Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
02-14-2012, 08:40 AM   #166
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: NYC
Posts: 896
QuoteOriginally posted by eddie1960 Quote
The K-01 mistake is in radically departing from what the very conservative ILC market think as of as a good camera design (which is essentially unchanged in almost 50 years) Whether ts a success or failure is yet to be determined though. a year ago all we saw was massive fail whenever the Q was mentioned. yesterday someone posted some amazon japan sales ranking and in it's segment Q was ranked #1. yep #1. not what i would call a fail then. (someone local has a 3 lens kit up for $750 on CL and I have to say it's been calling to me
What's it's segment though? Interchangeable Lens Compact Camera? Of course it's #1, it's the *only* 1. I'd love to know the Q's actual sales figures globally though, or at least know it's been profitable for Pentax.

02-14-2012, 08:52 AM   #167
Loyal Site Supporter
eddie1960's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 12,168
QuoteOriginally posted by illdefined Quote
What's it's segment though? Interchangeable Lens Compact Camera? Of course it's #1, it's the *only* 1. I'd love to know the Q's actual sales figures globally though, or at least know it's been profitable for Pentax.
SLR mirrorless so the same as the Olympus gear

From Nick Larsson's post on
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-k-01-forum/173877-pentax-k-01-vs-f...s-om-d-42.html

QuoteQuote:
Hi there,

Some figures from amazon japan.
Please note that the K-01 and the X-Pro1 are in the "Digital SLR" category whereas the Olympus is in the "SLR mirror-less" category (as well as the Q).

Digital SLR / New Releases (14 items) :
- X-Pro1 : #3
- K-01 (BLK / YLW / WHT) : #5, #10, #14

Digital SLR / Overall :
- X-Pro1 : #39
- K-01 : #90, #123, #204

SLR mirrorless (12 items) :
- Pentax Q : #1
- EM-5 : #2, #3, #4, #5


Camera & Electronics :
- Pentax Q : #1007
- EM-5 : #1291, #2457, #3600, #7442
- X-Pro1 : #5747
- K-01 : #17000, #23000, #42000

I thought the weird design would have been more appreciated over there but it doesn't seem to be the case

Amazon.jp charts : Google Traduction
of course it show that the K-01 has yet to find it's footing as well. Thing is the Q started out the same way and did ok from Pentax's perspective i would guess

Certainly we need to see some intensive targeted marketing once it's actually on the market (which IMO is far more important then the pre-order number many of which will end up cancelled for whatever reasons)
02-14-2012, 08:57 AM   #168
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: NYC
Posts: 896
Thanks for that Eddie. It's reassuring to know the Q isn't on it's way to footnote status just yet.
02-14-2012, 08:59 AM   #169
Loyal Site Supporter
eddie1960's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 12,168
QuoteOriginally posted by illdefined Quote
Thanks for that Eddie. It's reassuring to know the Q isn't on it's way to footnote status just yet.
I was a surprised as you the number was that good. It really shows how different the asian market is

02-14-2012, 09:17 AM   #170
Pentaxian
johnmflores's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Somerville, NJ
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,008
QuoteOriginally posted by eddie1960 Quote
I was a surprised as you the number was that good. It really shows how different the asian market is
More interesting data from Japan, overall camera sales:

Amazon.co.jp

Pentax Optios at #7 and#11

Ricoh GRD III at #20

Q at #35
02-14-2012, 09:25 AM   #171
Loyal Site Supporter
eddie1960's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 12,168
QuoteOriginally posted by johnmflores Quote
More interesting data from Japan, overall camera sales:

Amazon.co.jp

Pentax Optios at #7 and#11

Ricoh GRD III at #20

Q at #35
Shows they know the home market pretty well. And they support it with marketing of course. now if they could bring some of that marketing skill to the rest of the world they would be a force to be dealt with
02-14-2012, 09:37 AM   #172
Pentaxian
johnmflores's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Somerville, NJ
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,008
QuoteOriginally posted by eddie1960 Quote
Shows they know the home market pretty well. And they support it with marketing of course. now if they could bring some of that marketing skill to the rest of the world they would be a force to be dealt with
It's probably a cart-horse thing. Pentax doesn't focus on the US market. Pentax USA wants more focus, with products aimed at American consumers. But they can't get the attention until they get the sales to warrant it. But they can't get the sales until they get the right products to sell. Lather. Rinse. Repeat.

