[Samsungian]

Nope, no K-7 for me.
Shutter Blur Killed any interest I had in the K-7
I have zero interest in any K-7 now.
Even at $600 brand new.
or $500 or whatever...

I still like my K20D. I assume it will be my last item I sell off.

And I still await the big imaging show in Germany in 5 weeks to pull the plug...

Ah Samsungian, haven't you learnt by now Pentax users want terrific value NOW, so what you propose is not a workable option. In such dire global economic conditions, people want the biggest bang for the buck, not the biggest hole in the pocket for a bigger sensor...



So will you buy a K-7 now?

[Blue]

[Angevinn]

Hi Gene,

Your numbers are partly correct.

Check out these links:

Old legacy lenses: What did they cost new back then?: Pentax SLR Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review

&

$2500 for a Pentax Spotmatic F - Photo.net Leica and Rangefinders Forum


In 1964, The Pentax Spotmatic with a 50mm 1.4 Takumar was $300.00. Adjusted for inflation, using the online calculator:

DollarTimes.com | Inflation Calculator

The 1964 Pentax Spotmatic with 50mm 1.4 Takumar in today's dollars would be $2,076.43.

The 1974 Pentax Spotmatic F including the SMC Takumar 50mm 1.4 was $600 in its day.

Asahi Pentax Spotmatic F

In today's USD that is $2,804.53

How many people just buy a camera and kit lens? When I buy a new camera I usually pick up extra batteries, better neck strap, another camera bag and another lens or two.

$2,800 today can buy you a Fullframe DSLR from Canon or Nikon (Sony too, but I don't want to get into Sony) with a 50mm lens. What does Pentax currently have to offer?

I have to be good with numbers in my line of work. I don't fudge numbers as another forum member has posted. Check my links. These numbers are all factual.

Pentax was once a premium brand. Pentax advertised and had sales offices in New York, Chicago, Denver, etc. Even the repair center was in the US. Now nothing, just the home office in Colorado. You have a hard time finding Pentax in any brick and mortar stores too. By offering premium products again (like a FullFrame DSLR) I believe Pentax would help rebuild its market share and become more profitable.

Living in Chicago, I will walk around downtown and take pictures. I have a Pentax K100D and K20D. I frequently see Nikon, Canon and even Olympus around the necks of other photographers. I have been asked many times, "What's a Pentax?" or "Pentax is still around?". It's sad.

I enjoy Pentax cameras but I don't want to shoot APS-C anymore. I hope Hoya keeps helping Pentax along and we see a FullFrame Pentax sooner than later. Pentax makes great stuff and has a lot of growth potential.

There's a pretty easy site for calculating values in today's dollars. DollarTimes.com | Inflation Calculator

Basically, the most expensive Pentax SLR in today's dollars would be the LX, which might be closer to the $2,000 mark in today's dollars. I seem to recall paying about $800 in the early '80s.

[johnmflores]

You're making a false assumption. It's not up to Pentax. It's up to the big 3: Canon, Nikon, and Sony.

If they choose to put FF sensors in at lower price points, either Pentax does as well or it can longer economically produce DSLR's and lenses. If FF's get within $400 of the street price of the Pentax APS-C flagship, that flagship is no longer financially viable.

Pentax has absolutely no option but to contemplate FF because either Canon or Nikon will blink and start offering FF sensors in sub-$2,000 bodies. It's not if, but when.

I'm not so sure that Canon or Nikon will strike first, as they will need to rethink their entire product lines to accommodate. If Nikon, for example, introduces a $1700 FF, does it replace the D300, or does the Dx00 line move down to the $1300 price point, which is starting to get close to the Dx0 line, and so forth.

Likewise, if the 7D successor is FF, do they alienate a whole segment of sport shooters that like the extra reach and now have to reconsider their whole lens lineup with the upgrade? Additionally, assuming that FF margins at $1700 are likely to be lower than a similar APS-C, Canon would have to increase market share and sales at that price point to maintain similar profitability.

For Canikon, it was easier a couple of years ago to introduce FF, because they were extending their lines upward, where there is always room. It's a little harder now. Not that it can't be done, but it's typically issues like this that discourage market leaders from being market innovators.

All this said, I think that it's actually easier for someone with holes in their lineup to take the chance and introduce a market disrupter like the $1500-$1700 FF that we are speaking of. Pentax, anyone?

[TaoMaas]

The 1974 Pentax Spotmatic F including the SMC Takumar 50mm 1.4 was $600 in its day.

They only WISHED it sold for that. It did not. That may have been the MSRP, but nobody paid that much. Heck, I bought a brand, spankin' new ME two years after this and only paid $200.

