Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
06-27-2012, 11:20 PM   #31
Veteran Member
lammie200's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,028
QuoteOriginally posted by Welfl Quote
I don't know what you are asking.
I was just alluding to my feelings that Pentax is in a survival mode.

I believe that the introductory price for the K-r body was $800. Given the changes in features, I think that Pentax is justified in charging $50 more for the K-30 body. That said, I bought my K-r for $500. I thought that was a reasonable price. I didn't think $800 was a reasonable price. Just like everything that has preceded it, the K-30 will drop to a more reasonable price eventually.

Lastly, the K-30 and the K-5 are the only APS-c dSLR's that Pentax is currently offering. Both are WR. What do you think Pentax should do with all the other lenses that it offers that aren't WR? If you think that a WR body shouldn't be offered with a non-WR lens, then maybe Pentax should only be making WR lenses?

Your comments about the WR body / non WR lens bundles as seeming tacky and cheap reminded me of one of my father's car purchases. In the early nineties he bought a Lexus SC300. I thought to myself "If you wanted a pseudo sport / luxury car, why didn't you get the SC400? The SC300 is the cheap version." The truth was that it was all he could afford.


Last edited by lammie200; 06-28-2012 at 12:24 AM.
06-28-2012, 11:10 AM   #32
Senior Member




Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Nebraska
Posts: 281
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by lammie200 Quote
I was just alluding to my feelings that Pentax is in a survival mode.
Yes, I alluded to the possibility of that point in one of my comments, too.

I worked for my dad in a business for a few months in 1984 (when I was 23). His business was sort of in survival-mode too; nonetheless, I gave the customers a bit more for their money than my dad wanted me to. He said he couldn't afford it. I told him I had always promised myself that if I was ever in a position to give the customers what I thought was a fair amount for their money, I was going to do it (since most businesses seemed to be so stingy), and no one was going to talk me out of it. I also told him I was convinced that my "generosity" would actually be good for business. He strongly disagreed. Luckily, he needed me to do that job more than I needed that job, so he couldn't fire me . Besides, he would never have fired me anyway. He got really angry again one day early in my employment because I still had not stopped giving the customers what I thought was a fair amount for their money. He again ordered me to stop, and I again refused because I was so thrilled to finally have the chance to hold true to my longstanding promise to myself. Besides, I was still convinced that what I was doing would be good for business in the long run (I also did not want the customers to see my dad or me as cheapskates). By keeping an accurate count of the inventory one day, I showed him that I was not "giving away" nearly as much as he thought I was. For some reason, he finally started letting me do it my way. About ten or fifteen years later, after he had had enough time to swallow his pride, he voluntarily told me that my giving the customers a bit more for their money was the best thing that ever happened to his business. The customers were very pleased "to be getting their money's worth," and, as a consequence, they came back a lot more often and spent a lot more of their money on our other items while they were there.

I did the same thing in at least a couple of other businesses in later years, with the same positive results. I did it against the official policy of the owner in one of those businesses. He later secretly told his manager, who then secretly told me, that he was actually glad I had contradicted him and given the customers a bit more for their money, because it had been very good for business.

Through three decades of observation and personal experience, I am convinced that most business and corporate people think exactly as my dad and that other business owner used to think before they had to deal with me, but, regrettably, there is no one who is in a position to safely challenge them and show them that they don't need to be so stingy. Maybe my business philosophy cannot be adapted to fit every type of business in the world, but I think it can be adapted to fit a lot of them.

QuoteOriginally posted by lammie200 Quote
Just like everything that has preceded it, the K-30 will drop to a more reasonable price eventually.
I know. The problem is that I have already put off buying a new camera for the past year and a half, because the K-5 was way, way, way too expensive (by my personal standards) for the first year, but every other camera paled in comparison to it (and I also have a bunch of manual K-mount lenses). Then, when it finally became somewhat less unreasonably priced, I suddenly discovered that "danged, new-fangled" focus peaking, which forced me into waiting mode all over again (the K-01 does not appeal to me at all).

Also, the world economy is getting much, much worse, not better, so prices may stay high or go higher in the months and years to come.

QuoteOriginally posted by lammie200 Quote
What do you think Pentax should do with all the other lenses that it offers that aren't WR?
I think they should stop manufacturing them. Companies discontinue older products all the time.

QuoteOriginally posted by lammie200 Quote
...then maybe Pentax should only be making WR lenses?
I do think that, because I agree with Unsinkable II that the cost of adding weather sealing isn't as expensive as they would have us believe. Companies are constantly making formerly "high-end-only" features into standard features all the time and discontinuing the former standard features. In spite of this, the prices of their new products, which contain these formerly high-end features, are actually lower than they used to be without them. Apple computers, which I have used and studied very closely since 1988, are a prime example of this.

