[biz-engineer]

The idea that they became number one because of third party suppliers is ridiculous, they became successful long before the third partiers

Nope. Sony engaged third party lens makers for help very early with their first A7 series. The first FE lenses were from Zeiss, and the collaboration helped Sony offer a range of lenses without having to spend all the R&D resources on glass. One of the reason Sony was very successful was their collaboration with third party lenses and accessory makers such as flashes.

---------- Post added 28-07-22 at 05:56 ----------

That's not how the lens industry works.

What do you know? What I know is that collaborations/partnerships within an industry creates value for customers, and Pentax participated in some collaborative deals (with Tamron and Tokina), but Sony were much more deliberate with industry wide collaborations.

The bottom line is that Pentax as a small player being singled out of the industry is not good at all for the future. Product differentiation and industry wide alliances are common known to be the two best strategies to help small industry players compete with the bigger players. The first thing small businesses do when they enter a new industry is to form partnership so that to get stronger. Small fishes get together to fight off large fishes. We seldom see a small fish isolating from the rest in order to get stronger in the face of adversity.

---

Last edited by biz-engineer; 07-27-2022 at 09:12 PM.

[R.Miller]

Sony was a success due to early innovation in mirrorless and having quality glass. The third-party lenses came along later when the lens suppliers saw the platform was profitable and growing. Pentax was abandoned for basic economic reasons of low volume and little profit incentive for the third-party lens makers. So sure. Keep telling those little fish to band together, I'm sure they will prevail against that big Mako shark.

No one is going to partner with Pentax. They need to innovate with hopefully Ricoh backing and resources to attract new customers.

[clackers]

Nope. Sony engaged third party lens makers for help very early with their first A7 series. The first FE lenses were from Zeiss, and the collaboration helped Sony offer a range of lenses without having to spend all the R&D resources on glass.

We are not talking about *collaborations* - which all manufacturers have done, look at Pentax with Tamron and Tokina.

We are talking about third party *alternatives* - rivals for the dollar.

Even the Sony collaboration with Zeiss clearly became problematic. The Sony Zeisses are neither designed nor manufactured by Zeiss, they have their branding on them the way Apple iPhones had the word 'Zeiss' around the lens. IIRC, Zeiss even released a public statement distancing themselves from the products, reminding the public.

Zeiss might've hoped to reserve the high end E mount for itself, but it didn't happen.

Sony has gotten Tamron IIRC to make the G Master Series which rival the Zeisse Batis and Loxia and not just in autofocus, but extending to zooms as well.

Sigma and Tamron have only in recent years been motivated to do E mount lenses, they simply were not there on Day Zero as you might claim.

I was one of the first buyers of the A7, and it was either a couple of mediocre Sony lenses - they didn't even have the Holy Trinity of f2.8 zooms - or adapted glass. The situation wasn't much better on APS-C. Lucky I had a heap of beautiful K mount, and later I built up a collection of Canon EF.

Canon and Nikon have not shown the slightest interest in opening up their mount protocols to third party manufacturers.

[reh321]

Canon and Nikon have not shown the slightest interest in opening up their mount protocols to third party manufacturers.

Has Pentax??

I have two Sigma K-mount lenses - both are apparently KAF lenses, at least they are screw-drive.

When I was a Canon user, I used a Sigma 10-20mm lens, which had an in-lens motor. I was thrilled to discover that there was a K-mount version of that lens …. but it has a screw-drive; apparently that was the easiest version for Sigma to reverse-engineer. I wonder if difficulties in reverse-engineering keeps others from porting EF-mount lenses to K-mount, because it should be easy to port a EF-mount lens to KAF4-mount once you know the ‘magic’ formula, and most firms have EF-mount versions by now.

[StiffLegged]

… I used a Sigma 10-20mm lens, which had an in-lens motor. I was thrilled to discover that there was a K-mount version of that lens …. but it has a screw-drive; apparently that was the easiest version for Sigma to reverse-engineer. I wonder if difficulties in reverse-engineering keeps others from porting EF-mount lenses to K-mount, because it should be easy to port a EF-mount lens to KAF4-mount once you know the ‘magic’ formula, and most firms have EF-mount versions by now.

There are/were two versions of Sigma 10-20mm zoom: an f/4.5-5.6 screw drive and an f/3.5 HSM. I just bought the f/3.5 version for my K7.

[Fogel70]

The problem with this theory is that cameras historically have been sold for very low margins. The money is in the lenses. Proof of this is how there isn't a Third Party lens maker in the world who has sold camera bodies to fit their lenses. If cameras were profitable, Sigma would be selling bodies to mount their SLR lenses on, not just the orphan that is the Merrill (are they even still making that camera series?).
If Third Party lenses help sell cameras, while at the same time pirating lens sales from camera makers, they are not helping the camera maker, they are costing the camera maker money. They are costing them in profitable lens sales while at the same time forcing low margin or even negative margin camera body sales.
They are the bloodsuckers of this industry.

