[PJ1]

Welcome to the Forums. I got my K-01 after they became more affordable. The introductory price was very high. It is an excellent camera and I don't mind the styling. Enjoy using yours and posting your images here.

[ronniemac]

Marketing in the EU (UK still in it!) is similar to that in the US, but at least there are a handful of good stores that stock Pentax, although the number is diminishing. Hoping that Ricoh EU will improve their marketing.

I too really do like the K-01, and hope that Ricoh release a FF version with EVF, tilt screen, reduced distance flange with detachable K mount adapter (incorporating aperture ring?). Start with one or two kit zoom lenses and we'll happily continue with all the lovely K mount primes and zooms that we already have. I've been posting to this effect for years, but recognise that I am in a tiny minority, not least with respect to the beautiful K-01 design aesthetics (not the ergonomics).

Ain't going to happen though!

[AsahiGlass]

Why "no trust"?

Because no one has them and he has bad luck with electronics...He thinks I'm nuts.

But he borrows my stuff all the time...go figure.

[MarkJerling]

Because no one has them and he has bad luck with electronics...He thinks I'm nuts.

But he borrows my stuff all the time...go figure.

There's probably more Pentax shooters around than he realises.
Enjoy your camera!

[monochrome]

I haven’t let lack of marketing stop me from buying any Pentax item I want

Truth is, it doesn’t make good business sense to spend money marketing Pentax in north America unless you are willing to pay 25% more money for cameras and lenses with fewer features and lower quality. We all ‘pay’ for every dollar every product maker spends marketing their products to us. I don’t want to pay for advertising, salesmen, Dealer financing expense, promos, secretaries, Vice Presidents,, real estate, inventory and any other evidence of ‘marketing’ that so many people ask for.

Which assumes Ricoh could even make more gear if they could sell it.

[normhead]

Anyone else remember the assessment that Ricoh did back when they bought Pentax. It was reported that to have the market presence Canon and Nikon do would cost them 1.4 billion USD, and there was no guarantee they would ever recover that investment. They would have had to make hundreds more on every camera sold. The offset in prices to pay for it could have complete ended the company's "value camera" advantage.

Folks forget, they did the analysis, they made the decision that Pentax owners are complaining about. But the truth is, if they hadn't a lot of us "value" shoppers would no longer be with the brand.

[AsahiGlass]

I haven’t let lack of marketing stop me from buying any Pentax item I want

Truth is, it doesn’t make good business sense to spend money marketing Pentax in north America unless you are willing to pay 25% more money for cameras and lenses with fewer features and lower quality. We all ‘pay’ for every dollar every product maker spends marketing their products to us. I don’t want to pay for advertising, salesmen, Dealer financing expense, promos, secretaries, Vice Presidents,, real estate, inventory and any other evidence of ‘marketing’ that so many people ask for.

Which assumes Ricoh could even make more gear if they could sell it.

It's a double edged sword...The reason they are even remotely popular is from advertising that was done 20+ years ago.

When I was in high school and college I could go to the mall...Ritz camera and look at a new Pentax.

I could go to the proshop and dream of owning a 645. They have shrunk their market share.

I would rather pay a little more to have the piece of mind that they will be around 20 more years.

Wouldn't you?

would you by a Yugo? Saturn? Hummer? Oldsmobile? Saab? I think that's were they are headed. I hope I'm wrong.

[Docrwm]

Funny, but 8 years ago when I began my dSLR journey I heard the same issues, arguments, and assertions. Pentax is still here, has even better products, and a lot more of them. If Ricoh were to disappear tomorrow - I have plenty of great glass and bodies to last me. Heck, I'm still using a K-3 after 4 years and a K-5iis after 5 and they still exceed my ability as a photographer. Plus, old glass rules.

[TaoMaas]

Anyone else remember the assessment that Ricoh did back when they bought Pentax. It was reported that to have the market presence Canon and Nikon do would cost them 1.4 billion USD, and there was no guarantee they would ever recover that investment. They would have had to make hundreds more on every camera sold. The offset in prices to pay for it could have complete ended the company's "value camera" advantage.

Sometimes you've gotta think outside the box if you're going to compete against giants. Back in the film days, 3M made Scotch brand film, but the market was dominated by Kodak and Fuji. So 3M did what Pentax is doing now. They saved themselves a ton of money by not advertising. That allowed them to sell their film at a lower cost than Fuji or Kodak, but instead of trying to woo regular consumers, 3M sold their film to Wal Mart, Target, Fotomat, and many more places that carried "house brand" film. It was enough of a market to allow them to be the 3rd largest film company here in America...and they did it with little to no advertising.

I don't know how it is other places, but since our local camera store doesn't carry Pentax, they don't have much of a market for any Pentax gear that they take in on trade so they tend to mark it down.

