[Jean Poitiers]

... Could the regular K5 become the K-r replacement, then a K-02 with EVF fill the gap later?

Bonjour,

I was thinking that the entry-level Pentax would be the K-mount "mirrorless" format (K-01, then K-02 with EVF (?), etc.) and the DSRLs in a higher positioning, like a K-5* ... "K-5n", "K-3", "K-1", etc. (OVF, WR, more MegPix, possible FF, etc.) ... So, why not replace the K-r with the K-5 ... no R&D for a mid-range body which eventually could be dropped, the K-5 reputation is quite well established, etc. On verra!

Does seem that there is (post-acquisition formulated) "mid-term" strategy by Ricoh/Pentax starting to come into place now ... any short-term strategy of 6 to 12 months is almost terminated. I'd guess that a longer term one (possibly an "expanded/elaborated" mid-term strategy plus the real beginning of a long-term one) is being hashed out depending upon the various reviews of the company situation/environment one year after the initial acquisition and/or actual control. There are some benchmark dates/anniversaries coming up and I'd bet we'll see more movement and announcements ...

Again, just my 2 centimes (anciens francs) ... Salut & A+, J

"Be of good cheer, Pentaxians. Ricoh has a plan and you will be happy." - monochrome

[Medium FormatPro]

Features: 4 out of 5.
Handling: 4 out of 5.
Performance 4.5 out of 5.
Value for money: 3.5 out of 5.

In the many, many cameras that I own I'd give the Pentax K-01 at least a 4.5 out of 5 (also 9.5 out of 10) on value for money. The K-01 is right in line with two of the Lumix line cameras that are at the same exact price level yet have less features. The K-01 is also in the ballpark as others such as the Nikon and the Olympus.

Yet look at the creativity options that the K-01 offers and the unmatched expandability.

Although no specifics on it just yet... One can bet at least one (perhaps most of the) of the other camera companies will also be making a near copy of the K-01. Also as hinted on thisd line of posts (and others); that it would be more than suggested that there will indeed be a K-02. I believe that the K-01 was actually made with this idea in mind. I'll leave it at that and give you more on that one later.

[Jean Poitiers]

In the many, many cameras that I own I'd give the Pentax K-01 at least a 4.5 out of 5 (also 9.5 out of 10) on value for money. The K-01 is right in line with two of the Lumix line cameras that are at the same exact price level yet have less features. The K-01 is also in the ballpark as others such as the Nikon and the Olympus.

Yet look at the creativity options that the K-01 offers and the unmatched expandability.

Although no specifics on it just yet... One can bet at least one (perhaps most of the) of the other camera companies will also be making a near copy of the K-01. Also as hinted on thisd line of posts (and others); that it would be more than suggested that there will indeed be a K-02. I believe that the K-01 was actually made with this idea in mind. I'll leave it at that and give you more on that one later.

Bonjour Medium,

Thanks for your input, and good to read your glowing comments.

My thinking was (and still is) that the K-01 is positioned like the Nikon J1 ... and the (future) K-02 will be in line with the Nikon V1 (EVF, etc.)

Pentax/Hoya, then Ricoh/Pentax, and now seemingly Pentax/Ricoh, did not have funds, capacity or time (or possibly all the aforementioned) to put out both a K-01 and 02 at the same time ... Maybe on purpose, too, in order to measure the consumer market acceptance and/or rejection of this K-mount mirror-less format ... encore, on verra bien et bientôt.

Salut, J Frog

[Welfl]

Note to Site Administrators: I mistakenly clicked the delete button on this comment. I thought it was in the wrong thread, but it isn't. If my delete request went through, please don't delete it.

A replacement is due out, and I'd put my money on that one having it...

I agree. Yesterday, I wrote:

…the K-r replacement (aka a "K-5 Lite"), which will have focus peaking and better video capabilities. [source]

and they will not let them compete.