[Blue]

They only WISHED it sold for that. It did not. That may have been the MSRP, but nobody paid that much. Heck, I bought a brand, spankin' new ME two years after this and only paid $200.

A friend gave me his Spot F 2 years ago. He got it at the U.S. Army PX in Vietnam in late '73 when he was on the way back to the U.S. I think he paid $235 for it. He retired recently but I think he had more purchasing power as a Lt. than when he retired as a biology tech.

[Michaelina2]

In 1964, The Pentax Spotmatic with a 50mm 1.4 Takumar was $300.00. Adjusted for inflation, using the online calculator:

The 1964 Pentax Spotmatic with 50mm 1.4 Takumar in today's dollars would be $2,076.43.

Interesting... Prices must have really jumped from 1962 to 64

In 1962, I bought a new Asahi Pentax SV w/Tak 55/1.8 and 35/3.5 directly from the HERO Camera Company in Japan. I paid (including air transportation and US customs) $85.00, complete (or $603.00 in 2010 dollars). It arrived nicely packaged in about a week. I could have ordered a Spotmatic, but it was about $25.00, more. Since I already had a good ($20.00) light meter, I figured I did not need an 'un-tested' camera that fancy, so I passed on it. I used this kit for many years and it never let me down.

Anyway, for grins the other day, I took it out and ran a roll of film through it... still works perfectly... but there is no way it can be compared to the magic of a K-x, or K-7. The 'good ol days' are now. I'm NOT going back!

Cheers...

[Angevinn]

I've picked up some old Pentax Spotmatics in the last few years. They are built to last. A great service that Costco, Walgreens and even Osco offer are a direct transfer of film to CD. I can go out and shoot a roll of film in my Spotmatic or old Nikon camera, take the film to be developed and instead of getting prints back I get all the images on a CD. It's not that expensive and lets me temporarily get my FullFrame fix from time to time. The old cameras still have value.

I'm really not looking to fight with people on this forum, but look at Pentax's overall offerings. Two APS-C DSLR's that are less than $1,000. The next step is a $10,000 Medium Format Digital Camera. Where's the middle? I mostly shoot between 14mm-50mm with some occasional portraits in the 85-105mm range. FullFrame has always fit my shooting style. If I used long telephoto more I'd probably be more into APS-C. That's not my style of shooting. I prefer wide to standard focal lengths.

I would rather shake hands with a leper than touch a M4/3 format camera. The sensor is too small and I'm not impressed at all with image results. Having to multiply legacy lenses by a factor of 2x has no appeal to me whatsoever.

I switched to Pentax from Nikon and really like Pentax. To keep me as a customer Pentax needs to offer more or I'll have to head back to Nikon. It's a shame because I really like Pentax. I just don't care for APS-C!

Interesting... Prices must have really jumped from 1962 to 64

In 1962, I bought a new Asahi Pentax SV w/Tak 55/1.8 and 35/3.5 directly from the HERO Camera Company in Japan. I paid (including air transportation and US customs) $85.00, complete (or $603.00 in 2010 dollars). It arrived nicely packaged in about a week. I could have ordered a Spotmatic, but it was about $25.00, more. Since I already had a good ($20.00) light meter, I figured I did not need an 'un-tested' camera that fancy, so I passed on it. I used this kit for many years and it never let me down.

Anyway, for grins the other day, I took it out and ran a roll of film through it... still works perfectly... but there is no way it can be compared to the magic of a K-x, or K-7. The 'good ol days' are now. I'm NOT going back!

Cheers...

[Kunzite]

Pentax was in really bad shape before Hoya took them over. Don't kid yourself. Hoya has had their work cut out for them in reviving Pentax. Pentax's board and major stockholders were not initially interested in the merger. Hoya had to pay a premium of 20% over the then value of Pentax stock to get control of the company. If Hoya keeps straightening out Pentax and keeps Pentax profitable it will be worth it in the long run. Pentax has a lot of room to grow. Pentax has already seen a market share increase under Hoya. Not bad considering Pentax has been losing market share since the late 1970's.

News Headlines

Yes, I am serious.
I remember quite well what happened back then; at least, what's publicly known. Mr. Urano's deal with Hoya, the manager's board who revolted, Sparx who intervened and the conclusion. I also remember the K10D; probably the camera that made them believe they could go alone.
OK, they weren't doing great - but they weren't even close to a bailout.
And if you want to show me Hoya is doing a good job, no need to bother - I already know that.

[falconeye]

Pentax was in really bad shape before Hoya took them over. Don't kid yourself. Hoya has had their work cut out for them in reviving Pentax. [...] Not bad considering Pentax has been losing market share since the late 1970's

I don't think this is true.