Been there. Done that. It takes a team with passion and boundless energy to fix it, to find success with the cards they are dealt and then work to towards a better hand.
02-14-2012, 10:03 AM   #173
Loyal Site Supporter
eddie1960's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 12,168
QuoteOriginally posted by johnmflores Quote
It's probably a cart-horse thing. Pentax doesn't focus on the US market. Pentax USA wants more focus, with products aimed at American consumers. But they can't get the attention until they get the sales to warrant it. But they can't get the sales until they get the right products to sell. Lather. Rinse. Repeat.

Been there. Done that. It takes a team with passion and boundless energy to fix it, to find success with the cards they are dealt and then work to towards a better hand.
It can be an endless loop. until someone decides they will fix it or it just spirals inon itself and disappears (I've worked for that company, by the time they got it right it was too late to fix)

Hopefully this is not the ricoh model

02-14-2012, 05:16 PM   #174
Veteran Member
Laurentiu Cristofor's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: WA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,044
QuoteOriginally posted by Wheatfield Quote
They kept the same register distance because that is what was needed to clear the mirror. Canon increased the register distance with the EF mount...
Well, the EF mount still has a shorter registration distance than the K mount, but I think you're onto something with the comment about clearing the mirror. The reason for sticking with the M42 registration distance must be tied with how Pentax decided to implement their mechanical aperture mechanism. That metallic tab requires extra space to not hit a mirror - Canon never had protrusions like that on their FD or EF lenses, so they could choose shorter registration distances for their mounts.
02-14-2012, 05:42 PM   #175
Pentaxian
aleonx3's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Brampton, Ontario
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,873
QuoteOriginally posted by eddie1960 Quote
Shows they know the home market pretty well. And they support it with marketing of course. now if they could bring some of that marketing skill to the rest of the world they would be a force to be dealt with
The market in Japan (and pretty much in Asia) is different; here people try and return (some never buy and just keep taking advantage of this policy), there, you buy it you own it, can return only if defective (get replacement and seldom get refund).
02-14-2012, 10:39 PM   #176
Pentaxian
Wheatfield's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The wheatfields of Canada
Posts: 10,043
QuoteOriginally posted by Laurentiu Cristofor Quote
Well, the EF mount still has a shorter registration distance than the K mount, but I think you're onto something with the comment about clearing the mirror. The reason for sticking with the M42 registration distance must be tied with how Pentax decided to implement their mechanical aperture mechanism. That metallic tab requires extra space to not hit a mirror - Canon never had protrusions like that on their FD or EF lenses, so they could choose shorter registration distances for their mounts.
I think with Pentax the answer is simpler. They stayed with the M42 register distance to maintain backwards compatibility with their M42 lenses. That they didn't have to make any major changes inside the mirror box when they went from M42 to K mount would have been a definite bonus from a design and construction standpoint as well, and finally, they wouldn't have had to do much by way of optical redesigns on the early K mount lenses.
The early K mount cameras were little more than Spotmatics with a bayonet mount bolted onto the front.
The big Pentax selling point during that era was maximum backwards compatibility. By the time the AF camera era started, Pentax was the only 35mm camera maker that was able to boast of 100% backwards compatibility with older leses across their entire camera line. Canon of course couldn't, they had completely abandoned their FD mount user base by abandoning the mount entirely, Minolta had changed their mount (and I believe register distance as well), though until the end when Konica bought them, they kept the X370 and X700 in production, and Nikon had limited backwards compatibility, in that you had to buy their more expensive cameras to get it.
Pentax made a big deal about that fact in their advertising at the time.
02-15-2012, 03:20 AM   #177
Site Supporter
Stone G.'s Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: North Zealand, Denmark
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,511
QuoteOriginally posted by Laurentiu Cristofor Quote
Well, the EF mount still has a shorter registration distance than the K mount, but I think you're onto something with the comment about clearing the mirror. The reason for sticking with the M42 registration distance must be tied with how Pentax decided to implement their mechanical aperture mechanism. That metallic tab requires extra space to not hit a mirror - Canon never had protrusions like that on their FD or EF lenses, so they could choose shorter registration distances for their mounts.
Whatever the cause: We are talking a difference of 1.46 milimeter! The FD registration difference was shorter by another 2.0 milimeter.