You are probably right about that being the corporate mentality (regarding old models "competing" with new models); however, I don't see it the same way, first, because there are only a limited number of old models left to be sold. Once they are gone there will be no more so-called "competition." I also doubt that Pentax is anticipating that a lot of present K-5 owners will eagerly (or even reluctantly) abandon their K-5s for the new "K-5n" just because the latter will have focus peaking (most Pentax users aren't that fickle or "crazy" with their money, are they?). I believe that giving the present K-5 owners focus peaking won't cut into Pentax's future profits, since focus peaking is just one small software feature, not a major technological upgrade (furthermore, most of the focus-peaking work has already been done on the K-01 and the upcoming models; making it compatible with the K-5's hardware shouldn't be that difficult or time consuming; and it's not as if Pentax has to pay their salaried employees extra money for devoting a little extra time to "old" technology).

Second, as I wrote the other day here on PF:

Besides, profit is profit [for Pentax], regardless of which models are being sold (present models or future models). In fact, I believe a sale now is always better than a sale later. There may actually be a lot of people like me who would buy [AKA provide profit to Pentax] now if this one little feature was added with minimal effort. I'm very close to waiting another two years (if the economy is still alive then) for the rumored "K-3" and/or "K-p" [K-5n, K-z] to come down to normal [acceptable] prices, because I don't want the K-01, but I do want focus peaking. Pentax should be eager to get my money now instead of two years from now [unless the K-r replacement -- AKA a K-5 Lite -- isn't too expensive at its introductory price.]

A very similar amount of materials and assembly-line work go into making the K-01 and, to a lesser extent, the Q, but they both sell for less than the K-5, even at their introductory prices, yet a decent profit is obviously being made on both of them; otherwise Pentax wouldn't be selling them at all. Why should a corporation "save" features for a future version just because it is going to be overpriced for the first year or so? Besides, I'm pretty sure (or at least I would hope) that the upcoming Pentax models will have a lot more going for them than just focus peaking, which is already becoming standard across the industry anyway [see Sony Firmware Update Brings Peaking To NEX-3 and NEX-5], so why not give us that tiny, easily served morsel now? [source] I think Pentax-Ricoh could gain some strong customer loyalty from the customers who paid an insanely overpriced fortune [in my conceited, tightwad opinion] for the K-5 in the early days and from those who paid a regular fortune later on. Generally speaking (very generally), those customers helped to keep Pentax in business. [source]

[In short] I don't buy this modern attitude that it is okay to abandon support for your products as soon as the replacement model is ready to come out. [source]

I think it's safe to say you will not see it.

In spite of all that I've written above, I agree with you. The other day I wrote:

I know. I have very little faith in the "generosity" of any modern corporation, even the ones I like the most. ... I was mostly just venting my frustration at the (typical) unfairness of the situation [because the amazing K-5 deserves better] [source].

I'm fairly certain the recent price drops ($500) are to get rid of any stock to make room for the new one.

I completely agree.

---

Last edited by Welfl; 03-24-2012 at 10:03 AM.

[Welfl]

plus, adding it via firmware (if possible) would engender some real positive perspectives upon future firmware support and further brand loyalty ... of current users, those looking to upgrade within the Pentax lineup and new entry customers, too. Just my 2 cents, for what it's worth...

Exactly right! Well said!

[Welfl]

Could the regular K5 become the K-r replacement, then a K-02 with EVF fill the gap later?

This has been my hope too.

[monochrome]

I know. I have very little faith in the "generosity" of any modern corporation, even the ones I like the most. ... I was mostly just venting my frustration at the (typical) unfairness of the situation [because the amazing K-5 deserves better] [source].

Generosity is a character attribute of people. Corporations are not people, They have shareholders who demand profit and Return On Equity. (If you philosophically object to private investment and private capital we can debate that elsewhere).

Corporations do have Personnel (who make decisions according to); a business Philosophy and a Process to implement the Philosophy. Performance, which can be measured in many ways, is the end product of the three aforementioned attributes of a corporation. Measurements can be taken in many forms. Since they are not generous, Shareholders typically demand a money return on their money, such as Return on Equity, Profit, Diivends, or others .Personnel (the employees) serve at the pleasure of the Shareholders who demand a money return on their money, so . . .

