Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
01-18-2012, 10:32 AM   #61
Site Supporter
Aristophanes's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Dartmouth, Nova Scotia
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,859
QuoteOriginally posted by gazonk Quote
Yes, if you think of an upgrade path to primes, you're basically right (ever since the 50/1.4 price skyrocketed). I guess the following are missing in order to match the competition: A remake of the 50/1.7, an 28mm/2.8 and an inexpensive short tele.

But... Some will still prefer zooms, and there are a few options: the 55-300...
Most shooters prefer zooms. That's the market majority. Pros more than anyone.

The Pentax 55-300 is an exceptional deal, very much showing off one of the core strengths of APS-C, telecentricity.

Pentax has an inconsistent lens strategy. They went very high-end witht he DA 35 Macro and the DFA 100 Macro WR. These are on top of the expensive fast FA 50/1.4, the DA 15mm, and the Limiteds, still in production. These are all limited volume primes. On zooms Pentax does better (caveat on the SDM issue). Instead of the 17-70 SDM Pentax probably profited from making the 18-55 and 50-200 WR models. Probably saved them a bundle on warranty concerns.

A less expensive 50mm would be desirable, but for Pentax, the issue is about cannibalization. Almost certainly the DA 35/2.4 ate a big chunk of DA 35/2.8 Macro sales. In fact, almost certainly the f/2.4 aperture max. came about because of the cannibalization principle. That's why the competition has faster glass at this FL.

What this says is the Pentax market, at only 5% share, has very little room to maneuver. by offering similar FL's at multiple price points. A 28/2.8 would take some sales away from the 31 Ltd and even the 35's and DA 21.

01-18-2012, 11:51 AM   #62
Pentaxian
gazonk's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Oslo area, Norway
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,512
QuoteOriginally posted by Docrwm Quote
Can you elaborate on that at all?
To be competitive in the Digital SLR market you need a full range of cameras, for example Canon and Nikon have a range of 4 cameras from entry level to professional. I can't give any more details however as the timeframe for future products is unknown.
Hmm! When Pentax Germany said on their Google+ page that the Pentax History Poster needs to be made larger this year, I noted tongue-in-cheek that this means that there will be 6 new DSLRs (since 5 more cameras could be fitted on that poster). But... maybe there will be 6 new cameras!
01-18-2012, 11:56 AM   #63
Pentaxian
gazonk's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Oslo area, Norway
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,512
QuoteOriginally posted by gazonk Quote
Hmm! When Pentax Germany said on their Google+ page that the Pentax History Poster needs to be made larger this year, I noted tongue-in-cheek that this means that there will be 6 new DSLRs (since 5 more cameras could be fitted on that poster). But... maybe there will be 6 new cameras!


I intended to post this several days ago, something is wrong in either my browser's or the server's cookie handling, I think. Better restart my browser...
01-18-2012, 11:59 AM   #64
Pentaxian
gazonk's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Oslo area, Norway
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,512
QuoteOriginally posted by Aristophanes Quote
A less expensive 50mm would be desirable, but for Pentax, the issue is about cannibalization
But...
If you don't cannibalize yourself, someone else will

- Steve Jobs

(this was, btw, what I had written and previewed when my zombie post about Pentax Germany's Google+ page showed up instead )

01-18-2012, 04:51 PM   #65
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Bridgetown West Australia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 877
If they are going to have a range of 4 cameras then the top one (for pros) must be a FF.
You will have the entry level, probably the kr mirrorless, then 2 intermediate bodies, one of which will be the K5 replacment, then the top of the range.
Without a FF in that mix I can't see how it makes sense.
01-18-2012, 04:55 PM   #66
Loyal Site Supporter
eddie1960's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 12,264
QuoteOriginally posted by ozlizard Quote
If they are going to have a range of 4 cameras then the top one (for pros) must be a FF.
You will have the entry level, probably the kr mirrorless, then 2 intermediate bodies, one of which will be the K5 replacment, then the top of the range.
Without a FF in that mix I can't see how it makes sense.
I can see them just keeping the K5 for the middle apsc maybe a small change and call it k5 Super
01-18-2012, 06:49 PM   #67
Site Supporter
Aristophanes's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Dartmouth, Nova Scotia
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,859
QuoteOriginally posted by ozlizard Quote
If they are going to have a range of 4 cameras then the top one (for pros) must be a FF.
You will have the entry level, probably the kr mirrorless, then 2 intermediate bodies, one of which will be the K5 replacment, then the top of the range.
Without a FF in that mix I can't see how it makes sense.
Usually Pentax keeps their legacy models around at a discount price point for 3-6 months after a new model. The K2000 stuck around for a solid year. This helps deplete warranty holdback stock and preserves shelf space. So with 2 new models, 2 legacy models, the Q, and the 645D you have 6 ILC models in the channel at any given time.
01-18-2012, 08:26 PM   #68
Pentaxian




Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Eureka, CA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,938
QuoteOriginally posted by Docrwm Quote
Canon and Nikon have several lower cost Primes that are modern in that gap.
How many actually do they have? Both Canon and Nikon have come out recently with new updates to their 50/1.8. And Nikon has a 35/1.8 for their APS-C cameras. Besides that, most of the slower, cheaper Canon and Nikon primes are lenses from the nineties and even eighties. That suggests these two companies don't sell many of these lenses. They are not even worth the trouble of redesigning and updating! Probably the only reason they can keep all that old glass in production is because they have a large enough user base to make it worth their while.