Flange focal distance - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
02-15-2012, 03:56 AM   #178
Senior Member




Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 106
If I can have FULL manual control, and it doesn't use a rolling shutter for video and scales instead of taking every x pixels like canon DSLRs do...I'd get one, as it would be cheaper than a panasonic GH2 with the lens I want.

If it doesn't I'll get a GH2 instead which has HD video quality (when hacked) supposedly close to Canon's new C300. Of course the C300 costs way more and has more advanced features...but it goes to show you how downsampiling, and no rolling shutter are for HD video quality
02-15-2012, 12:57 PM   #179
Veteran Member
Laurentiu Cristofor's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: WA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,044
QuoteOriginally posted by Stone G. Quote
Whatever the cause: We are talking a difference of 1.46 milimeter! The FD registration difference was shorter by another 2.0 milimeter.

Flange focal distance - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
That 1.46mm difference is large enough to impact what kind of M42 adapter you can build for the mount.

QuoteOriginally posted by Wheatfield Quote
I think with Pentax the answer is simpler. They stayed with the M42 register distance to maintain backwards compatibility with their M42 lenses. That they didn't have to make any major changes inside the mirror box when they went from M42 to K mount would have been a definite bonus from a design and construction standpoint as well, and finally, they wouldn't have had to do much by way of optical redesigns on the early K mount lenses.
The early K mount cameras were little more than Spotmatics with a bayonet mount bolted onto the front.
As you are pointing out in the part I emphasized, the real answer was manufacturing convenience, not backward compatibility. By keeping the same flange distance they didn't had to make many changes to their designs and perhaps even to some other aspects of their production. But that means that pure convenience, not backward compatibility, guided that choice.

Today, Canon and Sony can claim backward compatibility with M42 mount just as easily as Pentax. Having a mount with same flange distance as M42 doesn't make you more compatible than having a mount with a shorter flange distance.
02-15-2012, 02:31 PM   #180
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Victoria, BC
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 310
QuoteOriginally posted by jake14mw Quote
Is it possible to use the HDMI Out for a hot shoe mounted viewfinder? If so, then I think that would help there. If not, then why not have some kind of output jack for an EVF? Is it that expensive to include?
I presume Pentax did its homework, and perhaps realized that added EVFs are just not selling, and there was more money to loose than gain. It's not just the availability of a jack, but also they need to produce and sell an EVF to go with it.

QuoteOriginally posted by jake14mw Quote
Why NOT make the body thinner and provide an adapter to use k-mount lenses?
Apparently because this setup tends to be very un-reliable over time.,
Adds to the cost (both mechanical focus and electronic contacts are needed, there's a reason why SDM Compatible teleconverters are 3-5 times the cost of their non-SDM compatible counterpart)

QuoteOriginally posted by jake14mw Quote
Are there any advantages to the thicker body?
Are there any advantages to a thinner body ?

QuoteOriginally posted by jake14mw Quote
My last question is, what are the advantages of the mirrorless design other than being able to make the camera smaller?
More silent operation,
More accurate focus,
More reliable construction (i.e. less moving parts),
Lower cost,
More user friendly and natural for the nephyte,

On the negative side:

More prone to dust on the sensor,
Slower AF (but that's rapidly changing),
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!
adapter, advantages, benefit, body, design, k-01, k01, lenses, mirrorless, pentax, pentax k-01, size
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
How to get AF-adapter to work with 645 adapter angus Troubleshooting and Beginner Help 5 04-01-2011 05:53 AM
Give up SR and get a thinner camera? Andi Lo Pentax DSLR Discussion 25 01-24-2011 11:35 AM
MYO (Make Your Own) 645 to K Adapter bodhi08 Pentax Medium Format 5 07-20-2010 01:27 PM
Will the 67 to 645 adapter make a comeback? mikebob Pentax Medium Format 27 06-27-2010 08:59 AM
Why can't they make something like this... regor Non-Pentax Cameras: Canon, Nikon, etc. 22 03-20-2010 01:16 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:46 PM. | See also: NikonForums.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