It stands to reason, then, that it is we, the owners of corporations through our personal investments, 401k's and pension plans, who are the Scrooges.

The jury is still out on Ricoh's business philosophy, and process but I am certain it will be different than under Hoya, and from Pentax when it stood alone.

[Welfl]

In the many, many cameras that I own I'd give the Pentax K-01 at least a 4.5 out of 5 (also 9.5 out of 10) on value for money. The K-01 is right in line with two of the Lumix line cameras that are at the same exact price level yet have less features. The K-01 is also in the ballpark as others such as the Nikon and the Olympus.

Since you actually own a K-01, I gladly defer to your opinion of its "value for money"; however, I personally don't rate a camera's price based on the prices of its nearest competitors. As I wrote the other day:

As someone who is new to the world of high-end digital cameras and still has an outsider's perspective, I think the other camera makers have been overpricing their medium- and high-end products too (in other words, IMHO, two wrongs don't make a right). I could be way out of touch with reality [and probably am], but it appears to me that the camera world has taken on an "elite boutique" mentality since I last paid attention to the market in the 1970s and 1980s. I know inflation (thanks to the Fed) accounts for a huge chunk of overall price increases since "the old days," [and there is lots of technology now involved], but it just seems hard to believe that relatively tiny, mid-level cameras cost as much or more than Mac Pros or high-end iMacs, or even (very) used cars. The overpriced iPad does a lot more things than the K-01 and the Q, but it costs about the same as they do. Computer prices keep going down as the years pass, in spite of the customer getting several orders of magnitude more technology for his/her money than in the old days, and in spite of inflation. The same was true of VCRs and is true of DVD players, scanners, hard drives, etc. Why are digital cameras going against that time-honored trend? [source]

[isaacc7]

Since you actually own a K-01, I gladly defer to your opinion of its "value for money"; however, I personally don't rate a camera's price based on the prices of its nearest competitors. As I wrote the other day:

As someone who is new to the world of high-end digital cameras and still has an outsider's perspective, I think the other camera makers have been overpricing their medium- and high-end products too (in other words, IMHO, two wrongs don't make a right). I could be way out of touch with reality [and probably am], but it appears to me that the camera world has taken on an "elite boutique" mentality since I last paid attention to the market in the 1970s and 1980s. I know inflation (thanks to the Fed) accounts for a huge chunk of overall price increases since "the old days," [and there is lots of technology now involved], but it just seems hard to believe that relatively tiny, mid-level cameras cost as much or more than Mac Pros or high-end iMacs, or even (very) used cars. The overpriced iPad does a lot more things than the K-01 and the Q, but it costs about the same as they do. Computer prices keep going down as the years pass, in spite of the customer getting several orders of magnitude more technology for his/her money than in the old days, and in spite of inflation. The same was true of VCRs and is true of DVD players, scanners, hard drives, etc. Why are digital cameras going against that time-honored trend? [source]

I have to LOL at the overpriced iPad bit. There isn't another company that can match its price without lower quality materials, smaller size, or being subsidized by a carrier. But anyway... I have to ask, how much would be spent on film and processing with those cameras of yesterday? Surely that would have to be factored into the total price of the camera. In any case, as real economists have tried to explain for several hundred years, value is subjective. You might as well scoff at why something as useless as a ring is more expensive than most cameras. Cameras are priced the way they are because people will pay it. As long as companies can make money selling cameras (or iPads, not tablets in general it seems) at these prices, they will continue charging that amount.

How much did a Spotmaticcost new when it came out? How much would that be in today's dollars? I doubt that it would be much more than what the current k-01 goes for, and that doesn't include the ongoing costs of film and development.

[Welfl]

Generosity is a character attribute of people. Corporations are not people.