Sony has tried to come out with some lower cost primes, but as with nearly everything this company has attempted in the DSLR market, it doesn't seem to have worked out that well. Other than cheap 50s (which Pentax should make), I don't think there's much of a market for this sort of glass. When Pentax released the FA 43, they seem to have accidentally discovered that they could turn a profit with with such glass (whereas they couldn't with such glass as the FA 50/1.7, which was still in production when the FA 43 was released). The handful of photographers who shot with primes were willing to spend extra money even for slower glass, provided it was excellent optically and in terms of build quality. That would seem to be why most of the DA primes are either expensive limiteds or even more expensive star glass. The lack of low cost primes in the Pentax lineup seems to be a market derived phenomenon. Pentax is merely following where the market leads them.

01-18-2012, 09:46 PM   #69
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: 5th floor
Posts: 1,327
QuoteOriginally posted by northcoastgreg Quote
How many actually do they have? Both Canon and Nikon have come out recently with new updates to their 50/1.8. And Nikon has a 35/1.8 for their APS-C cameras. Besides that, most of the slower, cheaper Canon and Nikon primes are lenses from the nineties and even eighties. That suggests these two companies don't sell many of these lenses. They are not even worth the trouble of redesigning and updating! Probably the only reason they can keep all that old glass in production is because they have a large enough user base to make it worth their while.

Sony has tried to come out with some lower cost primes, but as with nearly everything this company has attempted in the DSLR market, it doesn't seem to have worked out that well. Other than cheap 50s (which Pentax should make), I don't think there's much of a market for this sort of glass. When Pentax released the FA 43, they seem to have accidentally discovered that they could turn a profit with with such glass (whereas they couldn't with such glass as the FA 50/1.7, which was still in production when the FA 43 was released). The handful of photographers who shot with primes were willing to spend extra money even for slower glass, provided it was excellent optically and in terms of build quality. That would seem to be why most of the DA primes are either expensive limiteds or even more expensive star glass. The lack of low cost primes in the Pentax lineup seems to be a market derived phenomenon. Pentax is merely following where the market leads them.
Well said. If you are novice enough to want a prime lens or two instead of zooms, then you are most likely not to nickel and dime it.
01-18-2012, 10:47 PM   #70
Veteran Member
KungPOW's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,702
Recent Nikon primes (low cost)

35mm af-s f/1.8G
40mm af-s f/2.8G Micro
50mm af-s f/1.8G
85mm af-s f1.8G

Pentax:
35mm f/2.4
Anything else?
01-19-2012, 01:23 AM   #71
Pentaxian
Asahiflex's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Netherlands
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,754
QuoteOriginally posted by KungPOW Quote
Recent Nikon primes (low cost)

35mm af-s f/1.8G
40mm af-s f/2.8G Micro
50mm af-s f/1.8G
85mm af-s f1.8G

Pentax:
35mm f/2.4
Anything else?
Yup, the Pentax Q toy lenses
01-19-2012, 01:33 AM   #72
Pentaxian




Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Berlin
Posts: 897
and 645D 25mm WR
01-19-2012, 03:59 AM   #73
Veteran Member
Frogfish's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 4,490
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by northcoastgreg Quote
How many actually do they have? Both Canon and Nikon have come out recently with new updates to their 50/1.8. And Nikon has a 35/1.8 for their APS-C cameras. Besides that, most of the slower, cheaper Canon and Nikon primes are lenses from the nineties and even eighties. That suggests these two companies don't sell many of these lenses. They are not even worth the trouble of redesigning and updating! Probably the only reason they can keep all that old glass in production is because they have a large enough user base to make it worth their while.

Sony has tried to come out with some lower cost primes, but as with nearly everything this company has attempted in the DSLR market, it doesn't seem to have worked out that well. Other than cheap 50s (which Pentax should make), I don't think there's much of a market for this sort of glass. When Pentax released the FA 43, they seem to have accidentally discovered that they could turn a profit with with such glass (whereas they couldn't with such glass as the FA 50/1.7, which was still in production when the FA 43 was released). The handful of photographers who shot with primes were willing to spend extra money even for slower glass, provided it was excellent optically and in terms of build quality. That would seem to be why most of the DA primes are either expensive limiteds or even more expensive star glass. The lack of low cost primes in the Pentax lineup seems to be a market derived phenomenon. Pentax is merely following where the market leads them.
This makes perfect sense to me.

