[joe.penn]

Good Read:

Digital Camera Consumers are Willing to Pay More for Nikon - MarketWatch

[Adam]

Nice- figures though, it's like wanting to pay a premium for higher-end cars thinking they are all worth it.

[Rondec]

Interesting. Says a lot about the power of branding. Why someone will "only buy Post brand raisin bran" and never Kellogg's or vice versa.

Some companies (thinking Apple) are very protective of what is sold under their brand name, while other companies aren't so much. I don't know how the Nikon brand got so much cache (their bottom end cameras are quite cheap feeling), but once its there it is worth an awful lot to them to keep that up.

[JohnBee]

That's odd... I'd pay more for Pentax

I don't think the study encompassed existing camera owners as that would dramatically change the outcome of ones branding I guess. Nevertheless... I truly believe that Pentax could easilly sway the market through legacy marketing campaigns. Except that no one seems to care

[reeftool]

I think that consumers have the impression that that Nikon is the best. When you watch TV news, sports, etc., you always see Nikon's hanging off the reporters necks. That registers in peoples minds. Paul Simon shot his Kodachrome with a Nikon. The sad thing is that 30 years ago, many people would have mentioned Pentax and it didn't even get mentioned in the article.

[jogiba]

Another lame story from the media that has to come up with daily stories to put food on the table. I bet the difference between Nikon , Canon , Panasonic etc is within the margin of error. I paid $630 for my Panasonic GH2 on Dec 1 2010 and here one year later many people are willing to pay more than that.

[writeb]

I think it's hardly all horse-pucky, in fact, seems to jive well with the FF-based rationalizations for Pentax in that it will help seed professional perception and a long term upgrade strategy for amateurs and semi-professionals with deep pockets. Notable quote:

"The results may verify expectations that Nikon’s overall brand/price power is positively impacted by the presence of its “high end” line of cameras."

[Jasvox]

Yet the K-5 cost a couple of hundred more at introduction than the D7000.

Jason

[Wheatfield]

I think it's hardly all horse-pucky, in fact, seems to jive well with the FF-based rationalizations for Pentax in that it will help seed professional perception and a long term upgrade strategy for amateurs and semi-professionals with deep pockets. Notable quote:

"The results may verify expectations that Nikon’s overall brand/price power is positively impacted by the presence of its “high end” line of cameras."

People who buy SLR cameras for the first time tend to be dreamers or wannabes (on several levels). The dreamers look at what the best the company has to offer, and then buy what they can afford, and dream of buying the better camera "someday", the wannabes buy what the pros use, or what some celebrity that they admire uses or whatever happens to fulfill their non photographic need.
These people are looking at what is the "best" that is out there when making a brand decision.
People who do actual research will tend to be pushed into Nikon or Canon because that is what most of the industry is oriented to. Some may go a different path, but as the sales numbers for Pentax show, that is a pretty small percentage.

Yet the K-5 cost a couple of hundred more at introduction than the D7000.

Jason

The K5 is Pentax's top line camera in the format that people consider, the D7K sits somewhere near the middle of the Nikon range. This has more to do with buyers choice than price. The D3 gives the D7k a surprising amount of desirability to a beginner buyer, much more so than a 645D gives the K5, which is something that few beginners can relate to.

[Rondec]

Yet the K-5 cost a couple of hundred more at introduction than the D7000.

Jason

This had a lot to do with Hoya's style of pricing -- price really high initially and gouge the early adopters and then allow the price to drop fairly quickly to what would make the product viable in the market.

Anyway, I think in Europe, even initially, the D7000 and K5 were priced pretty equivalently. It was only in the US market that Nikon priced the 7000 much under the K5.

[Ratmagiclady]

Yet the K-5 cost a couple of hundred more at introduction than the D7000.