You're right of course, in the real-world sense, although the Supreme Court perverted reality -- and the future of our country -- in 1886 and said that corporations are people. But that's neither here nor there with regard to this subject.

They have shareholders who demand profit and Return On Equity..

It is for that reason that I've really grown very "un-fond" of shareholders and their ability to influence corporate decisions (not that CEOs and board members are always all that wise either). If shareholders don't like a corporation's decisions, then they should just stop investing in that corporation, and corporations should stop fearing the loss of those shareholders (I think Apple sometimes did what it wanted to do in recent years in spite of its shareholders, and look where it has gotten them, although I'm profoundly displeased with their present OS road map). Most shareholders are not experts, even if they think they are. They just want their money, and they occasionally destroy their "hosts" (and their own best interests) in the long run in order to get that money. But, then again, I think the top heads of corporations sometimes use "shareholders wishes" as an excuse to get away with certain things also, things that shareholders wouldn't care about even if they knew about them. If focus peaking were a big thing, instead of, basically, a "maintenance issue," I would totally understand the decision not to implement it (that's why I would never expect Pentax to "upgrade" the video capabilities of the K-5), but adding this tiny software feature to a camera that is still current, despite its immanent discontinuation, is not that big of a deal and would have little effect on the shareholders' profits (however, John Poitiers and I agree that adding this feature would encourage even greater brand loyalty, which shareholders should understand as being a good thing for their profit margins.

(If you philosophically object to private investment and private capital we can debate that elsewhere).

Oh, no. That won't be necessary. I have been a born-again capitalist (albeit one who also sees its inherent inability to avoid self-destruction) since I finally started taking advantage of my history degree and began studying U.S. history on the internet about seven years ago (on the other hand, I've been a devout constitutionalist since I was a little kid, although I was occasionally led off track by my naive good intentions). I would like to think that I now have the equivalent of an honorary PhD in history. Regrettably, that honorary PhD has come at the price of profound disillusionment, as I now realize that everyone I know (along with a majority of Americans) are irreversibly brainwashed and are terrified of hearing anything that might upset their cozy little fantasy worlds. So I've pretty much burned out on discussing any of it with anyone anymore. Stubborn me, though. It took me a long time to learn my lesson and to realize that most people aren't one-one-hundredth as openminded as I thought they were -- and as they think they are.

Corporations do have Personnel

And it is to those people that I was actually referring as "Pentax" and/or "a corporation."

Since they are not generous...

I know. That's why I put "generosity" in quotation marks. I was using it mostly as a tongue-in-cheek way to be brief.

The jury is still out on Ricoh's business philosophy, and process but I am certain it will be different than under Hoya, and from Pentax when it stood alone.

I know. I've been hoping for some time that Ricoh will really surprise us and start behaving in a way that is more typical of other technology companies (not counting the automobile and medical-technology industries): Prices should gradually become lower as formerly cutting-edge technology becomes more commonplace, instead of remaining high. Also, I used a Ricoh (Sears) 35mm camera from 1980 to 2003, so I sort of have a soft spot for them.

[Medium FormatPro]

I have to LOL at the overpriced iPad bit. There isn't another company that can match its price without lower quality materials, smaller size, or being subsidized by a carrier. But anyway... I have to ask, how much would be spent on film and processing with those cameras of yesterday? Surely that would have to be factored into the total price of the camera. In any case, as real economists have tried to explain for several hundred years, value is subjective. You might as well scoff at why something as useless as a ring is more expensive than most cameras. Cameras are priced the way they are because people will pay it. As long as companies can make money selling cameras (or iPads, not tablets in general it seems) at these prices, they will continue charging that amount.

How much did a Spotmaticcost new when it came out? How much would that be in today's dollars? I doubt that it would be much more than what the current k-01 goes for, and that doesn't include the ongoing costs of film and development.

Given the price of other camera related items from the early 80's to present day... The average price of items such as; gadeget bags, lens' in general (but not including items like the Q lens' which naturally did not exist in the 80's), flash units, and numerous other photographiuc accessories... The prices have generally only about doubled for most of photography.