The annual turnover/ profit figures (in million Yen) for Pentax (incl. medical) have been:

Apr.2005-Mar.2006: 142k / +2.1%
Apr.2006-Mar.2007: 157k / +3.6%
Apr.2007-Mar.2008: 174k / -0.2% (when Hoya aquired Sep.2007 / +3.9%)
Apr.2008-Mar.2009: 122k / -9.5% (Jan.-Mar.2009: -35.7%!!)
Apr.2009-Mar.2010: 106k / +2.6%

In 2009, Pentax market share has dropped from 6% (2007) to 3% (figure are my own research). It is recently only the market share increased again, mainly due to the success of the K-x and Sony's inability to deliver. I assume it currently to be 4% (more in Japan and France).

So, in summary, the aquisition almost destroyed Pentax and halfed its market now taken by Sony and others. It's recently only Pentax recovered and is healthy again.

To say "Hoya revived Pentax" is a joke if you look at the facts.


Pentax had a splash hit with the K10D camera which brought a lot of new customers and sold like hot cake. Not even the K-x comes close to the success of the K10D.


I think it's fair to say that Hoya initially had little interest in the imaging business of Pentax and tried to get rid of it and its operating costs. Esp. as they had no strategy for them and didn't trust the (now former) Pentax management.

But according to undisclosed sources, this has changed and Hoya developped an active strategy for the imaging business which aims at more than surerect Pentax' former market share and aims at outperforming Sony and Olympus.

So, it may be that eventually, Hoya invests into the Pentax brand now.


I think and hope so. But then it is a sure thing Hoya has an active FF strategy at work. I only recommend they don't stay silent about it.

Anyway, Pentax needs another splash hit like the K10D was. K10D brought professional features into the affordable realm. A new splash hit would have to do the same. It's simple actually. And it only can be an uncrippled FF camera for under $1800.

To understand what I mean, look at Google trends for K10D, K-x and K-7:

Only K-x is able to maintain an interest level exceeding that of the old K10D. But whoa, look at the initial interest the K10D stirred up.

[Christopher M.W.T]

Nope, no K-7 for me.
Shutter Blur Killed any interest I had in the K-7
I have zero interest in any K-7 now.
Even at $600 brand new.
or $500 or whatever...

I still like my K20D. I assume it will be my last item I sell off.

And I still await the big imaging show in Germany in 5 weeks to pull the plug...

Can't say this shutter problem ever caused me any issues. I've had fantastic images from my K-7, still it'll become my 2nd body when I get the K-5.

[Christopher M.W.T]

No shutter blur here ?

Until Faulks blog post I never even knew....and I bet you didn't either








Gotta love measurebation and numbers....

[ghelary]

No shutter blur here ?

Until Faulks blog post I never even knew....and I bet you didn't either








Gotta love measurebation and numbers....

While Faulks post certainly unveiled a relevant issue, I assume that this issue is relevant for all DSLRs and is more or less accute.

Unless an in-depth testing is done with other makes with the same rigor than falks, I won't say that Pentax camera are inferior in that respect.

Now this said, my cameras take pictures, I make photographs. Pentax is a tool that I know and I can take the photographs that i want. That's the important point.

[Rondec]

The problems that I see currently for Pentax and full frame are (1) cost -- the issue is not the cost of the sensor, it is the cost of the needed up grades to the whole system to get it close to the focus speed and overall speed of a camera like the D700. Sure, the sensor is not that much more, but the camera costs more because of the over all expectations for a full frame camera. If you don't meet those, your camera fails big. (2) size -- there have been many discussions about whether full frame cameras need to be bigger. I don't know if they "need" to be bigger, but they are bigger. (3) Lack of lens stabilization -- to this point, one of the biggest selling points for Pentax has been the fact that all of their lenses are stabilized because of in body stabilization. Obviously it is possible to do stabilization of a full frame sensor, but that is going to add significant cost to your body as well as you figure out how to do it effectively. Adding SR to some new full frame lenses would be an obvious way, but it would take away one of the major reasons for going to Pentax in the first place over CAnon/NIkon.

The idea that all of this tech is going to come together and sell for 1800 dollars is ludicrous. If you just took a full frame sensor and dropped it in a K7 body, decreased the frame rate somewhat, kept the current auto focus system, and left out SR you might be able to meet that price point, but would any body buy such a camera?

[TaoMaas]

Capital investment and marketing (digital is better than film) spurred demand, which then allowed for price drops.

Most people who question the FF issue get this part fundamentally wrong.

Hopefully you're not entirely right about the marketing thing because some manufacturers are pushing video as a difference maker. Olympus has a national commercial where they brag that the whole spot was shot on the camera being advertised and Canon had that "What if photography went beyond the still?" campaign.