[Docrwm]

Sometimes you've gotta think outside the box if you're going to compete against giants. Back in the film days, 3M made Scotch brand film, but the market was dominated by Kodak and Fuji. So 3M did what Pentax is doing now. They saved themselves a ton of money by not advertising. That allowed them to sell their film at a lower cost than Fuji or Kodak, but instead of trying to woo regular consumers, 3M sold their film to Wal Mart, Target, Fotomat, and many more places that carried "house brand" film. It was enough of a market to allow them to be the 3rd largest film company here in America...and they did it with little to no advertising.

I don't know how it is other places, but since our local camera store doesn't carry Pentax, they don't have much of a market for any Pentax gear that they take in on trade so they tend to mark it down.

Wait! You have a local what?!?

[THoog]

would you by a Yugo? Saturn? Hummer? Oldsmobile? Saab? I think that's were they are headed.

Would you buy a Renault or a Peugeot? They both exited the US auto market in the early 90s, but both are still making cars. When Hoya bought Pentax for their medical business, they essentially abandoned the US camera market, then they abandoned cameras. (Well, they sold what was left of the division, but sold it for a song - $124 million. For comparison, I hear Canon spends $50 million on advertising, just in the US, in a single year.)

Which assumes Ricoh could even make more gear if they could sell it.

This is an important point. Even with their almost non-existent advertising, Pentax could barely keep up with demand for the K-1 when it came out. They are THAT small now. It's not just a matter of advertising, it's a matter of building factories to be able to meet big-box store demand, establishing channels to the big box stores, maybe re-establishing relationships with the few remaining brick-and-mortar stores, and THEN advertising. That's why it would cost Ricoh $1.4 billion to get back into the US market - at a time when digital camera sales are collapsing, their photocopier income is waning, and the company as a whole is tightening belts.

[monochrome]

Better yet, don’t compete against the giants at all. Be a profitable niche player with a tiny invested capital* footprint.

* ROIC on medical devices is 20%. ROIC on large-enterprise digital photo equipment is 8%. Do the math and understand why Hoya stripped the high-return assets, repurposed the Japan real estate, liquidated the Pentax inventory of lenses at fire-sale prices, then sold the husk to RIcoh for pocket change. Understand why RIcoh wrote down the former compact camera plant as ‘Impaired Plant & Equipment’ and transferred it to Automotive. That actually affected the earnings of big Ricoh!

Ricoh Imaging is truly a tiny company. It just doesn’t make business sense to do the things you say they ‘have to do’ to succeed. Competing with Canon, Nikon, Sony, Fuji and m43 using the traditional high volume business model would not work.

They’re actually being very creative keeping the brand alive this way, sharing Optical engineering expertise with Ricoh and receiving manufacturing process expertise from Ricoh.

.:

Sometimes you've gotta think outside the box if you're going to compete against giants. Back in the film days, 3M made Scotch brand film, but the market was dominated by Kodak and Fuji. So 3M did what Pentax is doing now. They saved themselves a ton of money by not advertising. That allowed them to sell their film at a lower cost than Fuji or Kodak, but instead of trying to woo regular consumers, 3M sold their film to Wal Mart, Target, Fotomat, and many more places that carried "house brand" film. It was enough of a market to allow them to be the 3rd largest film company here in America...and they did it with little to no advertising.

I don't know how it is other places, but since our local camera store doesn't carry Pentax, they don't have much of a market for any Pentax gear that they take in on trade so they tend to mark it down.

[clackers]

I would rather pay a little more to have the piece of mind that they will be around 20 more years.

I don't think everyone would pay 25 percent more on every item in an *attempt* to take market share from Canon and Nikon, AsahiGlass. Failure could result in the division being shut down after 20 months!

I do think we have to get rid of the idea of copying the market leaders, they have both incumbency and financial problems of their own.

[AsahiGlass]

Would you buy a Renault or a Peugeot? They both exited the US auto market in the early 90s, but both are still making cars. When Hoya bought Pentax for their medical business, they essentially abandoned the US camera market, then they abandoned cameras. (Well, they sold what was left of the division, but sold it for a song - $124 million. For comparison, I hear Canon spends $50 million on advertising, just in the US, in a single year.)



This is an important point. Even with their almost non-existent advertising, Pentax could barely keep up with demand for the K-1 when it came out. They are THAT small now. It's not just a matter of advertising, it's a matter of building factories to be able to meet big-box store demand, establishing channels to the big box stores, maybe re-establishing relationships with the few remaining brick-and-mortar stores, and THEN advertising. That's why it would cost Ricoh $1.4 billion to get back into the US market - at a time when digital camera sales are collapsing, their photocopier income is waning, and the company as a whole is tightening belts.

I agree that the market for digital cameras is falling. But they gotta do something. Being stagnant and not proactive =Death.

Sears catalog was what Amazon is today, samething with JC Penney, but Walmart pulled it off because they embraced change.

If you own a Nissan you essentially drive a Renault/ Peugeot/Citroen because they own Nissan...BTW

[clackers]

I agree that the market for digital cameras is falling. But they gotta do something.

Okay, be the board of any camera company in a shrinking market, what do you do?

You might have one answer for a market leader, another for a minority player.