But also noting items like medium range priced cameras to higher end models; such as... The price of the flagship models from Nikon, Canon, Pentax, and others... As for Canon and Nikon; the prices of the camera bodies has trippled or perhaps even quadrupled; yet for their particular models the build quality has actually done down. For reference please use items like the Canon F-1 or A-1. Yet for Pentax the build quality over three decades has remained at about the same. Item used for the Pentax comparison; the LX to the current K-5.


As for the iPad issue in reguards to prices... Even with all of the updates that have occured from the first generation iPad to the current 3rd generation one; all fo them aren't really using the tech to their advantage. For reference please take a glance at the processor speed and cost of the main processor; and also the end unit cost of even their highest end model. Unfortunately I personally need even a processor (alone unit processor cost) that costs more than any iPad. It's also suprising that Apple sold some three million of them in the fist day alone; and then Apple will come around and issue a new one in about eleven months or so; and then sell even more than that.

[Welfl]

I have to LOL at the overpriced iPad bit. There isn't another company that can match its price without lower quality materials, smaller size, or being subsidized by a carrier.

My complaint about iPad prices is actually a bit more detailed than the general statement I made. I was just trying to be as brief as possible since I am one of the wordiest people on PentaxForums. What bothers me the most is that Apple charges dramatically higher amounts for each larger flash drive. You can buy those same flash drives separately for far less than Apple charges for them. Apple did this for many years with hard drives in their computers too (I've been a Mac user since 1988 and a Mac tech since the 1990s). They still charge three or four times more than anyone else for installing extra memory in your computer.

And, as far as computers go, Apple doesn't always give you more for your money when you buy the higher-priced models. Instead, they simply cripple the lower-end models, which is what some camera companies seem to do, also.

But anyway... I have to ask, how much would be spent on film and processing with those cameras of yesterday? Surely that would have to be factored into the total price of the camera.

I've thought of that many times. If the same company produced both the cameras and the film and did the processing (like Kodak used to and Fuji still does, I think), I could understand them wanting to recoup the losses from their film and processing divisions by increasing the costs of their cameras (even if that really isn't ethical, by my standards). But Pentax, Nikon, Canon, etc., never earned a cent on film sales and processing, so they have no excuse trying to "make up for" lost film sales and processing costs.

In any case, as real economists

What I write here has nothing to do with the topic at hand, but I just have to say it: Real economists have been extremely rare in the past several decades. Prior to about the 1930s, real ones were quite common, even if they were not necessarily called economists in those days.

have tried to explain for several hundred years, value is subjective. You might as well scoff at why something as useless as a ring is more expensive than most cameras.

I wholeheartedly agree with you.

Cameras are priced the way they are because people will pay it.

I know. That's precisely why I referred to the camera world as an "elite boutique." People who are willing to pay prices that are much higher than they really need to be (and who don't see a problem with it) are the ones who encourage corporations to price their products too highly. In so doing, they both make those products unaffordable (or, at least, a very irresponsible purchase) for many other people (the same is true of the modern housing industry, automobile industry, restaurant and services industries, etc.).

How much did a Spotmaticcost new when it came out? How much would that be in today's dollars? I doubt that it would be much more than what the current k-01 goes for, and that doesn't include the ongoing costs of film and development.

I actually went to the Inflation Calculator web site a few weeks ago and calculated the cost of a Pentax KX in 1975, and, taking Fed-induced inflation into account, it was about the same as a K-5 cost prior to last week; however, most other electronics products (and non-electronics products) haven't kept such a seemingly devoted pace with inflation. Most decent TVs and stereos cost a lot more from the 1950s to the 1970s than they do today, even without factoring in inflation. VCRs cost several hundred dollars in the late 1970s, when they first came on the market, but they were sometimes as low as $30 before they (mostly) stopped selling them a couple of years ago. I paid just over $1,000 for a video camera in 1989, and now you can get a low-end model -- that has a lot better image quality -- for about $200. Also, in the "old days," lots of manufacturing was still done here in the U.S., where labor costs were much higher -- even in those days -- than they are overseas today. And our favorite Japanese cameras were manufactured in weatlhy Japan, not in much poorer countries like the Philippines, as they are today.