Last edited by Welfl; 06-28-2012 at 11:32 AM.
06-28-2012, 11:12 AM   #33
Administrator
Site Webmaster
Adam's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Arizona
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 43,219
Now if only the k-30 were available. The latest word from Amazon is that it won't be available until well into july!
06-28-2012, 11:14 AM   #34
Pentaxian
JinDesu's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: New York City
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 5,626
QuoteOriginally posted by Adam Quote
Now if only the k-30 were available. The latest word from Amazon is that it won't be available until well into july!
Adam: Master of skipping discussion!

Do you know when stores are getting their samples, or should I ask that directly to B&H?

06-28-2012, 11:27 AM   #35
Senior Member




Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Nebraska
Posts: 281
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Adam Quote
Now if only the k-30 were available. The latest word from Amazon is that it won't be available until well into july!
For some reason (based on reading between the lines?), I've had a sneaking suspicion lately that the K-30 was going to be delayed a little while longer.
06-28-2012, 12:21 PM   #36
Veteran Member
lammie200's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,028
QuoteOriginally posted by Welfl Quote
...Also, the world economy is getting much, much worse, not better, so prices may stay high or go higher in the months and years to come...
Definitely. And I see your points about PRICL stepping up and going full-on WR with everything. However, since I don't know the true cost of WR'ing a lens, and with PRICL still needing to offer products with a broad spectrum of price points to compete, I assume that they will likely continue with both WR and non-WR to meet those price points.
06-28-2012, 01:18 PM   #37
Senior Member




Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Nebraska
Posts: 281
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by lammie200 Quote
However, since I don't know the true cost of WR'ing a lens
Of course, I don't know the true costs for a fact either.

Just for fun, I will play devil's advocate: Unsinkable II says that it costs only pennies more to manufacture weather-sealed products than it does to manufacture non-weather-sealed products in whatever industry he works/worked in. Just for fun, I shall speculate that maybe it costs dimes, quarters or fifty-cent pieces more to mass produce WR lenses than it does to mass produce non-WR lenses. If true, that's still a very small increase in mass-production costs compared to what we actually pay for them at retail.

QuoteOriginally posted by lammie200 Quote
and with PRICL still needing to offer products with a broad spectrum of price points to compete, I assume that they will likely continue with both WR and non-WR to meet those price points.
I don't expect Pentax go with WR only for the foreseeable future, whether or not they ever read my "invaluable" opinion on the matter. Even if they do switch to WR only, they probably will not behave like other companies and lower the wholesale/retail prices of their WR lenses. They will probably keep them high just because they know they can get away with it.

Last edited by Welfl; 06-28-2012 at 01:25 PM.
06-28-2012, 01:38 PM   #38
Veteran Member
lammie200's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,028
QuoteOriginally posted by Welfl Quote
Of course, I don't know the true costs for a fact either...
True costs would include oppurtunity costs (or as you would have it, oppurtunity costs lost) of providing something that has more perceived value than something comparable. If people perceive WR lenses as having more value (in this case, utility) than non WR lenses, then PRICL has every right to charge more for them. That is regardless of whether they have refined the manufacturing process such that the manufacturing costs are the same for both WR and non WR lenses. You might not like it, but that is one way for a company to gain some competitive advantages.

06-28-2012, 02:06 PM   #39
Veteran Member
Ryan Trevisol's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: South Florida
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 308
QuoteOriginally posted by lammie200 Quote
True costs would include oppurtunity costs (or as you would have it, oppurtunity costs lost) of providing something that has more perceived value than something comparable. If people perceive WR lenses as having more value (in this case, utility) than non WR lenses, then PRICL has every right to charge more for them. That is regardless of whether they have refined the manufacturing process such that the manufacturing costs are the same for both WR and non WR lenses. You might not like it, but that is one way for a company to gain some competitive advantages.
I would wholeheartedly agree, if they weren't selling the lenses for the exact same price on Pentax Web Store. Even better, the II version of the DA 18-55 is selling for LESS than the original . . .

I think it's more complex than we might be giving them credit for, but it's still puzzling. With the 18-55, it's kind of confusing, you have the original DA, the DA II, DA-L version (no quick shift, no hood) that comes with the K-30 (and came with the K-r and K-x before that), which is the DA II, and the DA WR, which is presumably a WR version of the II, but has different exterior plastics than any of the others, which may be to set it apart visually, or it may have something to do with keeping it WR.