Sigma did produce (D)SLR for about 20 years, from early 1990s to like 10 years ago. Their SA-mount was electronically the same a Canon EF-mount and the bayonet was similar to K-mount.
I believe they developed their own SLR to be able to release lenses faster with less work, so they could have full control in the testing on their own mount. And that they choose to copy Canon for the communication protocol was because Canon had largest market share, and it would be easy to adapt their own lens mount to Canon EF.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sigma_SA-mount

Sigma had their first DSLR released in 2002, a year before Pentax released *ist-D.

[Rondec]

Has Pentax??

I have two Sigma K-mount lenses - both are apparently KAF lenses, at least they are screw-drive.

When I was a Canon user, I used a Sigma 10-20mm lens, which had an in-lens motor. I was thrilled to discover that there was a K-mount version of that lens …. but it has a screw-drive; apparently that was the easiest version for Sigma to reverse-engineer. I wonder if difficulties in reverse-engineering keeps others from porting EF-mount lenses to K-mount, because it should be easy to port a EF-mount lens to KAF4-mount once you know the ‘magic’ formula, and most firms have EF-mount versions by now.

Sigma never paid any kind of fees to brands to allow them to know auto focus protocols and things like that. The issue isn't the mount, it has more to do with how the camera interacts with the lens. Sigma released plenty of HSM lenses for K mount -- I recently sold a 50-150 that was such a lens. They also had 18-35, 35mm f1.4, and 70-200 that all had internal lens motors. There was no guarantee when you bought a new Pentax camera that something wouldn't break where your Sigma lens would no longer focus correctly -- I remember some such thing happening with one of the cameras where Sigma lenses suddenly wouldn't focus in live view. Sigma fixed the issue but it required sending the lens in.

The issue for Sigma was that Pentax has such a small section of the market that it doesn't make sense to have a team of people reverse engineering Pentax cameras. At this point, Sigma has moved on to shorter registration lenses and those probably couldn't be ported over to Pentax anyway.

[reh321]

There are/were two versions of Sigma 10-20mm zoom: an f/4.5-5.6 screw drive and an f/3.5 HSM. I just bought the f/3.5 version for my K7.

Around 2012 I purchased a Sigma 10-20 f/4-5.6 lens for my Canon Rebel. Honestly, it was my favorite lens.
Then I had two Rebels die on me in less than two years; that lens is why I was reluctant to give up on Canon, but I did move to Pentax;
then I sold most of my EF-mount lenses, but kept that one. As you can see from the photo, the EF-mount variant of that lens did have a "HSM" motor -
but the K-mount variant had a screw drive; the later f/3.5 variant did have an "HSM" motor, which is why I was thinking that they had
to reverse-engineer the mount, rather than simply purchasing the specs from Pentax.

[reh321]

The issue for Sigma was that Pentax has such a small section of the market that it doesn't make sense to have a team of people reverse engineering Pentax cameras. At this point, Sigma has moved on to shorter registration lenses and those probably couldn't be ported over to Pentax anyway.

but it should be very easy to make EF-versions into KAF4-mount versions if they knew the protocol - perhaps an easy way to increase the supply of inexpensive but proven KAF4-mount lenses. That would definitely be our favor - too bad that Pentax doesn't see an advantage to them.

[house]

I'm convinced one of Sony's selling points have been lens availability. Sony, third party and adapted. All for full frame. M43 is not useful for adapting.

[weverka]

I don't believe that theory, I think the profits are in the camera bodies. The reason I think so is because I was looking for lens elements to design my own lenses, and I've found lens elements to be rather expensive compared to electronic components that are shared across industry boundaries. Lens elements are expensive, especially the aspherical elements, because they are made specifically for a camera lens. Modern lenses also contain AF motors, micro-mechanical assembly, an electronic printed circuit board. All this unique from lens to lens, takes R&D time to design and sold cheaper than camera bodies. The only advantage I see going for lenses is that they have long product life cycles, unless it's being decided to change the lens mount... which cut off the planned life cycle of a lens, hence cut into profit making ability of the lens.

You design lenses too? I second your point here. I would also add that, from the quotes I get, low dispersion lens elements contribute as much to the costs as the aspherical elements!

[AfterPentax Mark II]

Could you please provide sources that show that profit margins are higher for lenses than they are for cameras?

It is a bit of kicking in an open door, but margins of lenses are higher because you can sell several lenses opposite just one camera at a time to a buyer. Is not this what the printer manufacturers do: cheap hardware and expensive inks? The profit on lenses is in the number, not in the one lens.