As for that Pentax KX SLR: In 1980, I bought a Vivitar XV-1 35mm SLR kit, which included two lenses, a flash and a bag, for $180. That camera produced photos that are of just as good a quality as those coming from a Pentax KX, yet the KX cost $325 and probably didn't include all those extras.

-----

the prices of the camera bodies has trippled or perhaps even quadrupled; yet for their particular models the build quality has actually done down.

Yes, that's an excellent point that I completely forgot. Thanks!

[isaacc7]

Glad we're on the same page WRT subjective value. I do think you're overlooking an important factor when trying to compare prices from then vs. now. R&D is unquestionably more expensive now than in the 70's and 80's. Can you imagine a company sticking with a camera model for 4 years now? Especially the pro models? I can't think of a photo company that is wildly profitable. So even if, as you contend, camera prices are somehow bucking the price trend in electronics, the companies don't seem to be reaping the rewards of it. R&D and the faster product cycle add considerably to the costs of cameras. The added costs raise the lower bound of what price a company can sell a camera for and be profitable.

My point about film processing costs wasn't concerning the camera companies directly, but for the price consumers are willing to pay. Kodak and Fuji had the best of both worlds, they could make money off of the cameras and off of the consumables. Now that there really aren't any consumables, the total price that consumers are looking at when it comes to camera gear has dropped considerably. That opens up new price points for companies that didn't used to have the high end of the camera business in their sights. I'd also argue that the new Nikons and canons are now occupying the price points that Hasselblad, Mamiya, Rollei, Linhof, Sinar, etc. used to in the film days. If you go back and look, I think you'll also find that those cameras and systems could have bought you a car as well back then. The current crop of high end products from the likes of Phase One, Hasselblad, etc. could possibly still be cheaper than what they used back in the 80's when you take things like workflow, time, and materials into consideration as well. Total cost is the key from a purchaser's standpoint, especially at the high end where it is presumed that the cameras are bought to make money.

[luftfluss]

And, as far as computers go, Apple doesn't always give you more for your money when you buy the higher-priced models. Instead, they simply cripple the lower-end models, which is what some camera companies seem to do, also.

I'm not an Apple fanboy, but it's only fair to point out that most other tech companies do this, too.

[luftfluss]

Glad we're on the same page WRT subjective value. I do think you're overlooking an important factor when trying to compare prices from then vs. now. R&D is unquestionably more expensive now than in the 70's and 80's. Can you imagine a company sticking with a camera model for 4 years now? Especially the pro models? I can't think of a photo company that is wildly profitable. So even if, as you contend, camera prices are somehow bucking the price trend in electronics, the companies don't seem to be reaping the rewards of it. R&D and the faster product cycle add considerably to the costs of cameras. The added costs raise the lower bound of what price a company can sell a camera for and be profitable.

My point about film processing costs wasn't concerning the camera companies directly, but for the price consumers are willing to pay. Kodak and Fuji had the best of both worlds, they could make money off of the cameras and off of the consumables. Now that there really aren't any consumables, the total price that consumers are looking at when it comes to camera gear has dropped considerably. That opens up new price points for companies that didn't used to have the high end of the camera business in their sights. I'd also argue that the new Nikons and canons are now occupying the price points that Hasselblad, Mamiya, Rollei, Linhof, Sinar, etc. used to in the film days. If you go back and look, I think you'll also find that those cameras and systems could have bought you a car as well back then. The current crop of high end products from the likes of Phase One, Hasselblad, etc. could possibly still be cheaper than what they used back in the 80's when you take things like workflow, time, and materials into consideration as well. Total cost is the key from a purchaser's standpoint, especially at the high end where it is presumed that the cameras are bought to make money.

Very well said, sir!