Jason

Well, actually, I was pretty sure I heard that Nikon was counting on the 'People will pay more for Nikon' factor *till* the K-5 came out, and as the bigger company, Nikon decided to do a little loss-leading *cause* they were threatened by the K-5.... They probably wouldn't even have *made* a camera like that unless Pentax was filling the niche: they'd previously been doing the kind of stratification that meant there was a huge gulf between their 'amateur' stuff and like a d300. You know, it's branding and marketshare and all. Honestly, I'm happy to be here, but if I'd had the money, I'd probably be *sporting* a d300 and an FE2, instead of a K20d and various little Pentax film bodies. (Actually, I'd expected to start with maybe a K10d and work from there, but I got lucky, both on the price-drop and having something that could be traded for it. I did give Nikon one last look, but for that money I was looking at used D70s (crippled from a serious photog's perspective, those) and not-so-good glass. )


A K-5 running like it should would really be about all the camera I need, though. Nikon wasn't going to be trying to make their own version the more-expensive item in the face of *that.* One of the reasons I've got good gear is cause Pentax *doesn't* control the market. It's cause they put the right stuff in my hands. And between them Canon and Nikon had their own definitions of 'pro-level' camera that don't apply to all people who just want the full control suite and durability and quality and weatherliness, but don't need to be lugging around a monster with 8 FPS and all that jazz.

[philbaum]

Big companies tend to get fat and lazy. Not all, but many eventually do.

Nikon lures people in with their reputation and professional cameras/use, and then buy crippled consumer models, IMO

Until one day, a consumer "ripple" spreads among the masses, and people leave the market leader in a tidal wave.

GM is one example, Toyota is a recent example of letting standards slip too far.

I agree with others that D7000 was a Nikon attempt at a K7 killer, but it undermines the carefully crafted Nikon lineup.
Pentax continues to have an opportunity to get a solid niche built.

Fuji and Sony seem like they have some "giant killer" opportunity also.

[Ratmagiclady]

Big companies tend to get fat and lazy. Not all, but many eventually do.

Nikon lures people in with their reputation and professional cameras/use, and then buy crippled consumer models, IMO

Until one day, a consumer "ripple" spreads among the masses, and people leave the market leader in a tidal wave.

GM is one example, Toyota is a recent example of letting standards slip too far.

I agree with others that D7000 was a Nikon attempt at a K7 killer, but it undermines the carefully crafted Nikon lineup.
Pentax continues to have an opportunity to get a solid niche built.

Fuji and Sony seem like they have some "giant killer" opportunity also.

It'll be interesting where the market goes: I'm tired of it being competing on 'features.' All I want from Pentax at this point is more reliability and *accuracy.* I want the focusing screens and AF *dialed in.* Faster's good if you need automation, but they have a beautiful-looking chassis at the top end and it even looks like a camera should. They ought to just own that and not worry so much about playing others' games.

[Nesster]

The history of cameras - and stuff in general - shows that there are very few market niches where one can make a good living. Value leader is one, but the best is to be top-of-the-heap: for example Leica. And Nikon. You do have to spend and support in order to maintain the position, but you also have a lot of pricing flexibility. Careful nurture of brand name (Leica from the '30's, Nikon from the '50s) and trying real hard not to screw it up over time is essential.

History is littered with 'poor man's Leicas' and other such, and cameras that used to be top of the heap but could not sustain it. I think of Pentax with the Spotmatic, Konica with the early EE auto exposure, Miranda... Even Canon almost lost it at the end of the rangefinder era. Each had the problem of being a 'poor man's' something or an 'amateur's' something, or ending up as such due to holding onto too-old seeming technology for too long.

[Ratmagiclady]

The history of cameras - and stuff in general - shows that there are very few market niches where one can make a good living. Value leader is one, but the best is to be top-of-the-heap: for example Leica. And Nikon. You do have to spend and support in order to maintain the position, but you also have a lot of pricing flexibility. Careful nurture of brand name (Leica from the '30's, Nikon from the '50s) and trying real hard not to screw it up over time is essential.

History is littered with 'poor man's Leicas' and other such, and cameras that used to be top of the heap but could not sustain it. I think of Pentax with the Spotmatic, Konica with the early EE auto exposure, Miranda... Even Canon almost lost it at the end of the rangefinder era. Each had the problem of being a 'poor man's' something or an 'amateur's' something, or ending up as such due to holding onto too-old seeming technology for too long.

Eh, though: I used to *shoot* Miranda, and while I have some fondness, they seemed more to be going for the 'Luxury Brand Soligor' thing: You know, dress up a Crown Vic and call it a Lincoln. Good stuff, especially for the time, but I don't think 'Poor Man's' or 'Leica' actually apply. More like, 'Fancy and well-made, but with dim finders and so-so lenses.'