[AfterPentax Mark II]

Pentax is in the fortunate position of having a market niche handed to them on a silver platter. History repeats itself in this case, as Leica found themselves in the same position some 60 years ago, and they did just fine.

It is another way of saying that Ricoh/Pentax missed the boat again in developing a modern camera. They were late in introducing a digital camera and now they have decided not to develop a more modern camera without a heavy Penta(x)prism. It is an easy way out. And to think they released a perfectly capable mirrorless camera in APS-C and even for a smaller sensor. You could also say that they decided to be a DSLR company because they see no point in throwing money to a industry segment that will not bring the shareholders enough profit. Other companies mentioned here and there did the same, they just keep on producing old model DSLR's (now and then offering new firmware) but they will not spend R&D budget to it.

Do you think Pentax fell behind with the superb DFA50/1.4 or DFA85/1.4? Those two lenses are at the very top of the quality pile.

Of course they fell behind, because however superb the lenses may be, you need bodies to mount them to to make a profit. It is not enough to build something at the very top of the quality pile, you must sell them in large quantities and unfortunately they only fit on a K-mount.

Honestly, I like using my Pentax branded camera's and the lenses I own, but I am not a staunch believer in Ricoh/Pentax dogma. It is just a product and the company needs to earn money for the shareholders and we are the people to bring them our with hard labour acquired money. We are not a fan base, we are consumers/buyers and we can turn to any product we like and we should not be defending the maker of the camera we use.

[Wheatfield]

You design lenses too? I second your point here. I would also add that, from the quotes I get, low dispersion lens elements contribute as much to the costs as the aspherical elements!

Do.
More.
Research.
This isn't some sort of democratic process where the most votes wins, seconding an incorrect point is just being incorrect on that point.

---------- Post added Jul 28th, 2022 at 08:59 AM ----------

It is a bit of kicking in an open door, but margins of lenses are higher because you can sell several lenses opposite just one camera at a time to a buyer. Is not this what the printer manufacturers do: cheap hardware and expensive inks? The profit on lenses is in the number, not in the one lens.

Lens sales, other than what comes in a kit, tends to be one off sales that aren't repeated. I've already bought my DFA*50/1.4 and DFA*85/1.4 for example. Unless I run into some sort of minor disaster where the gear is destroyed or stolen, these are not purchases I will be making again.
Ever.
The manufacturer has to make all the profit to be made off of me in that one sale. But, I will be buying camera bodies over and over as improvements are made and new models are released.
Pentax has sold me far more lenses than cameras, but once a lenses is bought, that's it, That sale will never happen again, whereas next years camera is going to sell. Few people have the depth of lenses that I have, most people buy far more bodies than lenses if they actually buy anything other than what comes in a kit.
Camera bodies operate on the Bic Razor theory of marketing. They sell you the mount for the blades really cheap (I got mine for free), and then once they have you locked in, they make their money on the blades.
Inkjet printers work on a similar business model, cameras work on this business model as do power tools or any other product that needs some sort of add-on to operate.
Get a camera body into a person's hands and you have an opportunity to sell lenses to that person. In order to get that camera into the person's hands, margins need to be cut to the bone. It's a competitive market, but the company will make that margin back selling lenses.
Get an inkjet printer into their hands and they will buy overpriced ink cartridges for years until the machine croaks.
Same with power tools. Our margins on tools are quite small, and these low margins extend all the way to the factory floor, but we make a killing on driver bits and saw blades, and those margins also extend right back to the factory.

[reh321]

It is another way of saying that Ricoh/Pentax missed the boat again in developing a modern camera. They were late in introducing a digital camera and now they have decided not to develop a more modern camera without a heavy Penta(x)prism. It is an easy way out. And to think they released a perfectly capable mirrorless camera in APS-C and even for a smaller sensor. You could also say that they decided to be a DSLR company because they see no point in throwing money to a industry segment that will not bring the shareholders enough profit. Other companies mentioned here and there did the same, they just keep on producing old model DSLR's (now and then offering new firmware) but they will not spend R&D budget to it.

Of course they fell behind, because however superb the lenses may be, you need bodies to mount them to to make a profit. It is not enough to build something at the very top of the quality pile, you must sell them in large quantities and unfortunately they only fit on a K-mount.

Honestly, I like using my Pentax branded camera's and the lenses I own, but I am not a staunch believer in Ricoh/Pentax dogma. It is just a product and the company needs to earn money for the shareholders and we are the people to bring them our with hard labour acquired money. We are not a fan base, we are consumers/buyers and we can turn to any product we like and we should not be defending the maker of the camera we use.

The ultimate test is whether one purchases their camera(s) and/or their lenses. I do, not out of religious devotion, but because their products ‘deliver for me’ {to borrow a slogan from the U.S. postal system.}