Either way, the WR kit lens has been around for years now, and any R&D they had associated with it is long since recovered. Even if the lens costs 5% more to make, it's worth it to toss it in with a WR body. At least from our perspective. But maybe Pentax has an eye on the long game, wherein they know that the K-30 will be discounted more deeply and more rapidly than the K-5 was, and they would lose more money in the long run. Who knows?
Attached Images
 

Last edited by Ryan Trevisol; 06-28-2012 at 02:13 PM.
06-28-2012, 02:12 PM   #40
Forum Member




Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: PacNW
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 80
QuoteOriginally posted by Adam Quote
Now if only the k-30 were available. The latest word from Amazon is that it won't be available until well into july!
I hope not too late into July. We pre-ordered it based on the original June 25th date because we need to have the camera here before July28th. This is sort of making me nervous and I am afraid I am going to have to cancel my pre-order, which I really don't want to do. I hope we can have a some solid date information soon...
06-28-2012, 02:13 PM   #41
Veteran Member
madbrain's Avatar

Join Date: May 2008
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 807
QuoteOriginally posted by Adam Quote
Now if only the k-30 were available. The latest word from Amazon is that it won't be available until well into july!
Damn :-( Looks like I sold my K-r too early ...
06-28-2012, 02:15 PM   #42
Veteran Member
madbrain's Avatar

Join Date: May 2008
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 807
QuoteOriginally posted by Ryan Trevisol Quote
I would wholeheartedly agree, if they weren't selling the lenses for the exact same price on Pentax Web Store. Even better, the II version of the DA 18-55 is selling for LESS than the original . . .
That's probably an error on the part of incompetent Pentax marketing. They could clearly fetch more money for the WR lenses than non-WR, regardless of what it costs them to make.
I hope this means the non-WR lenses will drop in price; but more likely, when they notice the error, they will increase the price on the WR model.
06-28-2012, 04:08 PM   #43
Senior Member




Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Nebraska
Posts: 281
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by lammie200 Quote
True costs would include oppurtunity costs [...] of providing something that has more perceived value.
Yes, I know. That's what too many companies do nowadays, including Pentax, and I don't believe in it at all. I have never believed in it since I first realized such things are done. Just because it is a universally recognized and accepted business model does not make it an honorable one (for lack of a better term). However, as I say, I am obviously several decades out of date on this topic, because I know most people will laugh at my use of the word "honorable" in this context (that's not really the word I would prefer to use here, nor is the word, "ethical," but my mind is drawing a blank right now).

QuoteOriginally posted by Ryan Trevisol Quote
Either way, the WR kit lens has been around for years now, and any R&D they had associated with it is long since recovered.
Exactly right.
06-28-2012, 05:01 PM   #44
Pentaxian
Class A's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 9,193
QuoteOriginally posted by welfl Quote
just because it is a universally recognized and accepted business model does not make it an honorable one (for lack of a better term).
+100



.
06-28-2012, 06:34 PM   #45
Veteran Member
Ryan Trevisol's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: South Florida
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 308
QuoteOriginally posted by Welfl Quote
Yes, I know. That's what too many companies do nowadays, including Pentax, and I don't believe in it at all. I have never believed in it since I first realized such things are done. Just because it is a universally recognized and accepted business model does not make it an honorable one (for lack of a better term). However, as I say, I am obviously several decades out of date on this topic, because I know most people will laugh at my use of the word "honorable" in this context (that's not really the word I would prefer to use here, nor is the word, "ethical," but my mind is drawing a blank right now).
If everyone lived the way you believe, we would have a much nicer world to live in.

Unfortunately, that's not the world we do actually live in, and Pentax has to do what it needs to do to survive, because if Pentax adopted a benevolent, not-take-all-the-profit-it-can-get stance, Canon and Nikon would be happy to crush them. The 18-55 WR does cost probably 1-2% more to make than the non-WR one, and Pentax needs to position it, with it's cents worth of parts and assembly at a premium position, it only makes business sense.
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!
k-30, k-50, pc magazine, pentax k30, pentax k50
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Don't say Pentax "Q" in French ... "Q" = "cul" = "A--" Jean Poitiers Pentax Q 52 11-10-2013 06:25 AM
French Magazine "Réponses Photo" 2011 Gear Guide - Pentax very well positioned Flickeroo Pentax News and Rumors 8 01-04-2011 09:13 AM
Night VIDEO: Bag Raiders Performing Their "Shooting Stars" Christopher M.W.T Post Your Photos! 2 11-20-2010 04:24 AM
Beauty Shoot for "Citizen K" Magazine "How Did I Do It?" benjikan Photographic Technique 25 12-05-2009 05:33 AM
"Sail To The Stars" @ Milang South Australia (Star Trails with the DA 14mm f2.8) Adrian Owerko Post Your Photos! 15 04-07-2008 06:11 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:59 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.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