when. Even mighty Nikon is in trouble with significant loss of market share. I guess no one is immune to this shift in technology and marketplace.

[c.a.m]

a retailer and a friend told me how good it was and the compactness and feel of the smaller body got me to go with the brand. Where is that push or persuasion today?

In keeping with the theme of this thread, I would say that not much has changed in this regard - a friend or a retailer could rightfully tell you today how good the current Pentax cameras are, and the 'feel' and handling of Pentax models are well regarded and mentioned often, certainly on this Forum. "Just hold a Pentax" is as relevent today as it was years ago.

As for the "persuasion," well, I'd imagine that a prospective buyer has access to plenty of on-line resources - reviews, forums, comments, etc. Perhaps this is one aspect that has changed since 48 years ago - we no longer need to rely on a few printed reviews in photo magazines; instead, we have access to almost unlimited resources.


Incidentally, when I was looking to buy my first SLR in the early 1980s, I ended up choosing an Olympus OM-10 over an ME (or ME Super, can't remember). My budget was tight, and price won over. I think the retailer was positive about both cameras.

[Bophoto]

I agree that the MF market will be tight.
Fuji and Hasselblad's new mirrorless are small, but the lenses are big.
Pixelshift is something that Pentax needs and probably something more, but it´s a small market.

But with K1 for 1500 € when (if) K1super later this year cost ~ 2,500-3,000 € and with more lenses it may work well.
Ricoh get profit from Theta (and probably WG-M2). To develop new products like Theta Ricoh probably needs Pentax.

[stevebrot]

The Spotmatic was considered small?

Ummmm...yes. I have several of its contemporaries on a shelf on the other room and the Spotmatic is dwarfed both in bulk and heft by all except the Pentax SV.*

Interesting that range and quality of lenses wasn't of great interest (in question 2, at least - there was some inconsistency in findings, as one might expect of any survey) - I know we've become more obsessed with those things, but it does mark Pentax out as a consumer brand

???? The range and quality of the Pentax lens offerings in 1970 was not limited except that they did not offer a tilt/shift. My perception at the time was that most owners were happy with available options. The actual lens ownership may appear to be a bit pedestrian, but was typical of the time for an enthusiast kit** and the survey participants were not a random sampling of the full scope of owners. (See the editors analysis at the end of the article.)

Addendum: FWIW, most "consumer" buyers at the time would have owned a rangefinder. SLRs were expensive and fairly elite. The Spotmatic price point was on the high end.

I think then Pentax's entering the 70's professional market with the 67 camera it did not get so much attention.

I am not sure, but I believe the 6x7 launch was after this article. The 6x7 launched in 1969 and created quite a stir IIRC. The editors were probably chuckling at the participant's comment that Pentax should do a similar camera only in 120 MF.

As for chuckling, I am quite jolly with the flavor of this thread so far.


Steve

* I have contemporary bodies from Minolta, Ricoh, Mamiya/Sekor, and Exakta. Nikon and Topcon probably held the title for big/heavy with Canon and Konica not far behind. Everything changed in 1972 when the pre-production version of the Olympus OM-1 was shown at Photokina. It took the other makes almost a decade to respond.

** Note the number of owners at both 28mm and 135mm focal lengths. Those, along with a "normal" lens constituted the common three-lens kit.

[stevebrot]

Incidentally, when I was looking to buy my first SLR in the early 1980s, I ended up choosing an Olympus OM-10 over an ME (or ME Super, can't remember). My budget was tight, and price won over. I think the retailer was positive about both cameras.

I was shopping in 1982 and remember that the market was very competitive with the camera stores quite full of buyers and a large array of very nice product on the shelves. I waited in line to play with the models I was most interested in (ME Super, Ricoh XR7, Nikon FE, Minolta models, and the OM-10). Canon was not in scope (poor build quality at mid-range) and neither was Konica. I ended up with the XR7.* Strangely, it was more expensive than the ME Super. The 1980s are often considered the high point of 35mm film SLR development and market enthusiasm was running high too.


Steve


* I have the receipts somewhere. The kit price represented a month's wages when a 28mm and 70-150 zoom were added in.

[ffking]

???? The range and quality of the Pentax lens offerings in 1970 was not limited except that they did not offer a tilt/shift. My perception at the time was that most owners were happy with available options. The actual lens ownership may appear to be a bit pedestrian, but was typical of the time for an enthusiast kit** and the survey participants were not a random sampling of the full scope of owners. (See the editors analysis at the end of the article.)

Addendum: FWIW, most "consumer" buyers at the time would have owned a rangefinder. SLRs were expensive and fairly elite. The Spotmatic price point was on the high end.

I was going by the questionnaire answers - ie people's reasons for buying Pentax - not the actual reality on the ground,

[biz-engineer]

Developing the needs (wants) and exceptions for better camera performance (faster , more resolution etc) has two sides: generate business but also drag people away from seeing what to fit in a frame.
Raymond Depardon (Magnum Photo) who was shooting with a view camera once quoted that he did not have a digital camera because it was for individuals in hurry.