When new DSLR owners come to Pentax they will almost invariably start with one or two inexpensive zooms (experienced users new to Pentax will know what they want almost from day one). From there they have two options, buy into Pentax's mid-price range zooms (covering 10mm thru 300mm) or the three much higher quality zooms (covering 16mm thru 250mm), or if they have an itch that needs scratching and want to try some primes then, legacy glass aside, the 35/2.4 and FA50/1.4 will meet that need at very reasonable prices.

If they find that they like the prime route then Pentax have a beautiful line-up of high quality DA & FA primes from 15mm thru 300mm that meets most needs. Previously as a relatively small company they could not afford to diversify their line-up too much and being renowned for small, high quality primes it made (still makes) sense to continue with that philosophy and production with the odd addition or revision here or there.
01-19-2012, 05:45 AM   #74
Veteran Member
Docrwm's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Somewhere in the Southern US
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 11,275
QuoteOriginally posted by Frogfish Quote
This makes perfect sense to me.

When new DSLR owners come to Pentax they will almost invariably start with one or two inexpensive zooms (experienced users new to Pentax will know what they want almost from day one). From there they have two options, buy into Pentax's mid-price range zooms (covering 10mm thru 300mm) or the three much higher quality zooms (covering 16mm thru 250mm), or if they have an itch that needs scratching and want to try some primes then, legacy glass aside, the 35/2.4 and FA50/1.4 will meet that need at very reasonable prices.

If they find that they like the prime route then Pentax have a beautiful line-up of high quality DA & FA primes from 15mm thru 300mm that meets most needs. Previously as a relatively small company they could not afford to diversify their line-up too much and being renowned for small, high quality primes it made (still makes) sense to continue with that philosophy and production with the odd addition or revision here or there.
The prices for the FA50/1.4 are not what I would call "very reasonable" particularly for a newcomer or someone switching from Nikon or Canon. As KungPOW said, Nikon has the following in the low cost category:
35mm af-s f/1.8G
40mm af-s f/2.8G Micro
50mm af-s f/1.8G
85mm af-s f1.8G

Pentax offers 1 lens in that category in the "low cost" range of less than $200 the very nice 35/2.4.
01-19-2012, 06:16 AM   #75
Pentaxian
mecrox's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Oxford, UK
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,078
QuoteOriginally posted by Docrwm Quote
The prices for the FA50/1.4 are not what I would call "very reasonable" particularly for a newcomer or someone switching from Nikon or Canon. As KungPOW said, Nikon has the following in the low cost category:
35mm af-s f/1.8G
40mm af-s f/2.8G Micro
50mm af-s f/1.8G
85mm af-s f1.8G

Pentax offers 1 lens in that category in the "low cost" range of less than $200 the very nice 35/2.4.
I can't see that it would make any sense for Pentax to try to emulate Nikon. This would simply destroy sales of the regular DA limited lenses without supplying a significant slice of new income since the market is so small. Perhaps Pentax need to take a stand on the kind of company they are and where they would like to be. Actually, if Pentax did that then many of the posts on this and other forums would be redundant because folks would no longer have to speculate and guess in the absence of any guidance from Japan. It's even possible that it is this more than anything else which is costing Pentax lost income in the West because, generally, Westerners expect much more communication and involvement from those who supply their high-tech, high-end products. If Pentax genuinely don't want to do this then fine, it is their decision, but it might be better for everyone if they withdrew from Western markets.

An example is the firmware download pages for Nikon which are detailed and supply changelogs and advice, contrasted with those from Pentax which don't and which sometimes aren't even easy to find. Since it is hardly a big deal to post this stuff on a well-designed website one has to assume that Pentax have chosen not to. Which, alas, is just the kind of thing that sends Westerners into arms of companies which do.

My own wish is that Pentax don't make plastic fantastics on the grounds that if you cannot afford the regular Pentax lenses then it is not the right marque for you. Otherwise, it is all rather like asking Ferrari to make a special range of Ferraris with plywood bodies and Hyundai engines for those who cannot afford a real Ferrari. The rest of us just buy a serviceable old banger and get on with it.
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!
gm, interview, jonathan, martin, pentax, pentax news, pentax rumors, uk
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Interview with Pentax Japan Executive Noisychip Pentax News and Rumors 255 01-24-2012 08:13 PM
CP+ Pentax interview in DSLR Magazine hopey Pentax News and Rumors 4 02-11-2011 07:00 AM
Pentax USA prez interview henryp Ask B&H Photo! 2 10-14-2010 02:13 PM
Abstract St. Martin's Through the Glass paulyrichard Post Your Photos! 4 04-02-2010 01:20 AM
People Jonathan early K-x shots kiwi_jono Post Your Photos! 2 01-06-2010 11:58 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:02 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